The New York Times this week quietly ended its coverage of restaurants, art galleries, theaters and other commercial and nonprofit businesses in the tri-state region, laying off dozens of longtime contributors and prompting protests from many of the institutions that will be affected. They foresee an impact not only on patronage but, in the case of the nonprofits, on their ability to raise funds to survive.
“For all of us in the arts, this decision is an unmitigated disaster,” Bram Lewis, artistic director of the Schoolhouse Theater in the Northern Westchester hamlet of Croton Falls, told Deadline in an email. “The Schoolhouse Theater has been reviewed by Times critics
“For all of us in the arts, this decision is an unmitigated disaster,” says artistic director Bram Lewis. “Our record will be gone. The 50% jump in box office will be gone. The support in funding with a Times review will be gone.”
Alvin Klein, David Dewitt and Sylviane Gold for more than 30 years, our record will be gone. The 50% jump in box office will be gone. The support in funding with a Times review will be gone, the ability to fund-raise, build a board and be recognized among peers for artistic excellence will be all but silenced.”
The change comes as the NYT revamps its coverage of several beats, from Los Angeles to the New York metro region. When the paper announced this month it will no longer cover local fires and crimes, Public Editor Liz Spayd cautiously defended the decision, asking in her August 6 column, “Why should a newsroom that just announced lofty international ambitions spend resources covering news of no interest to readers in Beijing or London?”
Deadline has obtained an email dated August 2 from Times metropolitan editor Wendell Jamieson to more than two dozen freelance critics and reporters telling them their services would no longer be needed:
“Dean Baquet and I have decided that the resources and energy currently devoted to these local pages could be better directed elsewhere. Therefore, we will publish our final reviews and features in the New Jersey, Westchester, Long Island and Connecticut editions on August 28. The Metropolitan section as it appears in New York City will still be published and circulated throughout the region, but it will no longer include zoned content…Sorry about this, folks. I want to thank you for all you’ve done, all the fine writing you’ve given our readers. I wish you all the best.”
The effects of the layoffs extend beyond the contributors to the Times‘ local coverage. Over half the region’s population of 20.2 million people live in the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut suburbs. Businesses and nonprofits there, as in the city, rely heavily on Times coverage — not only as so many local news outlets have disappeared, but also because of the legitimacy a Times review or feature story confers.
“Long Island boasts one of the country’s most thriving restaurant communities outside of a major city,” says Ryan Sutton, the chief critic at influential food site Eater New York and a highly regarded tracker of the industry. “(Longtime reviewer) Joanne Starkey’s recommendations helped shape how Long Island eats. Every single Long Island restaurant worth its salt has a framed New York Times review hanging up in the foyer. Now millions of residents will have one less source of authority. And that’s no small matter, given that second-rate Long Island restaurants often charge as much as their NYC counterparts. Those restaurants need critical pushback.”
The move also has heightened anxieties on the Times culture desk that reassignments or cuts in the department’s full-time staff are imminent. Insiders have told Deadline that critics and reporters have been compelled to take crash courses in producing for the Times website, in the hopes that the culture report — in which the paper has a historically proprietary interest — increases online viewership. Efforts to make the culture report more reader friendly can be seen in the recent proliferation of stories in which top critics interview artists they or their colleagues cover. (Such features are a mainstay of most publications, but the Times has until now maintained a fairly impermeable wall between critics and the people they cover.)
The Times declined Deadline’s requests for comment from metropolitan editor Jamieson and culture editor Danielle Mattoon. (Disclosure: I was a reporter and columnist for the Times from 1986-1991.) Danielle Rhoades Ha, the paper’s VP Communications, told Deadline that “the training you mention in your email below is happening across the newsroom and is not unique to any desk.”
The New York suburbs are home to much of the city’s cultural elite, some of whom also are angered by the cessation of local coverage. Mark Lamos, a director with major credits in the theater and opera worlds, is also the artistic director of the Westport Country Playhouse, a venerated nonprofit favored by neighbors Joanne Woodward and the late Paul Newman, among many other well-known artists, and a producer of shows that occasionally landed on Broadway.
“The impact is profound,” Lamos told Deadline in an email. “Our audience relies on the Times to bring them up-to-date cultural news. We have a vital and robust theater scene that has been in the forefront of the American nonprofit theater movement for years, not to mention great restaurants, important museums and musical performances of rare distinction. Why let your readership down? I find it inexplicable. Money, I guess.”
The economic impact of a Times review isn’t news — but the loss of those reviews will be felt by those commercial and nonprofit businesses. Chef and restaurateur Greg Grossman recently opened Oreya in tony Southampton on Long Island’s East End, where Times readers are wont to summer. Oreya earned a glowing review from freelance reviewer Kurt Wenzel, who waxed especially fond of the branzino. The stamp of approval was immediately felt.
