Discussion:
Snowflakes At The New York Times
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2017-06-29 01:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Poor Babies At The Failing NYT!!!

"Dogs Urinating On Fire Hydrants".

Hilarious!

DSH
--------------------------------------------------

New York Times Editors Decry "Humiliating Process" Of Layoffs

by Jeremy Gerard
June 28, 2017
Deadline Hollywood

http://deadline.com/2017/06/new-york-times-editors-decry-humiliating-layoffs-1202121627/

Using words including "betrayal," "humiliating" and "covfefe" and suggesting
that management had compared them to "dogs urinating on fire hydrants," copy
editors at the New York Times today let executive editor Dean Baquet and his
heir apparent, Joseph Kahn, know exactly how they feel about taking the
brunt of layoffs and buyouts as the Times expands its reporting ranks. The
latest flare-up comes at a moment when the Times also is dealing with a
libel lawsuit filed by former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin over a
Times Op-Ed column erroneously linking her to violent attacks on public
figures.

In a letter addressed to the two top editors and written under the
letterhead of the NewsGuild's NYT unit, they also included a plea for
reconsideration of the plan to eliminate some 100 editors from their ranks.

A short time later, Baquet and Kahn responded, in a letter addressed to New
York NewsGuild president Grant Glickson. "We take those concerns seriously,"
they wrote. "We feel a compelling need to reduce separate layers of
editing . and to speed up production. .We have also made clear that in an
environment of limited resources, we intend to invest more in recruiting top
talent to keep us ahead."

Here are both letters:

Dear Dean and Joe,

We have begun the humiliating process of justifying our continued presence
at The New York Times. We take some solace in the fact that we have been
assured repeatedly that copy editors are highly respected here.

If that is true, we have a simple request. Cutting us down to 50 to 55
editors from more than 100, and expecting the same level of quality in the
report, is dumbfoundingly unrealistic. Work with us on a new number.

But after living more than a year and a half under a cloud of uncertainty
about our jobs, a cruelly drawn-out period in which we suspended major
financial arrangements and life decisions, and carried an ever-growing
kernel of fear;

After we were compared to dogs urinating on fire hydrants when we edited
stories, in an internal report that called for the elimination of "low-value
editing" and made it all but clear which stages of editing this referred
to - so much so that it became a running joke among the copy desks for
months ("How's the low-value editing going in your section today?") - along
with the report's implication that copy editing was merely finding "easily
identifiable errors, such as spelling and grammar mistakes";

After some of us were recruited for "editing tests" to streamline the
process, or, as it turned out, figure out how to make our own jobs obsolete;

After enduring a newsroom-wide copy-editing overhaul last year that
consolidated the desks, transformed the scope of our duties and confused a
whole lot of reporters and section editors (but ultimately made us think we
would at least keep our jobs);

After learning that this new setup would be undone just months after it was
put in place, with the whiplash announcement that our jobs would simply be
eliminated;

After we were told that to remain employed, we would have to apply for new
"strong editor" positions meant to be a hybrid of the two types of editors
at The Times, backfielders and copy editors, and realized only copy editors
had to be reevaluated categorically;

After we were told that this "restructuring" would also reduce our numbers
by more than half;

After completing a first round of interviews, some held by interviewers who
clearly had not even read our résumés and cover letters, and competing
against the very colleagues we are leaning on in these times;

After we heard that The Times would soon go on a hiring spree, just as it
gets ready to shed jobs, and thought to ourselves that it is particularly
ruthless to talk about all the others you intend to court as you break up
with someone;

[Hilarious! -- DSH]

After all of this and more - we are finding it difficult to feel respected.

[GGGGG - DSH]

In fact, we feel more respected by our readers than we do by you. We are
living in a strange time when routine copy-editing duties such as fact
checking, reviewing sources, correcting misleading or inaccurate
information, clarifying language and, yes, fixing spelling and grammar
mistakes in news covfefe are suddenly matters of public discourse. As those
in power declare war against the news media, as deliberately false or
lackadaisical reportage finds its way into social media feeds, readers are
flocking to our defense. They are sending us pizza. And they are signing up
for Times subscriptions in record numbers because they understand that we go
to great lengths to ensure quality and, most important, truth.

This should be a triumphant moment for all Times employees. Everyone from
the ground floor up should be thrilled and proud to come to work, and walk
into the building feeling valuable and needed.

