Results matching “us more job cut”

Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter has announced that it will cut between 100 and 120 jobs after sustaining multi-million euro losses, The Local reports. This amounts to almost one sixth of the newspaper's workforce.

The company employs 580 people, with half of these in the newsroom. Most of the cuts are expected to affect editorial staff, with more than a third of these set to go.

The newspaper reported losses of 97 million kronor, or around €10 million, last year. Despite this, union official Hans Arbman said that the cuts were unexpected.

In a time where newspapers seem to be losing more and more revenue, figures from Gannett Co. Inc.'s fourth quarter released today, showed potential positive results for the months ahead.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Gannett swung to a profit in the fourth quarter following $5.6 billion in prior-year write-downs. Lower declines in advertising sales combined with much lower expenses helped the newspaper publisher show improvement.

After months of much hype and speculation, Steve Jobs finally took to the stage to unveil Apple's new highly anticipated tablet computer - the iPad.

With its official introduction at an event in San Francisco yesterday, Steve Jobs has finally laid many rumors about what the electronic device can do to rest, while igniting hopes about the iPad's ability to bring new life to 'old media' and to revamp the e-reader market.
 

 

Journalists should be willing to fight for strong freedom of information and open records laws, said the president of the Associated Press in a speech on Friday.

Speaking at the Kentucky Press Association, AP president Tom Curley stressed the importance of these laws as part of the "journalistic tool kit" to help reporters access information in the public interest.

"It's vital," he said. "A strong FOIA in the hands of strong journalists with strong legal support breaks news."

Yesterday, following months of deliberation, the New York Times announced that it was to go forward with charging online, with a plan to implement a metre system in 2011. It is the biggest publisher yet to lay out paywall plans, and the move is undoubtedly highly significant for the newspaper industry as it struggles with a failing business model. Will this save the New York Times? Could it signal the end for free online content?

Similar to that used by the Financial Times, a metered payment system would allow readers to access a certain number of articles free per month, and then request payment for more: a flat fee for unlimited access. Print subscribers will continue to have free access, even those who subscribe to just the Sunday paper. An online subscription will also cover access via smartphones. The first click free from search engines, which is used by the Wall Street Journal, will also apply. More details such as pricing have been released yet, and the publisher's statement said that the next year will be used to build "a new online infrastructure designed to provide consumers with a frictionless experience across multiple platforms."

A metered system rather than a more fixed paywall has the advantage of not alienating the casual reader who can still visit the site free on occasion, and not angering journalists by blocking off specific articles (an issue with the Times' previous attempt at charging online, TimesSelect). "It allows NYTimes.com to remain a vibrant part of the search-driven Web," reads the Times memo sent to staff by executives Arthur Sulzberger and Janet Robinson, published by Poynter.

It does have potential flaws, however. Before the NYT's announcement, Reuters writer Felix Salmon criticized the way that the FT's flat fee system does not actually work like a metre: suggesting that instead the New York Times should implement a payment process under which readers are charged depending on how much content they consume. And presumably those who are determined not to pay will find ways around the paywall, using multiple accounts, for example.

The Financial Times welcomed the New York Times' decision, according to the Guardian, with CEO John Ridding saying "We welcome the New York Times' new online business model, which is similar to the FT's. We believe in the value of quality journalism and we are pleased that others feel the same way." The FT recently announced that for the first time, its content revenue was greater than its advertising revenue in 2009, after raised cover prices and more online subscribers signing on.

The FT now has 121,000 subscribers. Going by the pricing on the FT's website, it seems that they pay between €186 and €363 per year (depending on whether they choose a standard or premium subscription). Working on the assumption that about half of subscribers pay for each (and that the FT is not counting joint print-online subscribers in this figure), that would mean that the paper could be bringing in something in the region of €33 million from its paywall in direct revenue from readers. And the Wall Street Journal, which offers a different kind of paywall, has an estimated one million paying online subscribers.

This figure is encouragingly high, but how much encouragement can the NYT take from this? As a general interest paper with the most popular website out of all US papers, the Times has a far bigger pool of potential subscribers. But the FT's specialist financial content is something that more people might see as worth paying for. Indeed for some, it is news that is necessary for their business. And with the FT's main international rival the WSJ also charging, there is not an ubiquity of similar news free on the web.

The New York Times does seem to have a better shot at making charging for online content work than other US general interest newspapers. Its status as the number one national paper is largely unquestioned. It has always made a greater proportion of its revenue from content than most newspapers do, receiving 55-60% of its income from advertising compared to a typical figure of 80-85%. The current price for a print subscription is high, at between $550 and $770 a year, depending on location and offers, but many people are still prepared to pay this: more than 800,000 continue to renew their subscriptions, according to the NYT's David Carr.

