5 ms·
Nearly 7% of American newspaper employees now work at the New York Times
- inglor_cz 2y agoSo, in other words, the news industry seems to be moving in the same direction as IT: slow concentration of power in hands of a few big players.
- throwawaysleep 2y agoA lot of that is simply culture moving that way. We engage locally a lot less and nationally far more. I only have one local friend and I have no reason to make any as I can trivially drive/fly to see my current friends in other cities. I bet far fewer people today know the name of their mayor than in decades past.
- tiffanyh 2y agoThat’s actually Economics 101. All industries trend toward domination by a few large players.
- throwawaysleep 2y agoOnly if there is something to consolidate around. There isn't really a giant chain of local pastry shops, as tastes vary a ton by region. It is just that with news, tastes have homogenized to be more national.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bufferoverflow 2y agoI think you got it wrong. Newspaper business is dying. Small agile players are moving away fast. Slow players are still bleeding, hoping for a miracle turnaround.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- diogenescynic 2y agoJournalism was better when it was local and lower paid. Now we just have elitist and out of touch reporters who don't know what's going on outside of major cities.
- jeffbee 2y agoI am not sure the past was better. All of the industry insiders think so but I am not seeing it. In my region — which is huge, with a robust nation-sized economy — we never had a good traditional newspaper. The legacy newspapers produced garbage for decades. Today we have an excellent group of independent internet news outlets providing daily coverage of events and politics, many specialized to one or another of our hundreds of distinct cities. The state of actual reporting here is now much better than it was during the peak of the newspaper era.
- diogenescynic 2y agoI'm only in my mid-30s and I still remember when local papers had actual local staff that covered local topics. Now the local paper is owned by a conglomerate and they just reprint AP/Reuters articles and have a little bit about local sports. It's a joke of what it used to be--and it hasn't been replaced by anything comparable online. It's not about disruption, this is just concentration of media.
- bediger4000 2y agoDo you live in Northern Colorado!?! Because that's the local papers here.
- diogenescynic 2y agoHaha no--Northern California, but I actually kept it generic because that's literally all local papers I've seen. All of them seem to have been bought out and homogenized to where it's actually the same local paper just being re-printed with different name and sports section.
- 2y ago
- francisofascii 2y agoWell, about 6% of Americans live in the NYC metro area. And many who don’t follow the NYT. So maybe it’s not that unexpected.
- hindsightbias 2y agoNew York City metropolitan region (metro region) is home to 23.5 million US population: 333M 23.5/333 = 0.0705
- aspenmayer 2y agoSo it's actually just over 7%? What are you trying to say?
- hindsightbias 2y agoThat the article is about nothing. 7% = 7%.
- aspenmayer 2y agoI don’t know why you think that but I don’t dispute that you found the article devoid of novelty or meaning. That aside, can you comment on the size or impact of NYT’s workforce relative to their proportion among journalists in USA or elsewhere? I don’t always agree with their framing, reporting, or the subjects thereof, but they do still publish a physical newspaper, which is a rarity these days, and one I do appreciate more than many of its peers simply for that reason. Alongside Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, it’s a harder sell, but it’s nice to have such horses for courses.
- mkpp 2y ago[flagged]