And that is why it feels like such a profound waste that morale is low
throughout the newsroom, and that many of us, from editors to reporters to
photo editors to support staff, are angry, embittered and scared of losing
our jobs.

You may have heard that the elimination of the copy desk is widely seen as a
disaster in the making (including by many managers directly involved in the
process), that the editing experiments were an open failure, and that there
is dissension even in the highest ranks and across job titles regarding the
new editing structure.

But you have decided to press forward anyway, and this decision betrays a
stunning lack of knowledge of what we do at The Times. Come see what we do.
See the process, what comes in and what actually goes online or to print.
See what we do before you decide you can live without it.

We copy editors understand that our roles will have to change, that we must
find ways to edit more efficiently, and that The Times must evolve into a
nimbler, more visual, more digitally focused news outlet. We will learn and
we will adapt. In fact, through many workflow changes, through the adoption
of new technologies and platforms, we have already proved we can. We only
ask that you not treat us like a diseased population that must be rounded up
en masse, inspected and expelled.

After all, we are, as one senior reporter put it, the immune system of this
newspaper, the group that protects the institution from profoundly
embarrassing errors, not to mention potentially actionable ones.

We are one of the crucial layers of review that you seem so determined to
erase, as the sudden removal of the public editor role shows. We are
stewards of The Times, committed to preserving its voice and authority.

[Removal of the Public Editor was a SNAFU. -- DSH]

You often speak about the importance of engaging readers, of valuing,
investing in and giving a voice to readers.

Dean and Joe: We are your readers, and you have turned your backs on us.

We abhor your decision to wipe out the copy desk. But as we continue this
difficult transition, we ask that you sharply increase the available
positions for the 109 copy editors, as well as an unknown number of other
staff members, who have effectively lost their jobs as a result of your
actions.

We worry that if we do not speak out, you will feel emboldened to make
similarly sweeping staff reductions elsewhere in the company without debate.
We worry that the errors and serious breaches of Times standards that copy
editors catch each day will go unnoticed - until we are embarrassed into
making corrections. We worry, in short, that the newsroom has forgotten why
these layers of editing were created in the first place. But we still
believe in The Times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Baquet and Kahn sent this response:

Dear Grant,

Your letter reflects the passion for The Times and the journalism we produce
that has distinguished us for decades. Many people who care deeply about the
newsroom and its editing traditions have made their concerns clear in the
course of this restructuring, and we take those concerns seriously.

We are in fact eliminating a free standing copy desk. We are not, as we have
said repeatedly, eliminating copy editing. A majority of people currently
employed by the copy desk will find new editing jobs. All of our desks will
continue to ensure a high level of editing, spanning backfielding, copy
editing, photo editing and digital and print production, for all the
journalism we produce.

The Times has far more editors relative to reporters or to the number of
stories we publish than any of our traditional print peers or our newer
digital rivals. After this restructuring, we will continue to invest far
more in editing than any of our competitors do. That is because we value
meticulous editing.

At the same time, we feel a compelling need to reduce separate layers of
editing, to have reporters and front-line editors play a bigger role in all
aspects of story production and promotion, to create a more natively visual
news report, and to speed up production. We have also made clear that in a
environment of limited resources, we intend to invest more in recruiting top
talent to keep us ahead on the biggest stories of our time and the best ways
to tell those stories to a growing readership.

There will be reductions among editors and some other departures from around
the newsroom in coming weeks and months. That is a difficult process for us
all. We do intend to monitor this transition closely and ensure that we not
only maintain but in many areas improve the editing that is critical to The
Times' reputation for excellence.

Dean and Joe
----------------------------------------------

The New York Times...

Dinosaur?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
Tiglath
2017-06-29 16:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Poor Babies At The Failing NYT!!!
<snip>


Failing?

Mr. Hines forgets himself in the knee-jerk imitations of his leader.

NYT stock is UP 30% since the election, dude.

If that is 'failure' what is success?

It is most amusing seeing this man debasing himself by following blindly the
man destined to become our worst president yet. Out of 45.

Trump wants to be Obama. Not the black part.

He wants to be loved and held in high esteem like Obama.

Instead, he not only had a MUCH SMALLER inauguration crowd, but his reputation
around the globe is pretty bad.

