NY Times Cutting 500 Jobs, 4 Percent Of Work Force.

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
NEW YORK — The New York Times Co. said Tuesday it would cut about 500 jobs, or about 4 percent of its work force, as part of an ongoing effort to reduce costs. The reductions come atop another 200 jobs that were cut earlier this year.

The Times said it expected 250 jobs at its main newspaper group to be affected, which includes the Times, the International Herald Tribune and the online operation of the Times. Of those job cuts, about 45 will come from the Times’ newsroom, the company said in a statement.

Another 160 jobs will be cut from the Times’ New England operation, which includes The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and Boston.com. The company did not provide a breakdown of those job cuts other than to say that 35 newsroom jobs would be cut at The Boston Globe.

The announcement came on the same day that The Philadelphia Inquirer and its sister newspaper said they would eliminate a combined 100 newsroom jobs because of lower circulation and revenue. The Inquirer plans to cut its editorial staff by 15 percent from 500 to 425, while the Philadelphia Daily News will cut its editorial staff 19 percent, from 130 to 105.
Both newspapers are published by Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., which is owned by Knight Ridder Inc., the nation’s second-largest newspaper company.

Newspaper companies have been struggling with slow-growing advertising and a long-term decline in circulation amid changing media habits as more people go to the Internet for news.


:lol2 :mj18:
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
What an odd thing to find pleasure in. No doubt plenty of those 500 people are Republicans. They're not all liberal enemy journalists. You've got pressmen, distribution personel, ad salespeaople, miscellaneous folk of all poliical kinds.

If this were a post about GM cutting more jobs, would you still be laughing?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
"sometimes you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet"...

i could throw a few other bad metaphors at ya`,but,this one was plenty bad enough...

think of it as a kind of media "emminent domain" situation.....

you have to take from the few to benefit the many....

when something reduces this bastion of liberal nutjobbery`s influence,it is ,imo, sent from a divine source...
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
whatever you say. sounds a little like the way the terrorists talk when rationalizing civilian casualties - but - whatever, man.
 

CHARLESMANSON

Hated
Forum Member
Jan 7, 2004
2,651
15
0
90
CORCORAN, CA
smurphy said:
No doubt plenty of those 500 people are Republicans.

:mj07: :mj07:

And comparing a job layoff to a civilian death??? That's about as radical left as you can get. The reason it is pleasurable is because the NY Times is about as liberal slanted as you can get. They ran 52 front page stories about Abu Graib and only 1 about the successful Iraqi elections.

Now the NY Times is struggling???

HA FUKCING HA! They deserve it...meanwhile Fox News is kicking some serious ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :Yep: Americans are getting tired of this liberal crap....the ratings and the last 2 elections prove it!! The LA Times is struggling too....ahh sweet justice!
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,476
151
63
Bowling Green Ky
In a Sunday editorial calling for the Senate to reject Supreme Court Chief Justice Nominee John Roberts, The New York Times said Roberts was "too much of a mystery" to be approved, since he wouldn't answer questions about his personal views and potential future rulings.

But 12 years ago, when then-nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg (search) refused to answer dozens of questions, the Times fully endorsed her approval, saying, she "[showed] the patience and courtesy befitting a justice of the highest court. ... While the politicians repeatedly pressed for bottom lines on particular issues like the death penalty and gay rights, Ms. Ginsburg asked to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate."
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
smurph...i respect your opinion....my opinion on the mainstream media is no secret.....

i really don`t see how anyone can deny that they have an agenda....just as the liberals on the board rail on fox...

fox leans way right.....i agree...but at least they offer SOME balance...the times is a one-way street....and i think that they have literally given the enemy cannon fodder..and put our troops in even greater danger in iraq.....

the strange thing is,that the nyt`s doesn't think it`s biased at all.......

it`s no wonder that right leaning news outlets have grown so fast in the past few years.....

you can blame the times`(ny and la)....it`s clearly because there was pent-up demand for news that wasn't slanted to the political left.....
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,476
151
63
Bowling Green Ky
"fox leans way right.....i agree...but at least they offer SOME balance"

I would agree on some segmants like the Gibson guy.--but in prime time railry do you only have one side view--most times there are 2 guests-one supporting both sides. Britt Hume who is very conservative always has elemnents of both sides on the panels--Shepherd Smith basically all news with very little politics either side--Oreilly show thrives on having liberal guests present their view so he can "educate" them. Most other cable news you have same side on all the time--no tough questions or rebuttals for speakers.

If fed same old diatribe day in and day out people get to where they take it as gospel--when you get contoversial sides it make you dig in and find out for yourself. I like the "we report you decide" rather than the "one way street" reporting.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
77
So Cal
The LA Times has just made another change in its editorial staff, the second in a few months, due to declining readership. Just a coincidence I suppose.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I believe it shows the trend to more TV news. Are folks so busy they just want someone to read news to them. Or to lazy. On other hand USA Today is growing so there still hope that many folks can still read.
 

ferdville

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 24, 1999
3,165
5
0
77
So Cal
I think many people are too lazy to read the paper. And at least out here, hardly anyone under 40 reads the paper on a regular basis. Those of us that grew up reading papers never stop. I read at least 2 a day. Today's younger crowd, those in HS, etc - seldom ever open a newspaper. That is probably the main reason.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
can somebody tell me why the ny times is referred to the newspaper of record ?

i would think with their recent track record, they would be one of the last papers to quote.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top