100 More NYT 'Journalists' To Be Unemployed

Ohh, the humanity!

Another hundred Progressive propagandists, er..."newspeople" will be axed by the New York Times, according to the Grey Whore's own blog:

The New York Times plans to eliminate 100 newsroom jobs — about 8 percent of the total — by year’s end, offering buyouts to union and non-union employees, and resorting to layoffs if it cannot get enough people to leave voluntarily, the paper announced on Monday.

Ahh, that's a shame. How can the Taliban and al Qaeda be kept informed of American tactics, strategy, and equipment weaknesses, and who will do the heavy lifting now to move Chairman Obama's agenda forward?

More weight falling on the overworked shoulders of the Washington Post and LA Times staff, not to mention Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.

No rest for the weary.

And this tragedy is a repeat from last year, alas:

The program mirrors one carried out in the spring of 2008, when the paper erased 100 positions in its newsroom, though other jobs were created, so the net reduction was smaller. That round of cuts included some layoffs of journalists — about 15 to 20, though The Times would not disclose the actual figure — which was the first time in memory that had happened.

New York Times executive editor Bill Keller was especially grief-stricken:

Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

Damn, Keller's really got the stuff, eh? What's a few hundred thousand pathetic starvelings next to the profound loss (to the Democratic Party) of an institution like the New York Times? Those Darfur people should be happy, nay, ecstatic, to die in such a noble cause. Anybody can eat, but only a Times newsperson can create, shape, and bend the news to the further enrichment of the common good as envisioned by Progressive thinkers who know better than you.

Hey Keller, I hear Fox is hiring.

Artist's conception of New York Times circulation trends: