Robinson exit to cost New York Times over $15 million

Comments (55)
davegriffith wrote:

Who says journalism doesn’t pay!

Dec 21, 2011 6:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

“Janet Robinson, who will step down as chief executive of the New York Times Co on December 31, will receive an exit package in excess of $15 million…”

And newspapers wonder why they’re going broke. Spending what little revenue they have to make multi-millionaires out of a handful of mediocre managers…. and then cutting back in services everywhere else…. is not sustainable in banking and it’s not sustainable in newspapers. You’re either in real business or you’re in the golden parachute business. But you don’t stay in both for long.

Dec 21, 2011 6:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harnes wrote:

How many reporter jobs are being eliminated to help pay for this golden parachute?

Dec 22, 2011 8:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
cebva wrote:

Liberals at the NYT should be happy to pay such a generous severance package. They want every other company to take care of their rejects, has-beens and downtrodden. Only fair the NYT should do the same.

Dec 22, 2011 8:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
dogsrule wrote:

I am sure she is going to give some of that to the 99%ers right? Also she will probably pay more in her taxes because that would be only fair right?

Dec 22, 2011 8:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
ladyluck wrote:

Unbelievable….only 28 years and massive failure and this woman gets a nearly 12 million dollar pension? Something is radically wrong here! No wonder the NY Times is going out of business…pretending to care about the poor while grossly overpaying their friends and family.

Dec 22, 2011 9:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
AbuTalib wrote:

And they say they say the 1%ers are not fat, happy and uber RICH. Only Liberals and Socialits are given $15 million + for failure. Much like Solyndra, BOA, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Tim Geitner, Franklin Raines etc.. And what do they give back – crap talk about what others should pay as their “fair share”. Tjhe government should confiscate this money for her and feed the poor, house the homeless and provide StarBucks coffee to Occupy!

Dec 22, 2011 9:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
barrydevil wrote:

$15 million for turning the one great Newspaper into a liberal, anti-military rag, and running it into bankruptcy. Sounds like a resume only a democrat would love,

Dec 22, 2011 9:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rogue1 wrote:

Seems most here missed the point.. 80% stock price decline, 25% this year? Just like Immelt with GE and many other companies. The board and major stock holders are obviously more interested in ideology than the truth and their fiduciary responsibilities to the stock holders.,, or was the reason she was allowed to remain during this slide that they were afraid of the bad press (pun intended) if they canned a woman (shades of Fiorino/HP)?

Dec 22, 2011 9:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
Casperini wrote:

Amazing. Only in a Liberal’s world does this kind of ridiculous behavior exist. A microcosm of what is wrong with the Liberal brain. This type of thinking and behavior is precisely how we got in this jackpot in the first place! This proves, once and for all,just how sick our Liberals minds are! These jerks are allowed to walk among us!

Dec 22, 2011 9:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
bittercynic wrote:

I love good news. And we get so little of it from the NYT.

Dec 22, 2011 9:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
0359gc wrote:

Does this make her a 1%er? Why no OWS protests at the Times.

Dec 22, 2011 9:45am EST  --  Report as abuse

As the Fishwrap of Record slouches deeper into the muck of irrelevance…

Dec 22, 2011 9:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dancro wrote:

Are you nuts? Your company is going broke and you’re handing out retirement packages that you can’t afford? Now if this goofy woman actually brought or created some value at your raggedy ass paper then you might be justified in helping her toward the door. Pinko, communists like her is why your rag is going down the commode. Oh I know….your paper has carried so much of the Democrats dirty water over the years that you think that you’re going to get bailed out??????

Dec 22, 2011 9:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
studakota wrote:

Take your leftist rag to a socialist country where you’ll be more welcome. Try Venezuela, or your favorite, Cuba.

Dec 22, 2011 10:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
HuskerFan wrote:

Back in the day news reporters actually reported the news.But now they do everything within there power to indoctrinate the public to their socialist beliefs.And people are starting to realize this.Especially after the election of o bozo and the effort of reelection.Therefore revenue is down and people in charge are forced out.

Dec 22, 2011 10:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
nftdnotes wrote:

What could she possibly do that’s worth so much money while around the world people go hungry?

Dec 22, 2011 10:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
judester wrote:

Katie Couric makes 15 million a year poking fun at CEO’s making a couple of a million bonus, so what?

Dec 22, 2011 10:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
virginianick wrote:

NYT spends like the federal government. Readership and subscriptions are down so one would have to assume revenues are down. But they’ll still pay her in excess of 15 million. So lets see here, she’s a liberal who’s part of the evil 1%. Does the liberal media portray that? Of course not.

