The New York Times Cuts 100; Adds Bay Area Section

(MoneyWatch)  The New York Times launched a new two-page section called "The Bay Area" this past week, and as I was preparing to critique it yesterday, the news broke that the troubled newspaper company will be eliminating another 100 jobs (or 8 percent) from its newsroom between now and the end of this year.

The Times also said recently that it has ended efforts to sell off the Boston Globe, which either means that the deep cuts enforced at that paper have been sufficient to slow down its massive flow of losses, or that no one offered The Times a decent price for the property -- or both.

In his memo announcing the impending layoffs in Manhattan yesterday, Executive Editor Bill Keller said, "Let me cut to the chase: We have been told to reduce the newsroom by 100 positions between now and the end of the year...

"I doubt that anyone is shocked by the fact of this," Keller continued, "but it is happening sooner than anyone anticipated. When we took our 5 percent pay cuts, it was in the hope that this would fend off the need for more staff cuts this year. But I accept that if it's going to happen, it should be done quickly. We will get through this and move on."

The Times has seen its stock price recover in recent months from a 52-week low of $3.44 last February up to the $8.75 range currently.

Meanwhile, it has expanded into the San Francisco region with this new section, meant to serve its second-highest pool of subscribers nationally, and perhaps exploit the continuing weaknesses of the San Francisco Chronicle, which has already cut its newsroom staff to a bare-bones level.

The problem with the New York-based paper's first two swipes at providing local coverage is that the Bay Area actually is a series of areas separated by vast bodies of water and income levels, rather than one cohesive metropolitan district.

A lead article about the Oakland police chief, for instance, contains little of interest to a resident of San Francisco. (Moreover, as Phil Bronstein points out, the article's lede bears an uncanny resemblance to one in the Chronicle two months ago. A Times editor denies any plagiarism was involved.)
Additionally, an article about one San Franciscan's favorite hill probably holds little appeal to a reader in mountainous Marin County.

Then there is the problem of covering the sprawling communities of Silicon Valley, not to mention Berkeley, or thriving East Bay communities like Fremont, with its "Little Kabul" and other lively pockets of diversity.

Then there is the largest city in the Bay Area -- San Jose.

None of which is to suggest that The Times won't get around to doing stories about all of these places in ways that appeal to the people who populate them -- it probably will.

I'm just unconvinced by the early efforts that the newspaper will be able to devote the resources necessary to do a thorough job. Historically, national coverage of the Bay Area (including by The Times) has focused on its quirky social mores and progressive politics.

These angles remain relevant here, but there is also an explosion of creativity in nearly every imaginable form that more fundamentally characterizes the region.

As for the business model that will sustain this section, The Times hopes to sell more local ads targeted at Bay Area residents. On Sunday, it sold a half-page ad touting an upcoming "One Day University" program in downtown San Francisco two weeks hence.

A partial page unit was devoted to a house ad, which promises more Bay Area coverage every Friday and Sunday from now on.