5 ms·

I have a simpler explanation for media failure. Huge job cuts. Many journalists are now doing work of multiple positions in many places especially online media

I have a simpler explanation for media failure. Huge job cuts. Many journalists are now doing work of multiple positions in many places especially online media. New York Times has reduced the number of their total editors in the last 10 years for example. Every major online media had layoffs comparable to 10% of their total workforce in the last 5 years. It affects mid level journalists the most so there are more interns now. Most of the jobs have been concentrated geographically. Whatever people say, environment changes how they act and what they believe in the most, likely to report. There isn't enough exclusive content. Any big announcement or what rich people say can be read on social media by directly following their account. Why buy a NYT subscription for that? There are thousands of big YouTubers reading the latest news from NYT to their subscribers and taking NYT's cut if they actually do something exclusive and costly. News has become an entertainment commodity for people. The vast explosion of content means fewer people are willing to pay for less but greatly researched content compared to more content and noise. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/20/u-s-newsroom-employment-has-dropped-by-a-quarter-since-2008/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/20/u-s-newsroo... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bub...

andreilys 6y ago
I agree with your analysis. Watching the last season of The Wire it really struck home the incentive structures, and how News organizations are ultimately businesses that are beholden to financial interests. A business that unfortunately has lost its viability, which is how we've ended up in this current predicament.
ianmobbs 6y ago
Did you read the article? The Times now employs more people than it ever has and is doing better financially than ever.
- damnencryption 6y ago
  Yes I did. It didn't mention anything about more employees (mostly policies to encourage more POC). Although it does mention the expansion of their digital media. That seems fine to me but what about total employees from both digital and paper? https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/number-of-employees https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...
  - eyko 6y ago
    From the article: "It has hired hundreds of journalists to staff a newsroom that is now 1,700 people strong — bigger than ever. Its stock has risen fourfold since Trump took office, and the Times has consolidated its Trump bump into a business that includes Serial Productions, the podcast juggernaut; Audm, the audio-translation business; and a TV show based on the Times series “Modern Love” that was filming its second season this summer, until a COVID-19 false positive on-set forced it to halt shooting. More than a million people subscribe to its Crossword and Cooking apps alone, and the company has been able to weather the pandemic in part because it now has more cash on hand—$800 million—than at any point in its history."
  - _0o6v 6y ago
    You obviously didn't read it very carefully then.
- rayiner 6y ago
  NYT revenues were over $3 billion/year in 2005. It’s under $2 billion now: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...
asdff 6y ago
While that seems intiutive that NYT is being sidestepped by free sources, they are in fact doing very well as a business and reporting record profits. They have no debt, in fact through cash on hand and lines of credit they have access to over a billion dollars. They bought out their headquarters in midtown manhattan. Their stock price is near all time highs. People pay for quality. It's why people still pay for services like HBO instead of watching free content on youtube. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/business/media/new-york-times-q3-2020-earnings-nyt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/business/media/new-york-t...
- damnencryption 6y ago
  https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-new-york-times-company-since-2006/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-ne... That's only for digital which is well expected to grow. They still have to catch up to their historical revenue.
- musicale 6y ago
  > instead of watching free content on youtube or in addition to
ottomatias 6y ago
Did you read the story? NYT newsroom is bigger than ever, it has more cash than ever and has increased it's amount of subscribers several-fold
- damnencryption 6y ago
  https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-new-york-times-company-since-2006/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-ne... It doesn't have more revenue than it did a decade and half ago.
  - greggturkington 6y ago
    That's mostly losses related to ad revenue. Subscription revenue has increased steadily over the last decade. https://investors.nytco.com/news-and-events/press-releases/news-details/2020/The-New-York-Times-Company-Reports-2020-Third-Quarter-Results/default.aspx https://investors.nytco.com/news-and-events/press-releases/n...
    - andrenotgiant 6y ago
      That hasn't come close to replacing lost ad revenue. In 2000, total revenue was $3B+ [1] In 2019, total revenue was $1.8B [2] [1] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/06/2000_Annual_Report.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/06/2000_Annual_Report.... [2] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/04/Final-2019-Annual-Report.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/04/Final-2019-Annual-R... Helps explain why they dislike Google/FB so much.
      - kjaftaedi 6y ago
        While the newspaper does run ads, NYT's ad revenue is in large part driven by their 'native advertising' business (T Brand Studio). It's a fundamentally different approach to advertising compared to what Google and FB are doing. I think the problem is more that it's harder to quantify a carefully crafted brand campaign, and easier for middle-managers to look at a chart of click-through return rates and make decisions based on that. I see this as the ability to test and measure beating out a better method that is less quantifiable. Basically the same thinking that leaves us with policies like No Child Left Behind where education has shifted from learning to test taking yet people are still under the impression they are the same thing.
IgorPartola 6y ago
It occurs to me that as we become more and more connected globally the less there will be a need for the media. Hear me out: let’s take this to the limit of our ability to communicate. Let’s say that we develop a direct interface between the brain and the Internet via some sort of implantable chip. Any information you want to know becomes instantly knowable in your brain. Moreover, you can request info about certain topics a la a curated Twitter feed. If an earthquake happens in Japan or new Oscar nominees are announced, you know about it soon as you think about it or think about “I wonder what has been happening today?” And of course all the information is gathered in aggregators that automatically verify that multiple people did witness the particular event to verify authenticity. Under these conditions it becomes unnecessary for someone to do the basic legwork of seeking out stories and curating them, no? Interpreting the stories of course does require someone’s time and energy, but for example there would be no need to go and investigate what is happening with the earthquake rescue because the first responders could effortlessly share their thoughts/experiences, the person in charge could instantly add their voice to the info stream telling everyone what the clean up/rescue plans are, etc. What role would a newspaper play in a setup like this? Now, we aren’t there yet. We are not a hive mind and sharing what we are witnessing takes time and effort. A first responder isn’t going to stop and tweet about what’s going on. And the even bigger hurdle is consuming this much information. That problem hasn’t been solved yet. But we are closer to that than not: Twitter and Reddit allow regular people to share what they are seeing: earthquakes, protests, awards ceremonies, graduations. Curation will only get better. Whereas before only the select few had a voice because it was expensive, now almost anyone can broadcast to a huge swath of humanity.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > And of course all the information is gathered in aggregators that automatically verify that multiple people did witness the particular event to verify authenticity. In other words, "and then a miracle occurs". I don't see how this requirement could ever be met in general. For particular cases (like first responders at an emergency being able to directly feed what they are seeing and doing), perhaps.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
grecy 6y ago
Yup. A buddy was a photographer for a very well respected newspaper. In a grand cost-cutting measure the newspaper simply bought all the reporters iPhones and fired all the photographers. The reporters are now expected to take photos for their own articles "Because iPhones make that really easy".
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  That was the Chicago Sun-Times in 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/media/chicago-sun-times-lays-off-all-its-full-time-photographers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/media/chicago-su... At Tronc, they had an all hands shortly after buying the NY Daily News. A staffer on the call said “we’re ‘New York’s picture paper’ but our equipment is all old. When can we get new cameras?” On the call, the execs said NYDN is losing money, so it will have to get profitable first. Then a few months later, they fired all photographers and social media people. https://petapixel.com/2018/07/26/ny-daily-news-cuts-all-photographers/ https://petapixel.com/2018/07/26/ny-daily-news-cuts-all-phot...

