New York Times to Eliminate 100 Newsroom Jobs While Preserving Its Prized Role as Most Overstaffed, Overpaid, and IrrelevantPosted: October 1, 2014
The New York Times plans to eliminate about 100 newsroom jobs, as well as a smaller number of positions from its editorial and business operations, offering buyouts and resorting to layoffs if enough people do not leave voluntarily, the newspaper announced on Wednesday.
“They said they had decided to wind down NYT Opinion because it had not drawn a substantial audience.”
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the newspaper’s publisher, and Mark Thompson, its chief executive, said that in addition to the job cuts, NYT Opinion, a mobile app dedicated to opinion content, was shutting down because it was not attracting enough subscribers.
“The Times has made cuts to its newsroom staff several times over the last six years. The paper eliminated 100 newsroom jobs in 2008, another 100 in 2009, and 30 more senior newsroom jobs at the beginning of last year.”
The reductions, they said, were intended to safeguard the newspaper’s long-term profitability.
“Despite those cuts, the newsroom staff has grown to about 1,330, approaching its largest size ever, according to the company, up from about 1,250 at the end of last year.”
“The job losses are necessary to control our costs and to allow us to continue to invest in the digital future of The New York Times, but we know that they will be painful both for the individuals affected and for their colleagues,” the announcement said. Read the rest of this entry »
Sudanese authorities are to free a woman who was sentenced to death for having abandoned the Islamic faith, a foreign ministry official says.
Meriam Ibrahim, who gave birth to a daughter in custody, will be freed in a few days, the official told the BBC. Abdullahi Alzareg, an under-secretary at the foreign ministry, said Sudan guaranteed religious freedom and was committed to protecting the woman. Khartoum has been facing international condemnation over the death sentence.
In an interview with The Times newspaper, British Prime Minister David Cameron described the ruling as “barbaric” and out of step with today’s world. The UK Foreign Office this week said that it would push for Ms Ibrahim to be released on humanitarian grounds.
Ms Ibrahim, 27, was brought up as an Orthodox Christian, but a Sudanese judge ruled earlier this month that she should be regarded as Muslim because that had been her father’s faith. Read the rest of this entry »
If the NYTimes pays Baquet more than Ambramson, it’s proof they are sexist. If it doesn’t, it’s proof they are racist AND sexist.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 14, 2014
For Big Journalism, John Nolte reports: The New York Times itself is reporting that its own Executive Editor, Jill Abramson, is being “unexpectedly” replaced by Dean Baquet. The Times says the reasons “aren’t immediately clear.”
“This is not about any disagreement between the newsroom and the business side.”
Jill Abramson, the executive editor of The New York Times, is unexpectedly leaving the position and will be replaced by Dean Baquet, the managing editor of the newspaper, the company said Wednesday. Read the rest of this entry »
The Times reports:
The Russian government declined to provide the F.B.I. with information about one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects that would most likely have led to more extensive scrutiny of him at least two years before the attack, according to an inspector general’s report.
Russian officials had told the F.B.I. in 2011 that the suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, “was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer” and that Mr. Tsarnaev “had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.”
But after an initial investigation by the F.B.I., the Russians declined several requests for additional information about Mr. Tsarnaev, according to the report, a review of how intelligence and law enforcement agencies could have thwarted the bombing.
At the time, American law enforcement officials believed that Mr. Tsarnaev posed a far greater threat to Russia.
- “Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it,” Morgan told The New York Times’ David Carr.
- …dwindling viewing figures and an anti-gun campaign that alienated a vast swath of his audience had led him to conclude his show had ‘run it’s course’… — thetimes.co.uk
- By phone, Morgan agreed with Carr that things have not gone well at CNN with Piers Morgan Live.“It’s been a painful period, and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” Morgan said… — Brietbart.com
- “Last fall, the already struggling Piers Morgan Live faced increased competition from a revised Fox News Channel lineup that included a strong new performer at 9 p.m. EST with Megyn Kelly’s The Kelly File…” — Entertainment Weekly
- “CNN confirms that ‘Piers Morgan Live’ is ending,” the network said in a statement. “The date of the final program is still to be determined.” — lattimes.com
- “…He hosted BBC’s “You Can’t Fire Me, I’m Famous,” and did interview shows and documentaries for ITV…CNN did not comment on Morgan’s future with the channel…” Associated Press – fox news.com
- “Mr. Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III, peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.” — David Carr, NYT
Nitpicking over which jihadists did what lets the Obama administration evade the real questions
Andrew C. McCarthy writes: What was the commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces doing through the night of September 11, 2012, while he knew Americans were under jihadist siege in Libya? You won’t learn the answer to that question by reading the mini-book-length, six-“chapter” revisionist history of the Benghazi massacre cooked up by David D. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times.
