4 ms·

The NYT fired basically their entire editorial staff in 2017. The accelerated degradation has been noticable.

DanielBMarkham 8y ago
Everybody's talking about how we're going to pay for good content. How will newspapers operate in the future? We don't need to pay for content. The world is full of people who will write for nothing more than getting their name out there. What we need are good editors. The news media are firing the very people who could get them out of this mess they ended up in.
- IronWolve 8y ago
  I pay for good content, lots of writers/producers use crowdfunding for a paycheck. Papers like NYTimes have slid down to clickbait titles and Buzzfeed type articles to get readers. The war for media control is corporate vs independent.
  - DanielBMarkham 8y ago
    I disagree. We've had independents, corporations, and mixed-mode content creation and delivery for many, many decades. What we used to have that we don't have any more is a forced-delay, quality-control, gatekeeping function. This was fulfilled by the slowness of manufacturing printed content and good editors. Turns out that this is a place where cutting out the middleman, the wisdom of crowds, and automation worked against our best interests.
Arnt 8y ago
What? I googled, and found this: "The Times newsroom staff peaked in early 2008 at about 1,332 employees, [...] still employs about 1,300 in its newsroom." What are the correct numbers?
et2o 8y ago
This is a good and comprehensive article. You and the grandparent comment are focusing on one minor component and using it to raise FUD about the rest of the article and indeed the entire NYT now. It's a lazy form of debate. HN used to be better than this.
- huffmsa 8y ago
  I'm just providing facts. NYT fired a ton of editors, because they're expensive.[1] They've also hired younger, cheaper writers. As a result, the overall quality of the product has fallen, noticeable. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2017/06/new-york-times-editors-decry-humiliating-layoffs-1202121627/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2017/06/new-york-t...
- CivBase 8y ago
  I never said the article was bad. I said the title was bad and specifically addressed the complaint in the title which brought me to the article in the first place.

Everybody's talking about how we're going to pay for good content. How will newspapers operate in the future? We don't need to pay for content. The world is full of people who will write for nothing more than getting their name out there. What we need are good editors. The news media are firing the very people who could get them out of this mess they ended up in.

IronWolve 8y ago
I pay for good content, lots of writers/producers use crowdfunding for a paycheck. Papers like NYTimes have slid down to clickbait titles and Buzzfeed type articles to get readers. The war for media control is corporate vs independent.
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  I disagree. We've had independents, corporations, and mixed-mode content creation and delivery for many, many decades. What we used to have that we don't have any more is a forced-delay, quality-control, gatekeeping function. This was fulfilled by the slowness of manufacturing printed content and good editors. Turns out that this is a place where cutting out the middleman, the wisdom of crowds, and automation worked against our best interests.

Arnt 8y ago

What? I googled, and found this: "The Times newsroom staff peaked in early 2008 at about 1,332 employees, [...] still employs about 1,300 in its newsroom." What are the correct numbers?

et2o 8y ago

This is a good and comprehensive article. You and the grandparent comment are focusing on one minor component and using it to raise FUD about the rest of the article and indeed the entire NYT now. It's a lazy form of debate. HN used to be better than this.

huffmsa 8y ago
I'm just providing facts. NYT fired a ton of editors, because they're expensive.[1] They've also hired younger, cheaper writers. As a result, the overall quality of the product has fallen, noticeable. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2017/06/new-york-times-editors-decry-humiliating-layoffs-1202121627/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2017/06/new-york-t...
CivBase 8y ago
I never said the article was bad. I said the title was bad and specifically addressed the complaint in the title which brought me to the article in the first place.