In the midst of a deteriorating advertising climate, The New York Times plans to eliminate up to 20 newsroom positions and seek additional savings in the business units, the company said Thursday.A rebalancing? What the hell is that? Maybe try tilting slightly back to the right so you're just a bit to the left of Pravda?
The reductions, described by the New York Times Company as a rebalancing, were announced to employees on Thursday morning. The company will seek volunteers for buyouts in The Times newsroom, Jill Abramson, the paper’s executive editor, said in a memo to the staff, adding that no newsroom employee would be laid off. She said there would be “fewer than 20” buyouts.
The Times will also seek to cut costs on the business side by eliminating positions that are vacant and by offering a limited number of buyouts, said an executive who insisted on anonymity because the company was not commenting publicly on the details or scale of the reductions.
This is also interesting: The New York Times reporting a story quoting anonymous sources within the New York Times. Just imagine, they might not be in such a predicament had they been able to keep national security secrets under wraps during the Bush administration.
Typical as in cases past they blame it on diminished ad revenues. They just will never get it. Their readers have abandoned them in droves because they're nothing more than hard-left rag.
2 comments:
Profits over people.
What would OWS say....?
"Jill Abramson, the paper’s executive editor, said in a memo to the staff, adding that no newsroom employee would be laid off."
So if they don't take the buy out, they'll be fired (as that's the only option other than laid off) heh
Post a Comment