andreilys 6y ago

I agree with your analysis. Watching the last season of The Wire it really struck home the incentive structures, and how News organizations are ultimately businesses that are beholden to financial interests. A business that unfortunately has lost its viability, which is how we've ended up in this current predicament.

ianmobbs 6y ago

Did you read the article? The Times now employs more people than it ever has and is doing better financially than ever.

damnencryption 6y ago
Yes I did. It didn't mention anything about more employees (mostly policies to encourage more POC). Although it does mention the expansion of their digital media. That seems fine to me but what about total employees from both digital and paper? https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/number-of-employees https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...
- eyko 6y ago
  From the article: "It has hired hundreds of journalists to staff a newsroom that is now 1,700 people strong — bigger than ever. Its stock has risen fourfold since Trump took office, and the Times has consolidated its Trump bump into a business that includes Serial Productions, the podcast juggernaut; Audm, the audio-translation business; and a TV show based on the Times series “Modern Love” that was filming its second season this summer, until a COVID-19 false positive on-set forced it to halt shooting. More than a million people subscribe to its Crossword and Cooking apps alone, and the company has been able to weather the pandemic in part because it now has more cash on hand—$800 million—than at any point in its history."
- _0o6v 6y ago
  You obviously didn't read it very carefully then.
rayiner 6y ago
NYT revenues were over $3 billion/year in 2005. It’s under $2 billion now: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...

asdff 6y ago

While that seems intiutive that NYT is being sidestepped by free sources, they are in fact doing very well as a business and reporting record profits. They have no debt, in fact through cash on hand and lines of credit they have access to over a billion dollars. They bought out their headquarters in midtown manhattan. Their stock price is near all time highs. People pay for quality. It's why people still pay for services like HBO instead of watching free content on youtube. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/business/media/new-york-times-q3-2020-earnings-nyt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/business/media/new-york-t...

