It is hard to feel sympathy for these news organizations that forget the golden rules of commerce – if you stop adding value your audience will consume elsewhere, Someone told me the other week that NYT subscriptions had soared. If indeed that was the case then why is the paper looking to junk half its editorial staff? Running the idea that free media is hurting advertising revenues and that shame on the paper for having to make rational business decisions. Free media might be part of the equation but had the NY Times stopped congratulating its self appraised excellence in bus shelters and billboards realized that its journalism was the problem perhaps they might be expanding the kind of readership its advertisers would pay up for. Has the NYT not realized that the exposure of media outlets like CNN droning endlessly on about Russia-gate being a total fabrication for ratings is why trust in mainstream media is lower that the President?
The actions of the NY Times staff smacks of the same stupidity of the Sydney Morning Herald which has had to take two massive rounds of lay-offs inside a year because the product isn’t reaching. The SMH staff took a vote to strike at their evil overlords who put profit ahead of people. Welcome to the free market. When one journalist at the SMH became a scab (because he admitted the problem) he was vilified by his fellow workers. Biased in and biased out. Think of Channel 10 in Australia which is now under administration. Could it be the product that is not reaching? Could it be a lack of creativity or diversity in content (as opposed to diversity of background).
The NY Times does deserve credit though for trying to introduce balance to its columns with the introduction of a ‘climate sceptic’ (Bret Stevens) whose first article created such ructions that social media lit up like a Christmas tree – calling for his sacking and how the NY Times betrayed its loyal readers. Instead of praising the NY Times for trying to bring balance and diversity of thought into the mix, the group thinkers could only try to shut him down. It is exactly that type of reaction that will precipitate the demise of the paper. To be honest, when you read articles, journals, books or watch TV don’t you wish to learn other perspectives. Or do you want to listen to the same noise reverberating inside your own echo chamber?
It is natural to feel fear in the face of difficult times but staging protests only has the reverse effect. It is doubtful that management relishes having to retrench so many. However these people should live in the knowledge that management’s failure to turn around this wayward ship will result in their bosses’ necks. Instead of solutions, proposals and most importantly recognition of a failing product, they’ve chosen to be victims not agents. Ironically at the moment NYT’s shareholders are behind management with the stock price up 50% YTD.