The Times report is a labor of love in the service of President Obama and, in particular, the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign ramp-up. Former secretary of state Clinton, of course, was a key architect of Obama’s Libya policy. She was also chiefly responsible for the protection of American personnel in that country, including our murdered ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and the three other Americans killed by Muslim terrorists — State Department technician Sean Smith and a pair of former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Still, the Times is banking on your not noticing that in its laborious 7,500 words, Kirkpatrick’s account utters the word “Clinton” exactly . . . wait for it . . . zero times.
The word “Obama” comes in for a mere six mentions, four of which are impersonal references to the current administration. The other two are telling, though fleeting.
One is a rehearsal of the president’s vow to exact “justice” against anyone found responsible for this “terrible act” of killing four Americans, including the formal representative of our nation. As it happens, the only person on the planet to have felt the lash of Obama’s justice is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the California-based “producer” who filmed the infamous “anti-Mohammed” movie trailer, Innocence of Muslims. In a despicable violation of constitutional free-speech principles, and a bow to sharia blasphemy rules that forbid criticism of Islam, Obama and Clinton publicly portrayed Nakoula and his “film” as the Benghazi culprits — implicitly accepting the Islamic-supremacist premise that verbal insults, no matter how obscure and trifling, justify mass-murder attacks.
Take the Grey Lady’s much-ballyhooed story with a heavy dose of skepticism
Elliott Abrams writes: The division of the “Hillary for President” campaign known as the New York Timesissued a lengthy white paper on Sunday, entitled “A Deadly Mix In Benghazi.” This article, the paper explained, was based on “months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there . . . ”
In other words, the article is centered on interviews with extremists and terrorists, whose words are taken as gospel. That they may have changed their stories, or be putting forth stories for their own benefit rather than because the new stories are true, is a subtlety beyond the Times.
BEIJING — Edward Wong and Christine Haughney report: A reporter for Bloomberg News who worked on an unpublished article about China, which employees for the company said had been killed for political reasons by top Bloomberg editors, was suspended last week by managers.
The reporter, Michael Forsythe, was based in Hong Kong and has written award-winning investigative articles on China. He met with supervisors and was placed on leave, said two Bloomberg employees with knowledge of the situation, which was supposed to be private. The move came days after several news outlets, including The New York Times, published reports quoting unnamed Bloomberg employees saying that top editors, led by Matthew Winkler, the editor in chief, decided in late October not to publish an investigative article because of fears that Bloomberg would be expelled from China.
The article, about a Chinese tycoon and his ties to families of Communist Party leaders, was written by Mr. Forsythe and Shai Oster. Mr. Winkler has denied that the article was killed.
But it’s easier than acting like responsible adults
I saw this article yesterday, and thought it looked suspicious. Rather than go blind with despair over the NYT’s familiar habit going into battle facing the wrong way, I hoped Kevin Williamson might be scanning skies above Gotham, see the Bat signal, and make an appearance. My wish is granted:
Kevin D. Williamson writes: The New York Times has published a very interesting article forwarding a number of familiar arguments that the Federal Reserve should try to increase inflation in order to encourage economic growth. Without going too deeply into the fallacies behind the idea that higher inflation is a means to strong and sustained economic growth, it is worthwhile to examine the wishful thinking and euphemisms that inform the Times’s account.
Item 1: “Rising prices help companies increase profits; rising wages help borrowers repay debts. Inflation also encourages people and businesses to borrow money and spend it more quickly.”
Let’s take a look at these claims in order. Read the rest of this entry »
Radical Right and Institutional Left on Same Page: NY Times Editorial Board Endorses Breitbart News Editor’s Book “Extortion”Posted: October 24, 2013
In a rare moment of ideological similitude, a Wednesday piece by New York Times editorial board member David Firestone titled “The Conservative Who Hates Slush Funds” hailed Schweizer’s book as one “sure to wind up on the nightstands of all campaign finance geeks.” Firestone added, “The issue cannot get enough publicity, but the best news of all is that the book was written by a conservative” who is “a fellow at the Hoover Institution and an editor-at-large at Breitbart.”
The Times’ article ran even as Breitbart News had as its lead story a book endorsement by Gov. Sarah Palin.
