On October 18, the New York Times announced it will be cutting 100 newsroom jobs due to "industrywide declines in advertising revenue." The announcement came today from a number of sources, like this article from the Huffington Post: "New York Times To Cut 100 Newsroom Jobs." The Times has the largest staff of reporters and editors of any newspaper, but now 8 percent of jobs will be cut.
Photo Courtesy George H. Mow at AMEC Construction Management
The announcement came on the same day that David Carr, of the New York Times wrote an article about options for newsrooms to survive the current crisis. Carr's article, "A Newsroom Subsidized? Minds Reel" discusses six recommendations made by Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of the Washington Post for 17 years, and Michael Schudson, a professor at the Columbia University Journalism School, to save newsrooms. The report is called, "The Reconstruction of American Journalism" which they say is necessary since, "the current advertising model won't continue to support the so-called accountability of journalism."
A shocking statistic brings light to just how bad a turn newsrooms have taken: in 1971 there were 40,000 newspaper editorial employees in the United States. Now, almost 40 years later and after newsroom positions reached 60,000 in 1992, newspaper editorial employee numbers are "back to 40,000 in 2009, with no real bottom in sight."
Because newspapers can't earn the same amount of money from advertising on the web as in print, profits are nonexistent and more and more people are unsubscribing, instead turning to the web for free news.
That's why Downie and Schudson propose these six solutions:
1. tinker with the tax structure to accommodate nonprofit status for news-gathering organizations
2. persuade philanthropic foundations to fill the funding gap in more permanent ways
3. involve universities in news gathering
4. open up databases to make them more useful for both pro and pro-am efforts
5. reorienting public radio and television to provide local news
6. government could fund local news
The last two suggestions are the most shocking to me, while the idea of involving universities in the news gathering process seems like a pretty solid idea. I know firsthand that journalism students are eager and competitive. Even though the numbers show we may not have jobs to apply for when we graduate, journalism remains a desirable major full of passionate students. Upper level students could compete for internships that would allow them a more hands-on experience than some internships offer. Instead of getting coffee and simply witnessing, student interns could serve as real, temporary employees, working for free but trying to impress the newsroom for a chance at one of the rare available jobs. This is similar to the competition that already exists, but newsrooms would be able to select candidates based on their samples and could work with them for a semester or even a year, instead of just a summer. Real-world experience is extremely valuable for the student and the employer would benefit too by getting essentially free labor.
Students in the newsroom could work for both the print medium and the broadcast medium. I think this option is a lot better than having the government financially support local broadcast news, even if Downie says, "it can be done with safeguards to ensure that the government doesn't become the yard boss of what constitutes worthy news."
A shocking statistic brings light to just how bad a turn newsrooms have taken: in 1971 there were 40,000 newspaper editorial employees in the United States. Now, almost 40 years later and after newsroom positions reached 60,000 in 1992, newspaper editorial employee numbers are "back to 40,000 in 2009, with no real bottom in sight."
Because newspapers can't earn the same amount of money from advertising on the web as in print, profits are nonexistent and more and more people are unsubscribing, instead turning to the web for free news.
That's why Downie and Schudson propose these six solutions:
1. tinker with the tax structure to accommodate nonprofit status for news-gathering organizations
2. persuade philanthropic foundations to fill the funding gap in more permanent ways
3. involve universities in news gathering
4. open up databases to make them more useful for both pro and pro-am efforts
5. reorienting public radio and television to provide local news
6. government could fund local news
The last two suggestions are the most shocking to me, while the idea of involving universities in the news gathering process seems like a pretty solid idea. I know firsthand that journalism students are eager and competitive. Even though the numbers show we may not have jobs to apply for when we graduate, journalism remains a desirable major full of passionate students. Upper level students could compete for internships that would allow them a more hands-on experience than some internships offer. Instead of getting coffee and simply witnessing, student interns could serve as real, temporary employees, working for free but trying to impress the newsroom for a chance at one of the rare available jobs. This is similar to the competition that already exists, but newsrooms would be able to select candidates based on their samples and could work with them for a semester or even a year, instead of just a summer. Real-world experience is extremely valuable for the student and the employer would benefit too by getting essentially free labor.
Students in the newsroom could work for both the print medium and the broadcast medium. I think this option is a lot better than having the government financially support local broadcast news, even if Downie says, "it can be done with safeguards to ensure that the government doesn't become the yard boss of what constitutes worthy news."