June 30, 2017
New York Times employees are revolting against coming layoffs.
But where is the complaint?
Protesting layoffs makes sense in situations where there are layoffs due to outsourcing or government regulation.
But how do you protest layoffs when they are happening because the company is hemorrhaging money and simply cannot afford to maintain a staff this size?
The market exists.
What are they asking for?
That the New York Times – a private company – maintains a make-work program for them?
The only leverage they have is making a big embarrassing scene for the company and they’re blowing that leverage – I guess just for revenge?
In a show of solidarity, employees of The New York Times walked out of their office on Thursday to protest layoffs expected to hit the paper’s copy desk.
As part of a 15-minute walkout dubbed a “collective coffee break” by their union, dozens of Times employees facing layoffs and their colleagues marched around the historic paper’s building, chanting,“They say cutbacks, we say fight back!” and “No editors, no piece!”
That’s a great chant.
Though it isn’t true.
For example, this was on the top of the Daily Stormer, and seen by over 100,000 people yesterday.
But the piece was still there.
So a piece can exist without an editor.
Several Times employees told HuffPost that 109 copy editors were offered buyouts as part of a company plan to cut copy desk staff down to as few as 50 people. That revelation ― along with a bizarre interview process, labeled “death panels” by employees, in which copy editors were reportedly forced to justify their continued employment ― led the desk to fire back at the company in an open letter to Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Joe Kahn on Wednesday:
“You turned your backs on us,” the letter read.
“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.”
Well, this is a helluva lot more embarrassing than my ongoing headline typo crisis. I can tell you that.
The Daily Stormer is on the up and up, despite not having an editor. We’re going to get one, I can tell you that.
The buyout window closes on July 20, after which layoffs are expected. Employees who decide not to take a buyout will have an opportunity to apply for other jobs within the company, staffers confirmed with HuffPost. Those applying for other jobs will be interviewed, but it isn’t clear how many jobs are available to them.
Susan Guerrero, 67, a 17-year veteran of the copy desk, told HuffPost that she’s taking a buyout offer.
“I don’t like the direction this paper is heading, and if they do what they say they’re going to, I’d be miserable.”
Outside the Times building, Guerrero painted a picture of a newsroom that had lost its morale.
Other employees are “very down and very humiliated and demoralized,” she said. But she celebrated camaraderie the rest of the staff is showing this week.
That feels so, so, so good.
HuffPo closes their article by putting the NYT walkout in perspective.
Layoffs at the Times conclude a month of sweeping cuts across the media industry and signal that the plight of shrinking newsrooms is far from over.
News website Vocativ saw its entire editorial staff cut earlier this month. Time Inc. announced that it would cut 300 staffers from its worldwide force. Here at HuffPost, 39 union members were laid off, alongside about 2,100 other employees, as part HuffPost parent company Verizon’s acquisition of Yahoo. Fox Sports was expected to lose 20 writers as the company transitions to video.
And that’s just in June. Many of the companies listed above ― including the Times ― promised to grow their way out of their problems and make new hires in the near future. But as writing and copy editing positions make way for video opportunities, the field of play for journalists is shrinking.
This is the situation.
The entire online print media is in a state of full-collapse.
The biggest part of it is the credibility crisis that their war on Trump has created.
They will lie to you about that, and say that it has to do with adblock software and the fundamental difficulties with profiting as a media company in the internet age.
That’s part of it, of course, but the reason they can save that with subscription services is that they have blown all good faith. Nobody is going to pay to be lied to.
The fact of the matter is that Infowars has more good faith per regular reader than NYT. Breitbart is directly competing with them now in terms of traffic, and is certainly more trusted by their readership than the Times is trusted by theirs.
Alexa rankings have been known to be manipulated by the company itself, and NYT is almost certainly faking traffic. It is very possible that Breitbart and the New York Times have roughly the same amount of readers, and certainly, the readership of Breitbart is much more likely to support the company if asked to do so in various ways.
The internet has created a meritocracy where trust in media is valuable.
It isn’t a true meritocracy, because I’m not allowed to compete, being strangled by a lack of ability to collect income, relying solely on people who take the time to either send in checks/cash or use bitcoin (which we appreciate, and which you can find out how to do here). I raged about this recently.
Along with blocking all of my revenue, they are also attempting to strangle Breitbart via ad revenue attacks. I believe the SPLC is probably involved with these threats against ad companies.
But the trend is clear: the old Jew-run establishment media is collapsing right in front of us, in real time, while the alternative media rises like a forest fire.
And readership is a zero-sum game. The amount of media people consume is dependent exclusively on social factors outside of any media outlet’s control. You can only win by taking someone else’s audience, by producing a better product.
And when you’re exposed as fake news – caught simply making things up, repeatedly, as the NYT and CNN in particular have been in 2017 – the appeal of your product has been severely limited.
The Daily Stormer has, I believe, made it over the hump. And we are the type of media that has a sustainable model for the future, because we are liked by a very large portion of our readers.
Everything’s coming up daisies.
I swear to you all that some day I will own the New York Times building.
And I’m putting a swastika on the front of it.