The Times public editor column over the weekend reported that "the size of the newsroom staff remains at about 1,250 — not only is it huge (The Washington Post is about half that) but it is also remarkable for its stability, as many other newsrooms have shrunk dramatically."
The Times is happy to talk about headcount, but numbers about the actual budget or expenses are harder to come by. The paper has been buying out higher-paid veteran reporters, columnists and editors with lots of experience and replacing them with younger, cheaper, less experienced staff. At the same time, it has been reducing its non-staff news expenses by doing things such as commissioning and printing fewer book reviews from outside freelance contributors.
Earlier estimates of the Times newsroom headcount included a Times news article in October 2009, which said, "The Times's news department peaked at more than 1,330 employees before the last round of cuts. The current headcount is about 1,250." That article was headlined "Times says it will cut 100 newsroom jobs." It's some strange math that allows the Times to cut 100 jobs from 1,250 and still end up with a headcount of 1,250. Maybe a shareholder who bought or sold New York Times Company stock on the basis of the Times announcement that it would reduce the headcount by 100 from 1,250 will sue, alleging the company misled about the planned cuts. Maybe the Times is now counting as Times newsroom employees some former International Herald-Tribune employees who used to be not counted, creating the appearance of stability when in fact there has been shrinkage.
A December 2012 Bloomberg News article headlined "New York Times Looks To Cut 30 Newsroom Positions" reported, "The Times has a total of about 1,100 newsroom employees."
If in fact the number has fluctuated from 1,330 to 1,100 to 1,250, some might interpret that not as "stability" but as variability. My point here is not to criticize the Times for any cuts. They do have a lot of reporters. But if they are going to make a big show of how many reporters they have, they should be transparent and consistent about the overall news budget, rather than conduct themselves in a way that makes them look like they are trying to convey a false impression of stability in an environment of instability.