Times Announces Layoffs, Enforcement of Hiring Freeze
Bill Keller announced moments ago in a memo that there will be layoffs at The New York Times. He wrote that it will not affect reporters, but a hiring freeze will be strictly enforced.
He wrote:
While we are committed to retaining our competitive muscle, we will be facing some tough choices about where to save. That is why I must tell you that there are going to be layoffs in the newsroom, for the first time in recent memory. The people who are affected are not journalists, but that does not make this news anyeasier to share.
A dozen positions will be eliminated immediately, including "a number of clerical and secretarial jobs" and management positions in administrative areas.
For the newsroom: "But as many of you know, we put into place a hiring freeze several weeks ago, and except for those jobs that are critically important to our future ambitions, we intend to enforce it. As journalists resign or retire from the Company next year, we will be trying to fill their positions internally."
There is also a suggestion that The Times could cut space in their new office building. Mr. Keller wrote: "we will be rethinking coverage priorities and how we use our space and our people."
Here's the full memo:
To the staff:
Despite growing pressure on the newsroom budget, The Times has continued to turn out great journalism, whether it's covering Iraq, New York City or the most crowded Presidential campaign in memory. We've been able to do this,
in part, because each of you has helped us save money by finding new and more efficient ways to do what we need to do. That has enabled us to avoid the kind of drastic staff cutbacks other news organizations have endured. Jill, John and I greatly appreciate everything you have done.
As we approach 2008, it is clear that the newsroom is going to have to do even more to tighten spending, and to help the publisher and the Times Company meet the difficult financial challenges facing our industry. While we are committed to retaining our competitive muscle, we will be facing some tough choices about where to save. That is why I must tell you that there are going to be layoffs in the newsroom, for the first time in recent memory. The people who are affected are not journalists, but that does not make this news any easier to share.
Today we notified the Newspaper Guild that about a dozen support positions within the newspaper are being eliminated. We will, for example, be closing the Recording Room as well as trimming a number of clerical and
secretarial jobs. The people in those jobs will receive the severance they are entitled under the Guild contract.
During 2008, we also expect to eliminate a few management jobs in administrative areas. This staff reduction does not include any journalists, nor any widespread buyouts, as has happened in the past. But as many of you know, we put into place a hiring freeze several weeks ago, and except for those jobs that are critically important to our future ambitions, we intend to enforce it. As journalists resign or retire from the Company next year, we will be trying to fill their positions internally.
As we move into 2008, we will be rethinking coverage priorities and how we use our space and our people, but always in ways that preserve what The Times does best. In the future, as in the past few months while these matters were under review, we have worked closely with our partners on the business side, with a single shared ambition: to seek cutbacks and reductions that are as strategically focused as possible, and do nothing to damage our core journalism.
Bill
Don't you think when he talks about how they use their "space," he's talking about news hole, rather than physical space in the new building?
Unlike any other industry in America that has been faced with economic pressures, newspapers cannot do more with less. There have been no efficiency gains with the advent of technology, no featherbedding of Guild contracts (recording room??), no elimination of out-dated work practices. Simply put, newspapers are run as efficiently as any business organization can be. And if any reporter worth his/her salt heard that said about any other industry, short work would be made of it.
Unlike any other industry in America that has been faced with economic pressures, newspapers cannot do more with less. There have been no efficiency gains with the advent of technology, no featherbedding of Guild contracts (recording room?? 1,200-1,300 newsroom employees), no elimination of out-dated work practices. Simply put, newspapers are run as efficiently as any business organization can be. And if any reporter worth his/her salt heard that said about any other industry, short work would be made of it.
"(F)inding new and more efficient ways to do what we need to do". Well, how about starting with distribution? Warehouse rent, drivers (60k+ a year), trucks (8 miles to the gallon/diesel fuel),etc.,etc.,etc. Give me a buyout, and go totally on line before Murdoch does.......
The AnonJD comment is silly on its face. Many reporters are lazy, spending most of their day reading blogs and going to lunch with "sources," photographers have downtime between assignments and editors spend most of their days in interminable meetings.
The downsizing process in many newsrooms can have a beneficial effect by clearing out dead wood, squeezing operational efficiencies from the organization and generally invigorating newsrooms that have been resistant to change.
Call me crazy, but didn't the NYTimes just buy a building in Manhattan? What is that chopped liver? And they're firing secretaries and clerks. Yeccch. This is the paper I watched my mother read and my father read when I was a child, and then of course I read it every day, together with everyone on the subway, the newspaper folded exactly so, eliminating the need to extend our arms and accidentally bump the next one in the face. When you said, I read it in the Times, that wss the end of the debate. Now, they're in the real estate business and lying about their net worth, like any other corporate slug. Feh. Too bad about not firing the journalists, though. Or, at least those whose cowardice kept the real news about what Bush and his malevolent cronies were doing in the dark, preferring to go to lunch with the republican toadies who were doing the dirty work. And never reported it. What a crappy newspaper.
"Unlike any other industry in America that has been faced with economic pressures, newspapers cannot do more with less."
The NYTimes could save a lot of money. They could fire Maureen Dowd and publish submissions by Middle Schoolers instead. Same product, less cost. Paul Krugman could be replaced by a fax machine connected to the DNC.
Companies cannot cut costs to generate profit. The Times and other newspaper media companies have to come to the realization that the business they are operating in is capital intensive. If the NY Times wants to operate completely online then they can become the Huffington Post, which is a great online publication, but it has nowhere near the reach, exposure, and impact of a multimedia, multi platform company like the Times. Perhaps it is time to go private or sell?
Yo, that's some funny shit. Totally retarded, but funny! Stand-up Fat Man!
As a recent, longtime working editor at a major metro daily who just got caught in a dreaded buyout, I totally agree that "space" has to mean news hole. If they can use news hole more efficiently they can reduce the amount of expensive newsprint they eat up. Seems to me how they use space in a building they own is irrelevant to the bottom line.
jwlcgqxov szpvbyhk fjmekqna meybfiw cujxysfw yhutijbk rkptbo
That has enabled us to avoid the kind of drastic staff cutbacks other news organizations have endured. Jill, John and I greatly appreciate everything you have done.
NY Times wants to operate completely online then they can become the Huffington Post, which is a great online publication
I remember when the NYT was a respected publication. Sulzberger and Keller have pretty much run the paper into the ground. If I am an advertiser and learn about garbage like the Vicky Iseman fabrication by the Times, I pull my ads.
Plenty of advertisers and readers alike have come to see the Times for what it has now become - an editorially biased paper with questionable verification practices for its reporting staff.
Both USA Today and the Wall Street Journal have circulations far higher than the Times. The Times, if it is not careful, will descend to the depths of where the Weekly World News is now.
It has become obvious that advertisers and readers alike have now flatly rejected the Times' definition of what quality reporting is supposed to be.
If they can use news hole more efficiently they can reduce the amount of expensive newsprint they eat up
Hi webmaster!
Hi webmaster!
Hi webmaster!
Hi webmaster!
Hi webmaster!
Hiring freeze it ia amazing
ave come to see the Times for what it has now become - an editorially biased paper with questionable verification practices for its reporting staff.
Both USA Today and the Wall Street Journal have