Europe loves Obama. Asia is now in fits of laughter at how this dumb president
dismantled the treaty that gave us a good foothold on trade in Asia. Gone.
A vacuum China is not slow to fill.

Trump can't be Obama. Obama is a decent, scandal-free, elegant, cerebral and
successful president, who even as civilian gives the US a good name.

In contrast, Trump is a trashy guy who accrued some money but has little
cultural capital. His conflicts of interest, the known and those he still
hides, are a stain on our democracy. His behavior ain't any better.

Mr. Hines attempts to distract from the central point that we have a president
who is under criminal investigation, and who thinks nothing of what the Russians
did to our election. No Pelosi, no Schummer, no Democratic news can ever top
that.

With all the possible power and they can't repeal and replace Obamacare.

They keep stabbing it with their steely knives, but just can't kill the beast.

The height of incompetence and lunacy. And Obama chuckles all the way.

We see Trump on a mission to erase Obama's legacy and FAILING.

Yep, Trump has abysmal approval numbers at home and abroad.

Look at the numbers, man.

NYT's stock UP 30%

Trump's approval down and falling.

It's not the failing NYT, Spencer: It's the failing president.

Wake up to the difference, dude.
D. Spencer Hines
2017-06-29 20:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As of today's closing, 29 Jun 2017, the New York Times [NYSE:NYT] stock
price is 17.80 -- DOWN 65.44%, from a high of 51.500 in Jun 2002.

My PERSONAL stock portfolio is UP 46.8% over the SAME period.

How Sweet It Is!

Color...

NYT: Dumb.

DSH: Smart.

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------------

Trump Was Right: "Failing New York Times" Looks to Be in Serious Decline

Jim Hoft Feb 21st, 2017 7:48 am

Guest post by Joe Hoft

President Donald Trump called the New York Times (NYT) - the "Failing New
York Times" in his press conference on Thursday and in his speech in Florida
on Saturday. The President called the NYT 'Failing' for some time,
including during his rallies when running for President.

The President is right. The NYT is failing miserably and is in serious
financial trouble. The NYT's financials for 2016 show massive decreases in
the bottom line (net income) for the 4th Quarter and for the year. The NYT's
4th Quarter net income was $37m, down from $52m in the 4th Quarter of 2015
for a 28% decrease. The NYT's annual 2016 results were worse at $29m versus
$63m in 2015 for a year over year decrease of 54%. The Times blamed the poor
results on a "pension settlement charge, lower print advertising revenues
and higher costs".

Although the NYT reported that their 4th Quarter digital subscriptions were
their highest ever, at 276,000, their current business plan is not
sustainable and they still succumbed to miserable results. The NYT has many
problems. This liberal dinosaur employs roughly 3,500 down from 5,200 in
2012 and while the majority of companies in the US are watching their stocks
reach new all time highs under the Trump Stock Market rally, the NYT's stock
price is at $15 down from nearly $52 per share in 2002.

The more the NYT promotes questionable liberal news the further it falls
into the abyss. The NYT paid for an ad on Twitter complaining that the
Gateway Pundit (GWP) now has a reporter in the White House.
----------------------------------

DSH
Tiglath
2017-06-30 02:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D. Spencer Hines
As of today's closing, 29 Jun 2017, the New York Times [NYSE:NYT] stock
price is 17.80 -- DOWN 65.44%, from a high of 51.500 in Jun 2002.
I was wrong to say that the NYT stock went up 30% since the election.

It has gone up 59%, actually.

It is since the inauguration that has gone up 33%.

If Trump is having any effect, the NYT don't mind.

The New York Times had also more digital subscriptions in the last quarter of
last year than in the two previous years.

Why would Mr. Hines bring up June 2002? To suggest what?

There was no Trump factor until he won the election.

It is called lying with statistics. You cherry pick some statistical range that
shows a decline, whether relevant or not.

Mr. Stevens does the same with climate change data.

Done by people who think they are smarter than everyone else.

And... Nobody compares a portfolio with a single stock.

Again... FAILING?
D. Spencer Hines
2017-07-01 00:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As of today's closing, 30 Jun 2017, the New York Times [NYSE:NYT] stock
price is 17.70 -- DOWN 65.63%, from a HIGH of 51.500 in Jun 2002.

The Failing New York Times.

It has been failing for 15 years -- or more.

