Signs of The Times

If the New York Times is the indicator of the health of our industry, falling ad revenues are sign that the worst is yet to come. No paper is immune to the decline in both readership and economic health the country is experiencing. Just a few years ago, it seemed all people wanted to talk about was how to get more individuals to read the news. Now the Internet has provided us with all the news we can swallow, but the discussion has turned to how to keep the news that is important coming.

A talk at the newspaper I am interning at yesterday announced a buy-out for retirement age workers in an attempt to reduce payroll costs. The paper simply can't sustain the cost to revenue ratio, like many others have already found. It was somewhat surprising to me that this was the first talk that had been given, the first offer to retirement age or almost retirement age employees to leave their posts for sunnier climates.

More news: Hurray?

So Vanity Fair examined the New York Times to see whether there have been equal amounts of space devoted to news over the years. For the author, the outcome was surprising, but for this journalist, it wasn't.

Vanity Fair found the Times devotes more space to news content in the A section now than it did 10 years ago. Although the blog alludes to the cause, burgeoning advertising revenue, it fails to comment on how this reflects the larger picture. Newspapers are competing for ad dollars more and more, and the threat to the newspaper ever looms. How do we afford to pay for those important journalistic endeavors?

Few papers have overseas correspondents anymore. I used to dream of writing stories that mattered about people in other countries, now I have few hopes of realizing that dream, unless working for a foreign paper. This brings me back to the idea that if more newspapers were non-profits, then the pressure to make money would be lessened and the ability to spend money to get stories to make a difference would increase.