Dec 22, 2011 10:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
sss12 wrote:

Being a good liberal I think she should pay 95% of her unfound and undeserved bonus to the Federal Government. She has more than is fair. Occupy, rise up and march in front of the NYT building stressing that the 99% deserve 95% of the $15 million.

Dec 22, 2011 11:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Carlyle_ny wrote:

Most people put in 50 years of service and get … Social Security.

Dec 22, 2011 11:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
dmxj599Y wrote:

And Occupy Wall Street wants to blame the wealthy who actually produce instead of the bloodsuckers like this lady who managed the paper into total decline and obvious liberal bias throughout? Go figure.

Dec 22, 2011 11:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
digitus wrote:

She is officially a 1 per center.

Dec 22, 2011 11:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
Cogs wrote:

What is she, a Wall Street banker?

Dec 22, 2011 11:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

Come on people! With a face like that she better have a ton of money to keep up the appearence of having at least one friend!

;0)

Dec 22, 2011 11:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jay1832 wrote:

I could be wrong but I think that makes her a 1%……The marchers should show up at her house and let her know how they feel about it :)

Dec 22, 2011 11:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
califkid wrote:

Isn’t this the same liberal rag that has editorials about other big corporations gm’s getting big bonus’s ,, what hypociites , who reads that rag?

Dec 22, 2011 11:58am EST  --  Report as abuse

who cares.
My mother reads the New York Times, the only person I know who subscribes.
She’s 84

Dec 22, 2011 12:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
virginianick wrote:

NYT spends like the federal government. Readership and subscriptions are down so one would have to assume revenues are down. But they’ll still pay her in excess of 15 million. So lets see here, she’s a liberal who’s part of the evil 1%. Does the liberal media portray that? Of course not.

Dec 22, 2011 12:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gorbud wrote:

The New York Times has a business section. They should take their own counsel. Don’t give her anything other then what she is legally entitled to receive. What is with the big sendoff packages? All at shareholders expense. They will be out of business before you know it. Shareholders and speculators (short sellers) will drive them out of the market and they will be bought by Fox News. What a laugh. Fox bought the WSJ, another poorly run operation. BTW the Democratic Party could buy it but they already run their political reporting so why bother.

Dec 22, 2011 12:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gorbud wrote:

The New York Times has a business section. They should take their own counsel. Don’t give her anything other then what she is legally entitled to receive. What is with the big sendoff packages? All at shareholders expense. They will be out of business before you know it. Shareholders and speculators (short sellers) will drive them out of the market and they will be bought by Fox News. What a laugh. Fox bought the WSJ, another poorly run operation. BTW the Democratic Party could buy it but they already run their political reporting so why bother.

Dec 22, 2011 12:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gorbud wrote:

The New York Times has a business section. They should take their own counsel. Don’t give her anything other then what she is legally entitled to receive. What is with the big sendoff packages? All at shareholders expense. They will be out of business before you know it. Shareholders and speculators (short sellers) will drive them out of the market and they will be bought by Fox News. What a laugh. Fox bought the WSJ, another poorly run operation. BTW the Democratic Party could buy it but they already run their political reporting so why bother.

Dec 22, 2011 12:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Vaqueros wrote:

People don’t wont to read your stupid liberal garbage any more . That’s the problem for yhe morons from NY Times .Or I should say Obamatimes ?

Dec 22, 2011 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
socalexec wrote:

Hopefully all reporters, line and staff will be eliminated. Good riddance to “all the news NOT fit to print!”

Dec 22, 2011 12:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ranger01 wrote:

Give her nothing, Make her sue for it, and make her prove she earned it. Job performance vs getting the benefits.

Dec 22, 2011 12:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ArtHouse wrote:

If her severance and buy out is supposed to be based on performance – wouldn’t she owe the NYT some cash at this point?

Dec 22, 2011 12:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
puhiawa wrote:

This paper is at the fore front of anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-energy, anti-American business thought. It seeks to destroy American industry and production with the zeal of fanatics. Is it any wonder that it has begun to reap what it has sown?

Dec 22, 2011 12:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nnizy wrote:

The NYT – Champion of the poor!!!

Dec 22, 2011 1:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dwstick1 wrote:

Maybe the new incoming Times CEO can officially change the Times’ motto from ‘All the news that’s fit to print’ to something more to the mark like ‘All the news that fits our agenda, we print’.

Dec 22, 2011 1:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
A.Adams wrote:

Got to love Limousine Liberals.

Dec 22, 2011 1:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
allotta wrote:

Hmph. Well, hopefully this will be enough for her to get through the Christmas season and still have a little bit left over to live on. You know it’s harder for people to maintain a decent quality of life once they’ve retired. Ask anybody not working right now, they’ll tell you!

