More Woes for the NY Times

I read the news that the New York Times is going to cut another unexpected 100 staffers from it’s “news room”. While sad that these organizations are continuing to bleed staff I find it curious that none of the solutions to the tanking of the newspaper included any sort of recognition that perhaps the brain surgeons behind most every story that emanates from that crap hole of a newsroom are so ideologically one sided that half the nation wouldn’t read them unless paid to do so. It’s called “expanding your reach”.

Naturally über lib Bill Keller continues along his oblivious way in an article that states how Times executives did not anticipate a shrinking news staff in 2009.

“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.

Oh really? Some libs are such big pretenders. The Wall Street Journal which has a usually conservative editorial section isn’t tainted throughout the newspaper with that point of view. In general I find that the paper simply reports until you get to the opinion section where it opines. Not so coincidentally the Wall Street Journal is about to overtake USA Today as the nation’s largest paper in terms of circulation. The Wall Street Journal charges for both it’s print and online versions and was the only paper in the top 25 to show an increase in circulation.

Yes, I am comparing a paper with a national format to the metro format that is the Times. I believe a national format does lend itself to a broader reach but there is something that the Journal is doing right that the people at the Times are missing. The NY Times problem is not simply a matter of  failing under the pressure of the internet. There is a culture issue here which lends me to believe that the people running the newspaper are blind to their own problem which is one of decreasing credibility fostered by a blind allegiance to liberalism which tends to anchor the paper to rubes in the Democratic Party.  A newspaper can not survive in this day and age if it is seen to be an extension of the government. Being a part of the perceived state run media may make these news people feel good about themselves but it isn’t exactly what everyone in the nation or even greater New York wants to read on a daily basis. It’s embarrassing as far as journalistic integrity is concerned.

What I really find curious however is the people in the comment section urging the Times to charge for online content instead of giving it away. Uh, duh, tried and failed. A sure sign that some of the paper’s readers are down and out oblivious. The economy sucks and Obama can’t even save jobs at an organization that is one of his biggest breeding grounds for sheepish followers, cheerleading central. Yet these dopes in the comment section think the solution is to charge more.

Here is a sad sampling:

  • Well, there is a solution to layoffs – start charging for on-line content, I’d pay….seriously. Why not? – Eric
  • 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. — Anne Hills
  • And then there is this:

    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? — mtrav

    Confused? This reader certainly is. What solution do you think mtrav would suggest? Perhaps a government run newspaper? Hell, the Times is practically there already if content is any sort of yardstick from which to measure. Funny though, reader mtrav is a product of the garbage that the Times has been putting out for years; the typical anti-capitalist dimwit that is part and parcel of the Democratic party base. Sure, let’s get anti-corporate in response to a solution for a revenue problem. Rather than attack the executives for their pay wouldn’t it make sense to take them to task for their lack of creativity and leadership? At least then you can question why they are getting paid for such a lack luster job. But then the shareholders should be doing that anyway. Mtrav doesn’t do that however. His emphasis is simply on the evil executive.

    It’s beyond belief that these simpletons don’t get it.

    I’m not sure that anything can be done to save traditional newspapers regardless of their ideological leanings. The marketplace has changed. I am sure however that letting a myopic left leaning rot permeate the rest of a paper that is supposed to be balanced, or at least minimally, not pre-conceived bile, is hurting more than helping.

    But that’s just my opinion. Which isn’t news, and doesn’t pretend to be.

    Image by Terry Trippany