Why NYmag's decision to cut pay, keep staff writers is a good one.

We've all seen the headlines.

"Editor Bob Jones laid off." "Conde Nast freezes salaries." "NYTimes lays off staffers."

It's a tough time to be in the publishing industry, whatever the medium.

It's easy to hate on management for this, since they're the ones throwing the switch. Yet the most responsible (public) handling of the economic crisis yet by a media company has been that of New York magazine's, who decided to keep the money flowing toward its dedicated staff, rather than cutting it off.

It's not as much of a cost-saving move, but to the staff writers who were affected, it's everything. It's a job, albeit not enough of one, in an expensive city. It's the opportunity not to serve lattes while you're planning out your next freelance pitch. It's a safety net. Some money will come in.

At least some money will come in.

It's tough being cut if you're editorial. Your job is to create a publication, not sell ads. Sure, what you produce shouldn't be ad-averse, but when the sales side doesn't make enough cash, you're just as much at risk as they are of termination. And that's a tough pill to swallow, especially when (with a global recession) the whole thing is out of their hands, too.

So I commend New York for hanging in there. It's not a popular move from the top -- hell, if they weren't a private company, they probably wouldn't have been able to make such a move -- but to a writer, it's an incredible display of understanding.

You will continue to receive some sort of paycheck. You will continue to have your work published under our notable masthead somehow.

So owner Bruce Wasserstein, editor-in-chief Adam Moss, managing editor Ann Clarke, and whoever else was involved in the discussion, you've shown considerable tact in this move. Everyone expects something to happen, and everyone hopes it isn't them who is affected, but this is saving a lot of face in a lot of places -- even if it's a small staff to begin with.

(It should be noted that not everyone made it this year: there were a handful of layoffs in December, including senior editor Jesse Oxfeld and restaurant critic Gael Greene.)

When every publication in New York City is fighting for the best talent, it's also a good way to keep it in house. I'm continually impressed at the quality of magazine that staff puts out each week (!). Here's hoping keeping most people on board will continue that trend.

Twitterverse: Layoffs at NPR

Twitter's themediaisdying reported that NPR laid off 65 people by the end of the day today, and here it is documented on the site via The Editorialiste's Twitter feed:



Thirty-four staffers were cut from news, but no cuts were made to digital media staffers, according to the report.

Either way, it's strange to see it happen in real time -- notice in the picture that the updates were just a minute apart.

A sad, sad day.

Investing In The Future: Papers, Fellowships and The Great Detente

You know what bothers me?

Headlines like this: "Fewer Journalists Seeking Fellowships."

You know why that bothers me?

Because it seems to me that fellowships are nothing but a good thing for the right journalist. And it's sad that the drop in applications is a direct result of nationwide layoffs.

Why? Irony. Isn't it ironic that a reporter would take a fellowship to better his reporting and editing -- you know, so that it's good for the company and benefits them in the long-term -- and then he or she lose his job at his paper?

Angel Jennings of the Times reports:

The decline comes as many newsrooms are scaling back through buyouts and job cuts in response to declines in revenue as many readers turn to the Internet. Some in academia wonder if journalists are staying put to avoid losing their jobs.

It continues:

Stanford did not receive any applications from employees at The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and some other large newspapers.

“Journalists are afraid for their jobs,” said Alex S. Jones, the director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard. “They are afraid that if the newspaper can go on without them for a year, their job might be in jeopardy.”

This kills me. Many employers across the country have programs that allow their employees to earn a degree on the company's tab if it is proven that it will help the company by helping that employee do his or her job better. That's the deal, right?

But then what if that employer terminates the employee just after he or she receives their degree? Isn't that an extremely bad choice, financially and morally (but we'll suspend morality for a moment, since we're talking about large organizations here)? What good is it to spend the money helping an employee that you're about to release to your competitors? Employees who invest in their employees should promise a return.

A fellowship is very much in the same vein. Only this time, it seems journalists are too scared to leave. They won't go for their 'degree' because they wager that the experience -- that is, the time away from the desk -- will be a more negative effect than positive, resulting in a loss of a job.

I don't know what's more depressing: The fact that journalists are too scared to have the confidence to prove that they're better (after the fellowship) than what a publication could hire, or the fact that their lack of applications to the programs displays a weakening confidence in the programs themselves -- that is, that these fellowships couldn't possibly be essential or important enough to warrant risking a job.

Or worse: That there's a very real possibility that a major publication like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times or Chicago Tribune would actually go back on their investment and fire their newly-educated reporter, instead spending the time and money hiring a less-experienced journalist.

The lack of confidence in such education is worrying.