Dec 22, 2011 1:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
2Confused wrote:

She figure she is going to bail before they go belly up. “All the news that’s fit to print”, my left butt cheek. They have no journalist left, just a bunch of out of touch leftist elites who think they are smarter than anyone else. News flash, it is an illusion.

Dec 22, 2011 1:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SueSueSue wrote:

So what did she get paid to shut up about?

Dec 22, 2011 1:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mrmikejohnson wrote:

At least readers of the New York Times can see where there subscription money goes. suckers.

Dec 22, 2011 2:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tomaspain wrote:

Testimony that the NYT is not managed by sharp business people. What happened to revenue during her tenure?

Dec 22, 2011 2:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
NormanB wrote:

Here’s the probable reason for Robinson’s departure: The digital subscription business failed. We wait the 4th quarter’s results.

Dec 22, 2011 3:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rjm2238 wrote:

One writer asks:
“How many reporter jobs are being eliminated to help pay for this golden parachute?”
Being as this is the New York Times I could only wish to be able to answer, “All of them!”
Rich in New Mexico.

Dec 22, 2011 3:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gooms wrote:

Isn’t this the “paper of record” that printed an article asking for an “equality tax”?

The paper that stands with the OWS clarion call to punish the greedy “1%”?

The paper that built a new sparkling headquarters on a location acquired by eminent domain (forcing out long standing merchants and shop owners) and received a 27 million dollar tax break?

The paper who has in the last five years or so, laid off hundreds of employees?

Just wondering…….

Dec 22, 2011 3:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4Xcaliber wrote:

THIS is exactly what the Occupy Wall Street protests are about! How many rank and file employees even get to see their sick days paid out to them, or unemployment benefits (such a windfall haha) after they’re fired or let go from a company? How many average employees in the 40-70k salary range could see even a 2% raise to keep up with cost of living if this CEO didn’t get 15.4 MILLION dollars – for being LET GO?

“Against the backdrop of an 80 percent decline in the Times Co’s stock over her seven-year tenure as CEO, the size of Robinson’s exit package prompted some criticism in the newsroom. Times Co shares are down 25 percent this year alone.”

Sounds like she did a bang-up job, huh? Well deserving of such a generous outgoing severance. Absolutely disgusting.

Dec 22, 2011 3:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeepSpaceTen wrote:

Hope it breaks that rag and they go bankrupt.

Dec 22, 2011 3:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
VCID wrote:

If someone told you that the New York Times was this hypocritical, you would not believe it. Is Fox News making this story up? All that said, it is clear that the shareholders, not the readers, get the short end of this stick – so the sycophants who agree with the slanted “news” (read: left-wing opinion) spewed by the Times will continue to ignore the fact that they ARE the problem, not part of the solution!

Dec 22, 2011 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dencal26 wrote:

Wow. Left Wing Golden Parachutes. Greedy CEO’s.

Dec 22, 2011 6:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
iq160 wrote:

$15 million? Who’s the 1%-er now? How about a few Times editorials about the greed of people like Ms. Robinson? This is the paper that’s all for “the little guy” and after those dirty people earning (and I do mean earning) $250k a year, but they payout $15M. I think that there should be a “hypocrisy tax” on people that profess to help the poor while raking it in in spades.

Dec 22, 2011 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
iq160 wrote:

$15 million? Who’s the 1%-er now? How about a few Times editorials about the greed of people like Ms. Robinson? This is the paper that’s all for “the little guy” and after those dirty people earning (and I do mean earning) $250k a year, but they payout $15M. I think that there should be a “hypocrisy tax” on people that profess to help the poor while raking it in in spades.

Dec 22, 2011 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Troika37 wrote:

I do not begrudge Robinson her golden parachute, as she helped turn around the paper’s fortunes, quickly repaying the $250 million bailout they took from Mexican monopolist billionaire Carlos Slim, and selling off noncore assets.

But given that the paper finds it scandalous that Mitt Romney continues to profit from Bain Capital because the firm (gasp) turns some companies around by right-sizing them, some derisive laughter at the NYT’s expense is in order.

Indeed, looking at how the NYT runs piece after piece about storming the capitalist castle, the shrinking middle-class, moaning that most Americans are delusional for thinking they are the haves, and advocating an inequality tax, I wonder why the unwashed hipsters occupying Wall Street don’t shamble over to the NYTHQ, a progressive palace built for the paper on government-seized property and given $26.1 million in tax breaks. I do not wonder about the blind eye the remaining Timesmen and Timeswomen turn to the income inequality at their own business.

After all, the NYT is now fixated on the issue everywhere but the paper for the same reason Team Obama is — they would much rather continue to curse the last three decades than defend the past three years.

Dec 23, 2011 7:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.