posted March 10, 2006 01:22 PM            

Published: March 10, 2006 10:55 AM ET

NEW YORK The Washington Post plans to cut at least 80 newsroom jobs through attrition and buyouts, according to sources at the paper who said editors began giving staffers the bad news on Thursday in meetings and continued today.

"My understanding is that the editors and managing editors brought this up with other issues of downsizing, but with no layoffs," said one source in the metro staff, which got first word of the news in a meeting Thursday. "It looks like through attrition and buyouts."

A source in the national staff said a meeting was held this morning to give them the bad news, with similar gatherings throughout the day. "Eighty through attrition and buyouts," the source said. "They are going staff by staff."

The paper has more than 800 editorial employees, many represented by the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild. Rick Weiss, a Post reporter and Guild unit chair at the paper, could not be reached for comment this morning.

Another national staff writer, who attended this morning's meeting, said editors raised the issue of travel costs as well, saying the paper would continue to travel with major government figures, but hinting that other travel may be curtailed. The reporter said people were unsurprised by the announcement. "There was no slash and burn, no doom and gloom," the source said. "They said the model is changing."

Other cost cuts also are being rumored, including the eventual closing of at least two foreign bureaus and changes to some other overseas bureaus that would have staffers working out of their homes.

Sources said editors explained that some of the foreign cuts were the result of high costs covering the Iraq war, up to $1 million per year. But they stressed that war coverage would not be reduced, at least for the moment.

Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and Publisher Bo Jones did not return calls from E&P seeking comment.

posted March 10, 2006 02:43 PM            

Oh, I think it supports my position perfectly when 10% of a newsroom staff is axed....not to mention 72,000 in other news operations since 2000.

posted March 10, 2006 05:40 PM            

UPDATE: 'Wash Post' Publisher Explains Plan as Guild Criticizes Job Cuts

By Joe Strupp

Published: March 10, 2006 1:41 PM ET

NEW YORK The Washington Post's top Newspaper Guild leader said today the paper's plan to cut at least 80 newsroom jobs will make it tougher to cover news, especially with the Post's expanding multimedia approach. E&P first reported the cutbacks this morning.

Late this afternoon, Publisher Bo Jones distributed a memo (first posted on the Romenesko site), which reads:

"This Spring The Post is planning to offer voluntary retirement incentive programs in the News, Commercial, and Production Departments. The details of these programs are still being worked out, and we will let you know when they are finalized. They will cover certain exempt staff and certain Guild-covered employees.

"The upcoming retirement incentive programs are voluntary and will be designed to allow employees – basically those whose functions will not have to be replaced or can be reassigned -- to retire this year with enhanced retirement benefits. They will be offered selectively, only where the newspaper can save costs. These programs do not involve layoffs.

"We've offered retirement incentive programs to employees from time to time in the past to reduce staffing when conditions warranted it. During the past year newspaper revenues have flattened while expenses – particularly newsprint – have continued to rise. Departments have always adjusted their staffing to meet reader needs and business conditions, as we are doing now.

"The Post is a very strong newspaper today. We will continue to approach staffing here in ways that serve the newspaper's basic goals. Those goals are to extend the quality of the newspaper's journalism, to grow readership and advertising revenues, and to help the website in ways we can."

Earlier in the day, a guild leader had expressed worries.

"One concern is that the fewer of us there are, the harder it is to accomplish the core mission of reporting and writing the tough, accountability story," said Rick Weiss, co-chair of the Post's unit of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, which represents about 600 of the paper's 800 newsroom staffers. "It is going to have a negative impact on the quantity and quality of journalism we can do."

But the Post's effort in recent years to expand Web content, television and cable appearances, and a new deal with a local radio station to provide content will affect the job-cutting impact even more, Weiss said.

"There is also a concern about the multimedia newsroom and the expectation that we will all be increasingly contributing to TV, radio, and the Web site," Weiss, a science reporter, added. "My concern there is that all of these platforms are derivatives of the newsroom. They are rehashing the news that we are generating as reporters."

Weiss' comments followed reports that the paper planned to cut at least 80 editorial jobs through attrition and buyouts, but likely with no layoffs, during the next year. Editors began revealing those plans in meetings with news departments on Thursday, which continued today. Weiss said the buyout offers would be similar to those made about two years ago that resulted in 55 newsroom staffers leaving, but had yet to receive specific information.

"Some of it will be from not filling slots that are vacant and [cutting] some part-timers, especially copy editors," Weiss revealed after attending a meeting of newsroom employees this morning with Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr and other editors. "Len said there will be no layoffs, so it is not the kind of bad news other papers are getting."

Other cost savings also being discussed at the meetings included likely travel cutbacks and foreign-bureau spending reductions, but little if any impact on Iraq War coverage.

Weiss believed Downie, Jones, and Donald Graham, chairman of The Washington Post Co., remained committed to good journalism and described their approach as better than many other newspaper companies. "I believe they actually care about journalism as much as they care about the bottom line," he said. "They are not motivated by demands for unrealistic profit margins."

