With loss of ad revenue to the web along with increasing paper, energy, and shipping costs, it isn’t surprising that the NY Times is having to tighten its belt.
The changes at The New York Times will go into effect by the second quarter of 2008, the company said in a statement early Tuesday, and will save about $42 million a year. The job cuts account for about one-third of the Times’ total production work force of 800.
I just hope this is enough. I’d hate to see the Times go out of business, it would mark the end of an era.
Yea, it would be the end of a horrible era fulled with Liberal Bullpoop
It’s a relief to see the first troll to show up — is the sort who prefers managed, sycophant, cowards replace journalists.
Thanks Moss, just the response I’d expect from the left. You guys never disappoint me.
Time to check Ann Coulter’s column…..
J/P=?
People still buy print newspapers?
I always laugh about people complaining about the New York Times. I actually used to deliver it and I would see people canceling it for a number of reasons. Some would cancel it because it was too liberal, but an equal amount of people would cancel it and state on the bundle-top that it was too conservative! I think that pretty much confirms what I thought, that it’s actually middle of the road. People make what they want of it. Some see it as a liberal newspaper, some see it as a conservative one.
NYT is very liberal. That isn’t necessarily bad. It depends on their editorial practices. Some editorial decisions are fine, some just bite the big one. While I believe in a strong press; we need sufficient watchdogs to watch the “guardians” (government) The press has a responsibility to use it power for the good of the people. Of late the NYT has made some bad judgments in this area. It is not balanced at all.
Proof? Its circulation is plummeting. It could fix that; it isn’t a right wing conspiricy; it is being out of touch with your customer. (not a liberal or conservative trait, but a poor business decision trait)
All I’m going on is my customers and why they cancelled it. It was pretty much 50-50 for the reason either too liberal or too conservative. Some cancelled it though stating that they just didn’t read it or couldn’t afford it. But I counted the ones that stated either the liberal or conservative bias as the reason and it was 19 to 21 liberal/conservative reasons over the course of around 2 years. So take that as what you will. This was in the mid-west also….so middle America. Though a very small sample to be sure.
The NYT is disappearing because it has (and is) proving to be irreverent. That is why most things disappear – they serve no purpose anymore, ergo buggywhips, buttonhooks. Information dispensing, opinion assertion, advertising medium are all finding better, more effecient vehicles in which to be delivered. Goodbye NYT.
Frankly, there isn’t a mainstream news outlet that is liberal enough.
“Frankly, there isn’t a mainstream news outlet that is liberal enough.”
That’s because it wouldn’t make money. If it made money, it would be the godless american capitalist pigs that all true liberals hate. Then it would have to destroy itself.
I wonder if there will be a series of hard hitting editorials in the New York Times about this, vis a vi the death of the blue collar job.
Oh, wait. Nevermind…
“I just hope this is enough. I’d hate to see the Times go out of business, it would mark the end of an era. ” An Era is defined by having an end. If now is the time, then now is the time.
I admit I still take my local daily out of some archaic sense of loyalty. I grab my laptop first thing in the morning and have already read the latest news before the paper hits the yard. It’s a waste really. There are days when it goes straight to the recycle bin unread. It’s still great to take on a commute. It needs no batteries, you don’t have to worry about it getting snatched.
rwilliams254, my Encarta dictionary gives several meanings for “era,” none of which make any particular insistence on a defined end to the period of time. The beginning of the period seems to be what’s important. A couple of examples cited are “the Christian era,” and “the postwar era.”
The postwar era may have come to an end, but I believe the Christian era is still with us, validated only by its beginning.
hmm, so far a good % of the commentary on this has been strictly partisan, about the NYT’s alleged liberal bias – notwithstanding its actions as a WMD propaganda arm of the White House leading up to the Iraq war.
some folks have no sense of gratitude …
Most Times articles can be read by anyone of any political persuasion. It’s the Editorial page and those that decide whats in it that makes the Times a leftist Liberal paper. The editor of the Times just recently said that his paper is Liberal and he wants it that way. So, I hope there’s enough liberals to keep it going, because he has written off 2/3 of his potential readership.