See Below For More.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------------

Trump Was Right: "Failing New York Times" Looks to Be in Serious Decline

Jim Hoft Feb 21st, 2017 7:48 am

Guest post by Joe Hoft

"President Donald Trump called the New York Times (NYT) - the "Failing New
York Times" in his press conference on Thursday and in his speech in Florida
on Saturday. The President called the NYT 'Failing' for some time,
including during his rallies when running for President.

The President is right. The NYT is failing miserably and is in serious
financial trouble. The NYT's financials for 2016 show massive decreases in
the bottom line (net income) for the 4th Quarter and for the year. The NYT's
4th Quarter net income was $37m, down from $52m in the 4th Quarter of 2015
for a 28% decrease. The NYT's annual 2016 results were worse at $29m versus
$63m in 2015 for a year over year decrease of 54%. The Times blamed the poor
results on a "pension settlement charge, lower print advertising revenues
and higher costs".

Although the NYT reported that their 4th Quarter digital subscriptions were
their highest ever, at 276,000, their current business plan is not
sustainable and they still succumbed to miserable results. The NYT has many
problems. This liberal dinosaur employs roughly 3,500 down from 5,200 in
2012 and while the majority of companies in the US are watching their stocks
reach new all time highs under the Trump Stock Market rally, the NYT's stock
price is at $15 down from nearly $52 per share in 2002.

The more the NYT promotes questionable liberal news the further it falls
into the abyss. The NYT paid for an ad on Twitter complaining that the
Gateway Pundit (GWP) now has a reporter in the White House."
----------------------------------

DSH
Peter Jason
2017-07-01 02:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:11:12 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
As of today's closing, 30 Jun 2017, the New York Times [NYSE:NYT] stock
price is 17.70 -- DOWN 65.63%, from a HIGH of 51.500 in Jun 2002.
Loading Image...
Tiglath
2017-07-01 05:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D. Spencer Hines
As of today's closing, 30 Jun 2017, the New York Times [NYSE:NYT] stock
price is 17.70 -- DOWN 65.63%, from a HIGH of 51.500 in Jun 2002.
The Failing New York Times.
Nice mantra from your guru, isn't it?
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It has been failing for 15 years -- or more.
It must have a very slow rate of failure. A rate of failure where the O-Rings
still hold after "15 years -- or more" risks looking like a success.

The digital age has not been kind to any of the old newspapers, it's not
their failure any more than low demand for coal is the miner's fault.

The NYT is one of the ink newspapers that has adapted best to the new
business model using the Internet. It is also highly regarded by journalists
and deemed to be the best American newspaper at various times.

WHAT IS RELEVANT is that Trump's attacks have had a BENEFICIAL effect on the
popularity and prosperity of the New York Times.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
See Below For More.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------------
Trump Was Right: "Failing New York Times" Looks to Be in Serious Decline
Jim Hoft Feb 21st, 2017 7:48 am
Guest post by Joe Hoft
"President Donald Trump called the New York Times (NYT) - the "Failing New
York Times" in his press conference on Thursday and in his speech in Florida
on Saturday. The President called the NYT 'Failing' for some time,
including during his rallies when running for President.
The President is right. The NYT is failing miserably and is in serious
financial trouble. The NYT's financials for 2016 show massive decreases in
the bottom line (net income) for the 4th Quarter and for the year. The NYT's
4th Quarter net income was $37m, down from $52m in the 4th Quarter of 2015
for a 28% decrease. The NYT's annual 2016 results were worse at $29m versus
$63m in 2015 for a year over year decrease of 54%. The Times blamed the poor
results on a "pension settlement charge, lower print advertising revenues
and higher costs".
Although the NYT reported that their 4th Quarter digital subscriptions were
their highest ever, at 276,000, their current business plan is not
sustainable and they still succumbed to miserable results. The NYT has many
problems. This liberal dinosaur employs roughly 3,500 down from 5,200 in
2012 and while the majority of companies in the US are watching their stocks
reach new all time highs under the Trump Stock Market rally, the NYT's stock
price is at $15 down from nearly $52 per share in 2002.
The more the NYT promotes questionable liberal news the further it falls
into the abyss. The NYT paid for an ad on Twitter complaining that the
Gateway Pundit (GWP) now has a reporter in the White House."
----------------------------------
DSH
Loading...