On Sunday, 60 Minutes partnered with Schweizer, who is also president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), on an investigation exposing how politicians use their leadership PACs as private slush funds to bankroll lavish lifestyle upgrades for themselves and their families, such as Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) spending $35,000 on NFL tickets; Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) using $64,500 to buy a painting of himself; or Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) spending $107,752 at the Breakers resort in Palm Beach. The Times said outrages such as these should raise bipartisan ire. Read the rest of this entry »
Why are liberals in so much denial about liberal bias in the news? Why do they think they’re bending over backward to be “objective” doing that which Republicans see as partisan activism?
Daniel Froomkin of the Huffington Post — formerly of The Washington Post — suggests an answer. He is exactly the kind of liberal agitator in the newsroom who wants every news story to be a blazing editorial. Every reporter must divide the world clearly between Liberal Sense and Conservative Nonsense. His latest article is titled, “Writing a Neutral Story About Something So Heartless As the Food Stamp Vote Is Not Good Journalism.”
On Sept. 19, The New York Times reported, “The Republican-led House yesterday voted to make deep cuts to the food stamps program that has kept millions of American families from going hungry since the recession hit, saying its response to growing need was instead a sign of bloat and abuse.” Read the rest of this entry »
The Singaporean budget carrier is now offering a child-free zone, dubbed the ”ScootinSilence” area, in which kids under 12 will not be allowed to sit. While the silence zone only lasts for five rows, numbers 21 to 25, it should provide some assurance to travelers who bristle at the prospect of being seated directly behind, in front of, or, worst of all, next to a noisy child.
Not surprisingly, mile-high peace and quiet isn’t free of charge. Scoot is providing the ScootinSilence area as a $14 upgrade, so you’ll have to have to ask yourself whether a one time no-baby guarantee is worth the price of a pre-flight meal, or simply a reusable pair of earplugs.
Top editors at the supposedly objective New York Times admitted on Friday that its coverage of Syria differs substantially from its coverage of Iraq thanks to the newspaper’s warm feelings toward President Obama. Margaret Sullivan, public editor of the newspaper, wrote, “I’ve been observing The Times’s Syria coverage and its editorials for many weeks, with an eye to this question….the tone cannot be described as consistently skeptical….I have also found that The Times sometimes writes about the administration’s point of view in The Times’s own voice rather than providing distance through clear attribution.” The Times, she pointed out, “seems to take the government’s position at face value.”
NewsBusters readers certainly don’t have to be told that the New York Times has a liberal bias, but when the paper’s public editor admits it on national television, one has to take notice.
With that in mind, grab some peanuts, popcorn, or Cracker Jacks and take a gander at Margaret Sullivan on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday marvelously telling us what we already know (video follows with transcript and commentary):
JOANNE LIPMAN: Big newspapers used to employ in-house watchdogs to keep them on the straight and narrow and to represent readers. Few do that anymore.
But “The New York Times” does, and theirs is as outspoken as they come. I sat down earlier to talk with public editor Margaret Sullivan as she marks one year on the job.
LIPMAN: Margaret Sullivan, thank you so much for joining us.
MARGARET SULLIVAN, PUBLIC EDITOR “THE NEW YORK TIMES”: Thanks, Joanne. Great to be here.
LIPMAN: So let’s dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about “The New York Times” — I don’t know if it’s the most frequent but it’s certainly the loudest — is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?
SULLIVAN: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column — and I think the headline said something like “Is ‘The Times’ a Liberal Newspaper?”
And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.
I mean that is obviously something people feel about “The Times,” and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that “The Times” reflects its readership, its community. It’s an urban paper; it’s a New York City paper. I mean that’s a reasonable criticism, I think.
LIPMAN: So it is a yes?
SULLIVAN: It’s a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.
Ah, we’ll ignore the nuance and just take that as a yes, Margaret. Thanks for confirming it.
- The Gray Lady Shuts Down Greenie Weenie Group (shepherdspiehole.typepad.com)
- Nate Silver ‘disruptive’ at Times, public editor says (politico.com)
- Liberal Media Watchdog That Only Criticizes Fox News Pretends There’s No Media Bias (pjmedia.com)
- NY Times Public Editor Slams Reporters Who Saw Nate Silver As ‘Disruptive’ To Paper’s ‘Culture’ (mediaite.com)
- Nate Silver leaves The New York Times to join ESPN (telegraph.co.uk)
- Nate Silver’s new gig (priorprobability.com)
- The New York Times Assumes Its Readers Are Horny and Dumb (gawker.com)
- Nate Silver went against the grain for some at The Times (nextlevelofnews.com)
- The Times’s fifth public editor: Work in progress, by @sullieview (nextlevelofnews.com)
After purchasing the Boston Globe in 1993 for a then-record $1.1 billion, the financially troubled New York Times just announced that it sold the 141-year-old paper to Boston Red Sox owner John Henry for a mere $70 million. That’s a straight 93% loss. Figuring in two decades of inflation would only make it worse — as does the fact that the Times retains the Globe’s pension liabilities, estimated at over $100 million.
