DISQUS

IM_ASL · 3 months ago

It is simple economics: the application of the 80/20 principle might dictate that 80 % of the real (valuable) work is done by only 20% of the staff. That would allow you to infer that that other 80% of that staff are, at best, producing work that contributes to (in the case of the NYTimes) a fairly sizable net loss.

So, as print declines does it make sense to support those that are not contributing to the success of the organization?

benjaminjtaylor · 3 months ago

That story on TechCrunch was factually inaccurate. Not surprising. While it was good to see a post on TC not bashing “journalism” and throwing it in the “Old Media” garbage can media publications in the vein of TC do a horrible job of accurate reporting - i.e fact checking . At best the comparison between the New York Times and Tech Crunch as a business model is an audacious attempt at finger pointing “we have it right, you have it wrong”. The cost of doing business for the NY Times goes beyond the desk, surfing the web. Fact checking, thorough research, in depth analysis, interviews from multiple sources, on the ground news reporting to begin with for example costs money. Their "Look, I sent you a link! Oh, well I sent you a link too! That's great, we're journalists!" approach works for TMZ style reporting and keeps the cost overhead low. But it’s not journalism.

Just look at the numbers on the surface. Where do they get that $10/$12 million number from? You can pull more accurate data on benefits from any number of sources. Try the US Department of Labor, benefits account anywhere from %30-%40 percent depending on the source, 30.3% from the US DOL. You can say the low end puts you at 13+m and the high at 14m - big deal what’s a million or two.

Secondly, they failed to include in depth contextual breakdown of the number of employees at the Times. I’m sure the writer/reporter to editor ratio is higher at the NYT than most people would expect, perhaps even bloated, but to throw numbers around and cost breakdowns based on top level numbers (comscore/earnings reports etc) is just irresponsible “journalism”. Of course, as in the case with most of their articles perhaps they assume their readers have that information handy. One might argue to the contrary based on Arrington’s own “painfully easy” note in the comments (hilarious BTW) section.

BTW – this jest of this comment went on the TC comment section too. And on that note, I’ll say one good thing about TC, aside from their speed to market and how much they cover (impressive by any standard) they rarely censor/remove negative comments criticizing the TC brand. I can’t say the same thing about a lot of online publications, that includes the New York Times.

Anthony Ha · 3 months ago

Good points, Ben, especially that comparing TechCrunch's model with the NYT's is fraught with problems. That said, I do think that they have a really strong editorial team, and despite some mistakes, I haven't seen evidence of the consistent inaccuracy/reporting shoddiness that some people seem eager to attribute to them.

(Also, just to be clear, since it looks like you commented after checking out the TC article, this post isn't really about the TC article -- since Arrington hadn't published it when I wrote this -- but rather a summary of his remarks at a conference.)

benjaminjtaylor · 3 months ago

You are correct Anthony. My commentary was on the TC article, as I understand the post, an extension of Arrington's comments at AlwaysOn. In terms of mistakes as an avid reader, I don't believe there are chronic issues with inaccuracy in their reporting, (mistakes that's a given and well documented) but rather, to my point in comparing TC to the NYT, the added value of providing deep contextual meaning, and the inherent cost of that process in journalism.