Times Says It Will Cut 100 Newsroom Jobs

The New York Times plans to eliminate 100 newsroom jobs — about 8 percent of the total — by year’s end, offering buyouts to union and non-union employees, and resorting to layoffs if it cannot get enough people to leave voluntarily, the paper announced on Monday.

New York TimesFred R. Conrad/The New York Times

The program mirrors one carried out in the spring of 2008, when the paper erased 100 positions in its newsroom, though other jobs were created, so the net reduction was smaller. That round of cuts included some layoffs of journalists — about 15 to 20, though The Times would not disclose the actual figure — which was the first time in memory that had happened.

The paper has made much deeper reductions in other, non-newsroom departments, where layoffs have occurred several times. But the advertising drop that has pummeled the industry has forced cuts in the news operation as well. The newsroom already has lowered its budgets for freelancers and trimmed other expenses, and employees took a 5 percent pay cut for most of this year.

Nearly all papers in the metropolitan region have been cutting their news operations for years, and some have fewer than half as many people in their newsrooms as they did in 2000.

The Times’s news department peaked at more than 1,330 employees before the last round of cuts. The current headcount is about 1,250; no other American newspaper has more than about 750.

The Times will mail buyout packages to the entire newsroom staff on Thursday. The employees have 45 days to decide whether to apply for the buyout. Under the Newspaper Guild contract that covers most newsroom employees, buyouts generally offer three weeks’ salary for each year of service.

In a note to the news staff, Bill Keller, the executive editor, wrote: “As before, if we do not reach 100 positions through buyouts, we will be forced to go to layoffs. I hope that won’t happen, but it might.”

“I won’t pretend that these staff cuts will not add to the burdens of journalists whose responsibilities have grown faster than their compensation,” he wrote, adding, “Like you, I yearn for the day when we can do our jobs without looking over our shoulders for economic thunderstorms.”

Times executives said this year that they did not anticipate the news staff shrinking in 2009, except through attrition, but that nothing was certain. In fact, the 5 percent pay cut was meant to forestall any staff reductions.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Well, there is a solution to layoffs – start charging for on-line content, I’d pay….seriously. Why not?

No worries. I’m sure there will still be plenty of people to cover the always important kid-in-a-runaway-balloon beat.

SHUT OFF your website. Stop giving the news away for free. If you have to go down into the dust, at least do so fighting all the way.

Bye bye, proof readers.

It is unfortunate to see the staff reduction. People should get their news by reading newspapers rather than watching TV News. That way, one can increase their reading and analytical skills. This applies to all age groups.

“Why won’t people buy newspapers? We offer most of the content free online, we keep TAKING content out–local columnists, comics, general reporting–and we charge more for print versions which are more like pamphlets than newspapers…I just don’t understand it.”

That’s been the approach the Detroit newspapers have taken. It has not worked well–they have successfully cured me of a lifetime morning newspaper habit. Don’t follow the same path, NYT.

I want to pay for my online use of the New York Times. I read the site multiple times a day. I can’t imagine life without it. Why oh why can’t somebody come up with a good way to get this money out of the hundreds of thousands of readers who would gladly pay for the content? Figure it out now! I have my credit card ready.

Employees took a 5 percent pay cut, did that include all Executives, or just the regular folk? I bet Mr. Keller’s and all the other exec’s’ pay hasn’t decreased one whit, nor do they face the threat of a “layoff” like all the peons at the Times. It’s amazing how these corporate scenarios pan out, isn’t it?

As a long term subscriber, I am both saddened and concerned by this news.
If it has not been done already, may I suggest you study some form of charge to customers for the web paper. I would not be adverse to a payment, in addition to my subscription, to help.
May I say however, that to increase the intrusive ads that balloon one way or the other automatically is definitely not the way to go! You would lose more than you gain, as people such as myself would go elsewhere, including subscriptions.
I hope all the people affected land on their feet!

Whatever you do, keep Bob Herbert!

Hell’s Kitchen Guy October 19, 2009 · 3:19 pm

I used to read the Economist online. Now it charges for content. I don’t read it. Pay-for-content online? That train has left the station. The Times and other newspapers saw the train wreck coming in the early ’90s and put their heads in the sand. Now they’re reaping the whirlwind. Eventually, advertisers will catch up with the fact that Times online readers are affluent consumers and pay accordingly. Until then, the paper will have to keep biting the bullet.

Don’t charge for online use. Ever! Never!

What will the major newspapers do? I’ll admit that I stopped my daily subscription of The Times to first a Sunday only subscription and then cancelled that and now I read the paper online.

I live in Arizona and I don’t even bother to read the Arizona Republic (our hometown paper). The writing in the Times is superior to any other paper in the nation.

Here’s my idea:

I don’t want have to decide *before* I read an article whether I want to pay for it, I want to decide *after*. To that end, I propose the following micropayment system. If I want to get content from a consortium of providers (say, anything owned by The New York Times Company, or Time-Warner, or Seed Media Group, or a group of publishers that set up their own consortium), I set up an account, pay my $50/year, and get access. If I like a piece of content (article, podcast, interactive graphic, whatever), I click the “Tip the Author(s)” button, and a chunk of my $50, maybe 10 cents, gets redirected to the actual people creating the content I actually like (not just start to read). If I don’t use up my $50 for the year, it just gets split internally by the consortium. This way, readers have control over where the money goes and get to associate “paying money” with “feeling good about what they read”, providers get cash, and the best providers get the most cash.

I too want to pay for my news! Stop giving it away!

I bet a couple of the journalists salaries are lesser than or equal to the salary of one “executive” official who does not contribute to the actual journalism. How do you expect to keep a fresh, marketable product if you fire the people who make it happen?

Seriously – We subscribe (always have, always will) but we also use your website all day. It should be free to subscribers (the Wall Street Journal model) but cost non-subscribers. It is a terrific website and has real value.
Don’t just give it away.

i cant afford a subscription really. So I’d go to CNN, even though their news sucks. Solution: go with a broadcast model, niche marketing and social networks. Newspaper reporters need to learn to moderate storytime for the kids, right? Read me a story.

Better upgrade your version of WordPress for this blog. Versions prior to 2.8.4 (you are using 2.6) are prone to being hacked.

Buy a New York Times today, it cost me $9.50 on Sunday for a New York Times, likely printed in Seattle. Oh I read the paper on-line, but compared to holding it in my hand, well its the difference between being intimate with your mate or yourself. One is satisfying, deeply satisfying, the other gets the job done. Charging for the on-line version didn’t work when you did, and won’t work now. Want to study a great web-site that doesn’t charge, and who knows, might make money, check out the Huffington Post, maybe you could hire away a few of their big players to help out for awhile, I am certain Arianna wouldn’t mind.

Lary Waldman

put this damn site behind a pay wall already. jesus christ – STOP GIVING AWAY YOUR EXCELLENT CONTENT FOR FREE – its that simple!

A few thousand people paying for the web version won’t keep the Times (or any newspaper) afloat. The problem is that without print readership, ad rates have tanked. Ad rates per eyeball on the web will never be what they were for print so it’s figuring out how to fill that gap that’s going to determine whether the newspaper industry is going to sink or swim.

The Times isn’t giving away the news for free on their website. The site generates quite a bit of ad revenue.

Since I left America in 2001, the NYT online edition has been my lifeline to news in my old hometown, the USA, and throughout the world. I would gladly pay a subscription to help maintain the quality and integrity of the NYT.

As some others have commented above, I will be glad to pay for an online subscription to the NYT. Why is that not required from all readers is beyond me. NYT readers are people that appreciate good journalism and are more than willing to pay for it.