Given the paper's financial situation, it is unsurprisingly that the paper is looking at changing its business model. Despite its reputation and high number of website visitors, financial constraints have pushed the New York Times into carrying out lay-offs and pay cuts. Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim came to the publisher's aid last year with a $250 million loan, but if the paper is to continue to produce top-quality journalism, it needs a steady revenue stream.

Poynter writer Rick Edmonds maintains that the NYT's decision to charge "makes business sense." He believes that the Times will not "lose any meaningful number of unique visitors," and agrees with Ken Doctor that paying users represent a significant targeting advertising opportunity. The Times' memo sent to employees said that executives expect that "digital advertising will continue to be the major contributor to our success on the Web."

Slate editor Jack Shafter is critical of the NYT's strategy, judging it "too easy for freeloaders to game their way around it" and "a waste of the gargantuan audience they've attracted." He suggests that looking into improving web advertising would be a better way to go forward. Jeff Jarvis argues on his blog BuzzMachine that the NYT's plan will end up charging "the readers who are worth the most while serving free those who are worth least," which he believes does not make sense. 

With the New York Times on board, efforts to charge online are likely to speed up. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp publications are expected to introduce paid online content in coming months, and there is an increasing sentiment that it just doesn't make sense to give away content that should be seen as valuable. Not everybody agrees, however, and over at the UK paper with the most popular website, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has said that his publication will remain free online. Others will undoubtedly stick to a similar course and provide free alternatives, making it harder for those who do charge. Which business model will eventually prove more successful? 

The French government is considering subsidies for France's number one press distribution company Presstalis, Le Figaro reports.

French Prime Minister François Fillon has assigned the delicate task to Inspector-General of Finances Bruno Mettling. He will consider the conditions under which exceptional state support could be granted.

Non-profit investigative news groups have been encountering many of the same financial difficulties as the newspapers they have been working with, according to the AP's Andrew Vanacore.

As newsrooms cut costs and staff, investigative non-profit groups like the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) have picked up where they left off, or more appropriately, what they left out. Charitable foundations and philanthropists have pumped tens of millions of dollars into these non-profit watchdogs to investigate issues like corruption and the environment, which some newsrooms lack the resources to cover.

Two American editors-in-chief have announced that they will be stepping down from their current positions. Sandra Mims Rowe, editor of The Oregonian since 1993, will be retiring from her post at the end of the year; Janet Coats, executive editor of the Tampa Tribune, will be finished on 18 December.

Rowe reportedly made her decision to retire over the Thanksgiving holiday in an altruistic attempt to spare other employees' jobs. In an email obtained by Portland-based Willamette Weekly, Rowe stated, "It became clear we would have to shed about 70 jobs total from the newsroom staff. As we have gotten much smaller as a newsroom, it is also clear we have too many editing positions concentrated at the top of the organization. Over Thanksgiving I wrestled with the number of layoffs we would need and determined it was best to start by removing my own salary from the budget. I informed [publisher N. Christian Anderson III] of my decision last week. Doing this preserves other jobs."

In an innovative project from the Netherlands, the Dutch Minister for Education, Culture and Science has managed to gain support from the Parliament for more funding for journalism.

It's not in the form of government subsidies for newspapers, though, which have been criticised by various industry insiders including media mogul Rupert Murdoch and editor Frédéric Filloux. Instead, the Dutch government will finance two-year contracts for 60 young journalists across 30 titles in the country's press, reports Media Trend.

Greenspun Media, parent of the Las Vegas Sun, has begun merging their print and online assets in the Las Vegas area. 

Kotaro Akiyama, president of Asahi Shimbun, Japan's second-largest newspaper, reassured the Financial Times that Japanese newspapers are sitting pretty and will not experience a decline like their European and North American counterparts. 

Mercedez Bunz over at MediaGuardian sums up a rising trend in the US news media market with a single word: Local. 

The Tribune's newspaper chain will go AP-free as of next week in an experiment to see if it can manage without the news feed and eventually cut back on the cost of subscribing to it altogether.

The trial period is expected to start next week (Nov 8), just over a year since Tribune Co. gave AP the required two year notice of cancellation.

The New York Times is planning to cut 100 newsroom positions by the end of the year, it was reported yesterday. Voluntary buyouts will be offered to all on Thursday and if enough people do not take them the paper will start lay-offs.