The Times announced in February that it was putting the Globe up for sale. News reports claimed that bids had been as high as $100 million. What might have sweetened the lower offer for the Times is that Henry offered a straight cash deal, which is expected to close sometime in September or October.
In 2011, the Times turned down a $300 million offer from Aaron Kushner, CEO of Freedom Communications, Inc., publisher of the Orange County Register and other newspapers in California. This offer even included the assumption of pension liabilities, which are currently estimated at $110 million.
In my column last week, I noted two complementary narratives that cloud people’s understanding of the George Zimmerman case: one about race, the other about the alleged defects of Florida’s self-defense law. Last year theTampa Bay Times tried to get a sense of how these two factors interact by looking at racial patterns in self-defense cases. Its findings belie the idea that the enforcement of Florida’s law is biased against black defendants:
The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:
• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.
• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.
• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.
• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants—a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.
That last point relates to a finding that could be seen as evidence of racial bias: While black and white defendants fared equally well, people who killed blacks were more likely to make successful self-defense claims than people who killed whites. “People who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time,” the Times reported, “while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time.” The Times conceded that its analysis “does not prove that race caused the disparity between cases with black and white victims,” since “other factors may be at play.” For example, “black victims were more likely to be carrying a weapon when they were killed” and “more likely than whites to be committing a crime, such as burglary, at the time.”
Critics of Florida’s law may seize upon the numbers regarding victims and cite Zimmerman’s acquittal as another example of how the criminal justice system values black people’s lives less than white people’s. But they will find no support in the numbers regarding defendants for the often heard claim that Trayvon Martin would have been arrested immediately and ultimately convicted if he had shot Zimmerman instead of the other way around. And as Reason Contributing Editor Walter Olson notes in a recent CNN.com essay, anyone who is concerned about racial disparities in the justice system should think twice before responding to Zimmerman’s acquittal by supporting legal changes that would make it easier to convict people and send them to prison.
It may be risky drawing any firm conclusions from these numbers, since self-defense claims involving the use of lethal force are pretty rare. TheTimes found a total of 192 such cases since 2005, or less than 20 a year, which is less than 2 percent of all homicides in Florida. When you get into subgroup analyses, the numbers are tiny. For example, the Times identified “only 26 completed cases in which a black person was killed and only eight fatalities with a Hispanic victim.”
The other thing to note about these cases is that it’s not clear to what extent, if at all, the new features of Florida’s law, such as eliminating the duty to retreat for people attacked outside their homes, affected the outcomes. It is therefore misleading to call them “stand your ground” cases, as the Times does.
Addendum: Speaking of misleading journalistic references to “stand your ground,” NPR host Robin Young yesterday explained its relevance to Zimmerman’s acquittal this way: “The law was not used by the Zimmerman defense team, but it infused the case.” That gloss (which Robert Woolley brought to my attention) is reminiscent of New York Times reporter Cara Buckley’s assertion that the trial was “spotlighting Florida’s Stand Your Ground law,” even though “that law has not been invoked in this case.” Attorney General Eric Holder was a bit subtler on Tuesday, saying “it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense,” although that issue is “separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention.”
In a surprise, New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan criticized her paper in a Thursday afternoon blog post for downplaying the congressional hearings into the deadly attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya. The Times made the interesting decision to put the second day of hearings on page 3 Thursday, in the International section, as opposed to the National section, which begins in the middle of the paper. In contrast, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both put the hearings on the front page, while the Los Angeles Times carried original reporting from Libya not the hearings on the front page.Sullivan asked the Timess editors why they chose to ignore the story in their main section and soon got a response: “there were six better stories.”
- Can the NYT stop providing phony “balance” and help readers know what to believe? (althouse.blogspot.com)
- Media Bias on Full Display in Libya Debacle (redalertpolitics.com)
- Security Lax in Libya? House Panel To Hear Testimony [VIDEO] (radio.foxnews.com)
- Libya Consulate Was Invaded, Torched by Armed Mob: US (themoderatevoice.com)
- More details emerge on U.S. ambassador’s last moments (cnn.com)