Decimate
In the Roman Empire, the punishment for a mutinous legion was quite certain. One member of every ten was chosen by lot. The selected members were then executed. That practice was common enough that it had a specific word: decimate. Over the years, the meaning of that word has evolved and the one in ten part of it is considered obsolete in the dictionaries. But the old sense of the word comes to mind when I read this bit of news. The New York Times will be cutting almost one out of every ten members of its newsroom staff.
After years of resisting the newsroom cuts that have hit most of the industry, The New York Times will bow to growing financial strain and eliminate about 100 newsroom jobs this year, the executive editor said Thursday.
The cuts will be achieved by “by not filling jobs that go vacant, by offering buyouts, and if necessary by layoffs,” said the executive editor, Bill Keller. The more people who accept buyouts, he said, “the smaller the prospect of layoffs, but we should brace ourselves for the likelihood that there will be some layoffs.”
The Times has 1,332 newsroom employees, the largest number in its history; no other American newspaper has more than about 900. There were scattered buyouts and job eliminations in The Times’ newsroom in recent years, but the overall number continued to rise, largely because of the growth of its Internet operations.
Shares in The New York Times Company rose almost 5 percent Thursday after the newsroom staff reductions were reported, closing at $18.84, up 86 cents.
The Times Company has made significant cuts in the newsrooms of some of its other properties, including The Boston Globe, as well as in non-news operations. Company executives say the overall head count is 3.8 percent lower than it was a year ago.
But with the industry’s economic picture worsening, the company is under increased pressure from shareholders — notably two hedge funds that recently bought almost 10 percent of the common stock — to do something dramatic to improve its bottom line.
For 2007, it recently reported earnings of $209 million on revenue of $3.2 billion.
Newspaper industry ad revenue fell about 7 percent last year, and 4.7 percent at The Times Company, and executives around the industry have projected that 2008 will be equally bad.
Other large newspapers have made much bigger cuts, proportionally, than those The Times is planning; some newsrooms are more than 20 percent smaller than they were early in this decade.
Of course, the staffers aren't mutinous and they won't be executed. But they'll be out of jobs in a tough market for journalists. (Attention journalism school students! Are you sure you know what you're heading into?) The real problem is that people are not buying the stuff the majors newspapers are pushing. It is not the workmanship of the journalists. It is the editorial slant creeping into almost every aspect of the news that is repulsing the buying public.
But notice, it isn't the editors or the publishers who pay the price for that bad policy.