But never fear….you still have the L.A. Times, The Washington Post and the Boston Globe.
Liberal media are always going to be less profitable when there’s a neo-con administration, and right-leaning media like Fox News will tend to be more profitable. The reason is that rightist media reports more on what the administration is saying, while liberal media reports more on what the administration is actually doing. Investigation always requires more resources than parroting.
@moss
@ moss – I had no problem with the NYT until they kept ‘leaking’ stories about the CIA. The wiretap stuff was the final straw
The problem with the New York Times is that it has never been a real newspaper because it has no comics section.
#18 …GaryMarks….problem with your theory is that Fox news became popular during the Clinton administration.
>propaganda arm of the White House
You mean there propaganda calling Iraq a quagmire after about 2 days?
Their news coverage slants left too. The editorial page is probably more conservative than the news pages. Even their ombudsman admits that the paper is liberal.
This liberal stance helped cause what we’re seeing today. They insisted on promoting recycling, and it led to higher printing costs.
#22 joshua, indeed Fox may have been quite popular pre-2001, but I bet they became more profitable when they stopped having to expend extra resources to dig up dirt on the administration.
As many Republican scandals as there have been in the last 5-1/2 years, has Fox News been the source for any of the information? They were unusually defensive of FEMA’s response to Hurricane Katrina last year, eager to find other targets for blame. And Fox has vigorously defended (even before many facts were known) virtually every classified surveillance program that’s been revealed through leaks, quickly jumping to attack the sources of the leak as causing great harm to national security. I’ve also seen sessions of their morning show where all three of their commentators were openly hostile to Democrats on any number of issues, yet they continue to assert their fairness and balance.
There’s a reason why one of Dick Cheney’s “Downtime Requirements” when staying at a hotel is that all TVs must be tuned to Fox News. There’s a reason why Cheney told his quail and lawyer hunting story to Brit Hume of Fox News. And there’s a reason why Fox News was the perfect place from which to pluck George Bush’s latest White House Press Secretary.
If another Democrat makes it to the White House, Fox News will have to put away its pom-poms and maybe even hire some investigative reporters. Other media sources like the New York Times already have them on the payroll.
>>Of late the NYT has made some bad judgments in this area.
>>It is not balanced at all.
Darned tooting! Buying into Bush’s bullshit in the lead-up to Iraq, Judith Miller cozying up to Bush/ Rove’/ “Scooter’s campaign to “out” Valerie Plame, the list goes on and on.
It’s kind of ironic that the conservatives who are always blathering on about what a leftie liberal rag is are NOT readers of that bastion of the right, the Wall Street Journal….they’re the renecked pigfuckers who listen to Fox “news” and Loofah Pad O’Reilly, who are sitting home jerking off to pics of Ann Coulter, and like that. Folks who read the WSJ (just like those who read the NYT) are generally intelligent to get beyond that silliness and recognize that the papers “on the other side” provide consistently high-quality journalism. And they universally hold their noses against the stink when it comes to yellow “journalism” crap like Fox.
Yay! This’ll make it easier to read.
The two most quoted newspapers in America are the NY Times and Washington Post. Both are considered liberal by most nazis. If they are so liberal, then why does so many other papers look up to them? In contrast, the conservative slanted papers like the Wall Street Journal or Chicago Tribune are seldom quoted for stories.
BTW, newspaper readership is declining across the board. It has been on a decline for almost 100 years. Where most cities once had half a dozen daily papers, almost all now only have one. The NY Times’ decline is part of the trend affecting all papers. Blame radio, television, and now the internet for the print media’s demise.
The Wall Street Journal isn’t conservative. Only its editorial page is conservative. The news division is run by a different group, and it is as liberal as the New York Times.
If they are so liberal, then why does so many other papers look up to them?
A little slow on the uptake, I see…
The Wall Street Journal isn’t conservative. Only its editorial page is conservative. The news division is run by a different group, and it is as liberal as the New York Times.
Comment by AB CD — 7/19/2006 @ 6:48 am
Ya, right. snicker, snicker