August 6, 2007--The Incredible Shrinking "NY Times"
As of this morning, after 156 years of continuous publication, the NY Times is one-and-a half inches narrower. Wall Street Journal size. One more inch and it will look just like the New York Post.
This is more evidence of trouble in the newspaper industry—a readership that has drifted over to the Internet or the Daily Show to get its news and is thus shrinking faster than the physical paper itself; the decline in the number of pages of advertising; and the continuing rising cost of everything, especially and including newsprint.
So why not just fess up to that and get on with it. But, no, the Times in its announcement of these changes made it sound as if nothing really is happening and regular readers will not see any significant difference in the paper or its coverage of the news.
Here’s the announcement itself, right off yesterday’s front page. See if you too can see the spin and obfuscations:
Starting Monday, The Times will reduce the width of its pages by an inch and a half, to the national 12-inch newspaper standard. The move will cut newsprint expenses and, in some printing locations, will make special configurations unnecessary. Slight modifications in design will preserve the look and texture of The Times, with all existing features and sections and somewhat fewer words per page.
The “national standard” claim is a fiction—there is none. Yes, the WSJ is now 12 inches wide but that happened a mere few months ago. I guess that’s all the time it takes nowadays to make something “standard.”
Yes, the cost to the Times of newsprint will be cut, but not revealed is the fact that the “somewhat fewer words per page” will also mean the need for fewer reporters, editors, and related staff—if I recall, 110 Times staff will be losing their jobs.
And about those fewer words—how many is “somewhat” fewer? The scientist in me forced me to do a quick comparative word count—the number of words on the front page of Sunday’s paper as opposed to today’s. Excluding pictures and headlines, on Sunday there were approximately 2,140; on Monday 1,730. So, if you’re looking for the definition of “somewhat,” now you have it.
If this cost-containment strategy doesn’t work, like the Wall Street Journal Bancroft family that just sold out to Rupert Murdoch, the Sulzberger family which still owns the Times I’m certain know where to reach Rupert.
This is more evidence of trouble in the newspaper industry—a readership that has drifted over to the Internet or the Daily Show to get its news and is thus shrinking faster than the physical paper itself; the decline in the number of pages of advertising; and the continuing rising cost of everything, especially and including newsprint.
So why not just fess up to that and get on with it. But, no, the Times in its announcement of these changes made it sound as if nothing really is happening and regular readers will not see any significant difference in the paper or its coverage of the news.
Here’s the announcement itself, right off yesterday’s front page. See if you too can see the spin and obfuscations:
Starting Monday, The Times will reduce the width of its pages by an inch and a half, to the national 12-inch newspaper standard. The move will cut newsprint expenses and, in some printing locations, will make special configurations unnecessary. Slight modifications in design will preserve the look and texture of The Times, with all existing features and sections and somewhat fewer words per page.
The “national standard” claim is a fiction—there is none. Yes, the WSJ is now 12 inches wide but that happened a mere few months ago. I guess that’s all the time it takes nowadays to make something “standard.”
Yes, the cost to the Times of newsprint will be cut, but not revealed is the fact that the “somewhat fewer words per page” will also mean the need for fewer reporters, editors, and related staff—if I recall, 110 Times staff will be losing their jobs.
And about those fewer words—how many is “somewhat” fewer? The scientist in me forced me to do a quick comparative word count—the number of words on the front page of Sunday’s paper as opposed to today’s. Excluding pictures and headlines, on Sunday there were approximately 2,140; on Monday 1,730. So, if you’re looking for the definition of “somewhat,” now you have it.
If this cost-containment strategy doesn’t work, like the Wall Street Journal Bancroft family that just sold out to Rupert Murdoch, the Sulzberger family which still owns the Times I’m certain know where to reach Rupert.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
12:11 PM
2 Comments:
Way to crunch the numbers! I submitted this post to Digg.com. Now if the Times wants to get serious about declining readership, they'll get a reporter and photographer out to Sundance to cover the Lindsay Lohan beat.
size really does matter - with the times shrinkage, the 'new' times motto should be - 'all the news that fits to print.' we really are getting closer to the apocalypse.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home