Still, Weiss stressed the impact that having to serve so many media outlets, from web to radio, will have on staffers once the cuts are made. "The more time I spend blogging, doing radio shows and TV spots, the less time I have to generate the news that everyone wants," he said. "They are counting on reporters, editors and columnists to fill a lot of airtime."
__________________________________________

posted March 10, 2006 05:41 PM            

Report: Job cuts in Washington Post newsroom
Washington Business Journal - 2:17 PM EST Fridayby Jeff ClabaughStaff Reporter
The Washington Post is cutting 80 newsroom jobs, or about 10 percent of its editorial staff, according to a published report.

Trade publication Editor & Publisher disclosed the cuts on its Website Friday, citing newspaper sources.

Post spokesman Eric Grant wasn't immediately available to confirm the report.

Operating income at the Post's newspaper division fell 12 percent in 2005, and its Sunday circulation fell below 1 million. The paper blamed the decline in newspaper earnings in part on increased pension and payroll costs.

The Post (NYSE WPO) still posted nearly $3.6 billion in 2005 revenue because a strong performance at its Kaplan Education division helped offset soft newspaper results.

Editor & Publisher says the jobs will be eliminated through buyouts and attrition. It cites Post employees who attended meetings as saying other cost-cutting moves are being discussed, including curtailing travel expenses and the possible closing of foreign bureaus.

posted March 10, 2006 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

During the past year newspaper revenues have flattened while expenses – particularly newsprint – have continued to rise. Departments have always adjusted their staffing to meet reader needs and business conditions, as we are doing now.

---

quote:

---

"Some of it will be from not filling slots that are vacant and [cutting] some part-timers, especially copy editors," Weiss revealed after attending a meeting of newsroom employees this morning with Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr and other editors. "Len said there will be no layoffs, so it is not the kind of bad news other papers are getting."

Other cost savings also being discussed at the meetings included likely travel cutbacks and foreign-bureau spending reductions, but little if any impact on Iraq War coverage.

---

quote:

---

Operating income at the Post's newspaper division fell 12 percent in 2005, and its Sunday circulation fell below 1 million. The paper blamed the decline in newspaper earnings in part on increased pension and payroll costs.

---

It's not nearly as bad as you're trying to portray. Overhead costs are increasing while their income is flattening. Hardly cause for alarm, and certainly no indication that they are going anywhere.

Like I've pointed out many times before, the internet is changing the face of the news. Print papers like the Post are having to adjust. (Pew agrees with this assessment if you've read any of the other press related polls).

posted March 11, 2006 10:03 PM            

No, that won’t be an April Fool’s Day prank by The New York Times. I’m told that, on April 1st, the Grey Lady is planning to drop its Monday-through-Friday stock listings and to replace them with some kind of new web access.

In the paper will be a very limited 1 1/2 pages, trimming those thousands of stock tables to just hundreds. Plans are being finalized what to do on the weekends.

Newspaper industry sources tell me that this could represent a $10 million savings to the NYT in newsprint costs and editorial space: ”The way for papers to save money short of getting rid of people is to get rid of stock pages.”

For years, the nation’s 900+ newspapers have run the AP’s stock tables, so the trend is going to hurt non-profit AP’s revenues. In the past month alone, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, and the Denver Post are just some of the papers that have eliminated their stock listings.

posted March 12, 2006 12:05 AM              

would that mean that on Monday April 3 there would be a huge amount of extra interent users..what would that do?

or, hopefully this is an April Fools joke?

posted April 03, 2006 01:41 PM            

Some here have argued that the NY Times doesn't have a structural problem...i.e., credibility problems because of their lying in print about everything under the sun. The earnings numbers, falling circulation and falling advertising rates and declining advertisers tell a far different story; and that story is that about 80% of respondents don't believe "most" of what the NY Times prints, don't buy their paper or see their advertisers messages.

Monday, April 3, 2006 1:03 p.m. EDT
Cramer: N.Y. Times Should Go 'All-Digital'

The New York Times Company is about to report another disappointing quarter, but an industry analyst believes there’s hope yet that the Gray Lady can cure its financial woes – by going completely digital.

In January the company said its fourth-quarter earnings had plunged 41 percent from the same period a year ago, dropping from $110.2 million to $64.8 million.

Its stock is down 30 percent in the last year and 50 percent from three years ago, and has been the worst-performing newspaper stock in the U.S. for the past five years, James J. Cramer, co-founder of TheStreet.com, writes in New York Magazine.

Now that the Times is dropping its stock-market tables to save on newsprint costs and drive traffic to its Web site, Cramer thinks the paper shouldn’t stop there.

The Times, he writes, "should go all-digital. It should abandon newsprint and force everyone to the Web.”
The Times could use its About.com division, which it bought for $410 million last year, and customize content for individual readers, Cramer suggests.

"The Web is not just better for stock quotes, it is better for everything,” he reports, noting that Web ad rates are soaring.

The move to digital would come "on an era when anyone younger than 30 doesn’t want” to read newspapers, according to Cramer. "The next generation wants it on PC … certainly not on newsprint.”

posted April 04, 2006 12:29 AM            

Too many people simply don't believe them any more and won't buy their paper. Advertisers go where the reader are to get their ads in front of potential buyers and that's not the NY Times, not any more.