damnencryption 6y ago
https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-new-york-times-company-since-2006/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-ne... That's only for digital which is well expected to grow. They still have to catch up to their historical revenue.
musicale 6y ago
> instead of watching free content on youtube or in addition to

ottomatias 6y ago

Did you read the story? NYT newsroom is bigger than ever, it has more cash than ever and has increased it's amount of subscribers several-fold

damnencryption 6y ago
https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-new-york-times-company-since-2006/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-ne... It doesn't have more revenue than it did a decade and half ago.
- greggturkington 6y ago
  That's mostly losses related to ad revenue. Subscription revenue has increased steadily over the last decade. https://investors.nytco.com/news-and-events/press-releases/news-details/2020/The-New-York-Times-Company-Reports-2020-Third-Quarter-Results/default.aspx https://investors.nytco.com/news-and-events/press-releases/n...
  - andrenotgiant 6y ago
    That hasn't come close to replacing lost ad revenue. In 2000, total revenue was $3B+ [1] In 2019, total revenue was $1.8B [2] [1] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/06/2000_Annual_Report.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/06/2000_Annual_Report.... [2] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/04/Final-2019-Annual-Report.pdf https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/04/Final-2019-Annual-R... Helps explain why they dislike Google/FB so much.
    - kjaftaedi 6y ago
      While the newspaper does run ads, NYT's ad revenue is in large part driven by their 'native advertising' business (T Brand Studio). It's a fundamentally different approach to advertising compared to what Google and FB are doing. I think the problem is more that it's harder to quantify a carefully crafted brand campaign, and easier for middle-managers to look at a chart of click-through return rates and make decisions based on that. I see this as the ability to test and measure beating out a better method that is less quantifiable. Basically the same thinking that leaves us with policies like No Child Left Behind where education has shifted from learning to test taking yet people are still under the impression they are the same thing.

IgorPartola 6y ago

It occurs to me that as we become more and more connected globally the less there will be a need for the media. Hear me out: let’s take this to the limit of our ability to communicate. Let’s say that we develop a direct interface between the brain and the Internet via some sort of implantable chip. Any information you want to know becomes instantly knowable in your brain. Moreover, you can request info about certain topics a la a curated Twitter feed. If an earthquake happens in Japan or new Oscar nominees are announced, you know about it soon as you think about it or think about “I wonder what has been happening today?” And of course all the information is gathered in aggregators that automatically verify that multiple people did witness the particular event to verify authenticity. Under these conditions it becomes unnecessary for someone to do the basic legwork of seeking out stories and curating them, no? Interpreting the stories of course does require someone’s time and energy, but for example there would be no need to go and investigate what is happening with the earthquake rescue because the first responders could effortlessly share their thoughts/experiences, the person in charge could instantly add their voice to the info stream telling everyone what the clean up/rescue plans are, etc. What role would a newspaper play in a setup like this? Now, we aren’t there yet. We are not a hive mind and sharing what we are witnessing takes time and effort. A first responder isn’t going to stop and tweet about what’s going on. And the even bigger hurdle is consuming this much information. That problem hasn’t been solved yet. But we are closer to that than not: Twitter and Reddit allow regular people to share what they are seeing: earthquakes, protests, awards ceremonies, graduations. Curation will only get better. Whereas before only the select few had a voice because it was expensive, now almost anyone can broadcast to a huge swath of humanity.

pdonis 6y ago
> And of course all the information is gathered in aggregators that automatically verify that multiple people did witness the particular event to verify authenticity. In other words, "and then a miracle occurs". I don't see how this requirement could ever be met in general. For particular cases (like first responders at an emergency being able to directly feed what they are seeing and doing), perhaps.
- IgorPartola 6y ago

grecy 6y ago

Yup. A buddy was a photographer for a very well respected newspaper. In a grand cost-cutting measure the newspaper simply bought all the reporters iPhones and fired all the photographers. The reporters are now expected to take photos for their own articles "Because iPhones make that really easy".

earthboundkid 6y ago
That was the Chicago Sun-Times in 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/media/chicago-sun-times-lays-off-all-its-full-time-photographers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/media/chicago-su... At Tronc, they had an all hands shortly after buying the NY Daily News. A staffer on the call said “we’re ‘New York’s picture paper’ but our equipment is all old. When can we get new cameras?” On the call, the execs said NYDN is losing money, so it will have to get profitable first. Then a few months later, they fired all photographers and social media people. https://petapixel.com/2018/07/26/ny-daily-news-cuts-all-photographers/ https://petapixel.com/2018/07/26/ny-daily-news-cuts-all-phot...