Times writer Richard Perez-Pena wrote that the 5% pay cut instigated earlier this year was intended to forestall staff reductions, but that "hopes for a year-end turnaround in the newspaper business have faded." Another round of budget cuts will be implemented on the editorial, op-ed and business sides, executive editor Bill Keller wrote in a letter to newsroom employees, published on BNOnews.com.

The rollercoaster ride has come to an end for The Boston Globe employees with the New York Times Company finally deciding against selling the newspaper. Yesterday it released a statement saying "that after careful consideration and analysis, it has terminated the process to explore the sale of The Boston Globe, Boston.com and related businesses and they will remain within the Company."

The move comes following a turbulent few months of bidding and even the possibility of closing the 137 year paper.

In a memo to employees, Chairman Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson said finances had "significantly improved": "All along, we explicitly recognized that a careful restructuring of the Globe was one possible route and, thanks to your hard work, that is precisely what has been done.

A large part of this restructing came in April when the Globe's largest union, the Newspaper Guild, approved a package of $10 million in wage and benefit cuts after the company had threatened to close the paper if $20 million in savings could not be made. Six other smaller unions representing the paper's staff had already ratified concessions totalling $10 milion.

Less than a month ago, rumours concerning the possible closure of The Observer, the world's oldest Sunday newspaper, were rife. In its annual results the Guardian Media Group, the publisher of  the Observer, Guardian and guardian.co.uk, revealed a shocking loss of £36.8m after tax. The group's executive Carolyn McCall, warned that the respective publications could not sustain the current level of losses "for the next three years."

In an about turn yesterday however, GNM quashed negative speculation with the news that The Observer would not be closed as part of the group's ongoing strategic review, and announced further integration between the editorial teams at the Guardian and Observer - both publications already having integrated sports and business desks and well as various other news "pods".

Despite all the changes affecting the news industry and its recent struggles, Europe's journalists remain upbeat. Over 80 percent are as happy or happier with their jobs, according to the 2009 European Digital Journalism Survey. And just 32 percent think their newspaper or TV or radio station is at risk of becoming extinct.

However, not all participating nationalities agreed on these and other questions. An alarming three quarters of UK journalists fear for the future of their news outlets, while two thirds foresee a significant decline in the number of print publications. This doom and gloom attitude could have something to do with a recent prediction by Enders Media that half of the UK's national and regional papers will disappear within five years.

The American newspaper publisher Gannett plans to get rid of somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 positions, according to an article in today's Wall Street Journal. The job cuts will hit the company's 80 local dailies, rather than USA Today.

Former Gannett editor and reporter Jim Hopkins had previously predicted up to 4,500 slashed jobs on his Gannett Blog. He now says there will likely be 600 actual layoffs as a result of the restructuring, naming July 8 as the axe date.

A lobbying campaign in the UK has called for the government to up the penalties for online filesharing, a practice in which over 7million UK residents regularly partake. The campaign, echoing that of the French government, takes an economical outlook, claiming that illegal filesharing is costing thousands of jobs in the UK and is denting the Kingdom's already slumping GDP. Is this a similar phenomenon to that which is causing UK and Western newspapers to shed staff at an unprecedented rate? Can newspapers, whose bottom line many consider to be suffering from digital content, learn from the plight of the music and entertainment industries affected by filesharing?

Yes and no. 

According to an investigation conducted by Princeton economists Sam Schulhofer-Wohl and Miguel Garrido, print journalists can bask in the knowledge that their work is sill important, the American Journalism Review maintains.  

The spring report, "Do Newspapers Matter? Evidence from the Closure of The Cincinnati Post" found that "even underdogs such as the Post, which had a circulation of just 27,000 when it closed - can have a substantial and measurable impact on public life."  The researchers qualify that the results are "statistically imprecise", but conclude that local newspapers have an important role in the civic life of a community.

The Baltimore Sun reports today that it has cut nearly a third of its newsroom staff as the company reorganizes. Newspapers all over the US have been making cutbacks, and while staff cuts are old news, what is different about the Sun is that it claims its cuts will not only help it survive the economic crisis but succeed in it.

Job cuts occurred in nearly every area of the Sun's newsroom, according to the Newspaper Guild, including top editors, news photographers, critics, columnists, sports reporters, copy editors, page designers, and graphic artists. A spokeswoman says 61 staffers were laid off. The Sun says the layoffs are part of an effort to restructure its newsroom.

In many cases, journalism is one of the most dangerous professions around the world. Hundreds of journalists are arrested, harassed and threatened every year. According to a World Association of Newspapers (WAN) press release, "more than 70 journalists were killed world-wide last year, at least 670 were arrested, and 125 remain in prison." Recently, Iranian-American journalist, Roxanna Saberi has been sentenced to 8 years in prison for doing her job.