“There’s no more coveted review than the New York Times,” Grossman told Deadline in a telephone interview. “We opened at the half-season with no street sign, and most locals didn’t even know we existed until the Times review came out. The weekday impact was instant. We went from about 50 people in the dining room on Wednesday and Thursday nights to 150. And they ordered three times more branzino than before the review. People rely on those reviews.”
“Local communities are the biggest losers,” says reviewer Kurt Wenzel, “since a new theater run or restaurant won’t get the opportunity to reach the sophisticated audience that the Times attracts.”
In making the changes on the Metro desk, the Times said its reasons were structural and philosophical, not economic (an argument that caused even the Public Editor to raise an eyebrow). And it’s hard to imagine, given the pittance freelancers are typically paid by the Times, that laying off a couple of dozen writers will save buckets of money. But the impact on the businesses they cover, and the watchdog role that the Times plays in so many other areas, is likely to be felt throughout the region populated by the paper’s most loyal readers and advertisers.
Wenzel was philosophical about being given the boot. “This is, in my opinion, the real shame of ending this part of the Metro section (beyond the livelihood of writers),” he wrote in an email. “The fact that there is now much less oversight of local culture and entertainment. Local communities are the biggest losers, since a new theater run or restaurant won’t get the opportunity to reach the sophisticated audience that the Times attracts.”
Schoolhouse Theater’s Bram Lewis is less sanguine about the loss of Times reviews. “It’s a stunningly wrong decision,” he said. “When the Paper of Record no longer sees a need to record, we are stranded. Close to half the Sunday Times [readership] is in the regions, and they all jump to their local pages first. It took decades to win such loyalty.”





Hmmm… now I have another reason to stop my subscription: yes, I enjoy the national news, but the commentary & reviews of the local arts was my favorite part of the TIMES. It helped me feel I was keeping “current” in that scene. Guess my options are for online zines… a shame.
Apart from doing a disservice to its readers and the community that supports it, this seems a commercially very short-sighted move. Most Times print readers still live in the NYC area, and print advertising is still the bulk of the paper’s ad revenue. Without local coverage that local readers turn to, advertisers will step yet further away from the paper. The Guardian tried to go global, was unable to attract global advertising and lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the effort. I hope the Times realizes that it has an effective monopoly in the NYC area, and will take advantage of that to return to financial stability.
Classified ads………
Wasn’t the classified ad section like a huge
bulk of income for newspapers until craigslist stole all the classified ad biz and lists it for free.
And creepy.
Looks like the NY POST just became a legit paper.
When pigs fly and hell freezes over!
There will be bacon on the wing and Satan on skates, Pal!
Hasn’t the NYT become TOO influential? I have no clue about the “regions” but internationally one of their reviews can pretty much ruin a restaurant by crowding it with box-tickers. Perhaps this move makes it easier to enjoy one’s favourite art and fairer to all who practice it? (Or I’m way off base.)
You’re way off base.
Even if the Times hates a restaurant, at least it acknowledges its existence. Or used to.
The times is toast.
“Public Editor Liz Spayd cautiously defended the decision, asking in her August 6 column, ‘Why should a newsroom that just announced lofty international ambitions spend resources covering news of no interest to readers in Beijing or London?’”
“Quietly ended coverage” of these things?
Perhaps they should also quietly remove the words “New York” from the newpaper’s masthead.
Hear hear, well said.
I hope Liz Spayd realizes how obnoxious she sounds.
Maybe remove “public editor” from the payroll and they could keep on a reporter or critic or two?
when I open the NYTimes webpage on my iPad, the masthead reads International NY Times. Wonder if this is their goal, to be an international newspaper? Maybe next they’ll drop all coverage of metro NY.
Well, you have the option of having any of the editions of The Times load onto your tablet if you go to the website, and not the app, which is my preference, as is my choice of the Tri-state edition of the paper.
In any case, a newspaper isn’t “international” simply because that’s what it claims to be; The Times is because they actually provide the coverage, and maintain the overseas correspondents, bureaus and analysts it demands.
PURRR-FECT!
I live in New York City and am a long time print subscriber (while also reading on line) and it is I feel this is as another commenter suggested a disservice to me and this city — and the region. And by the way, the new Public Editor knows not of what she speaks. If you are in Beijing or London you want to read about New York in the New York Times, not about Beijing or London. Otherwise, any national US paper will do the trick just as well.
If I’m understanding the story correctly I think they’re only killing the outlying areas. (The suburbs if you will.) It sounds like they’ll still be covering Manhattan and Broadway but not the areas outside of the city proper. (Apologies if I’m wrong about that.)
I honestly never thought I would see the day. Shocking and sad. The economic situation at the NYT is so much worse than I thought, obviously.
It’s been that way since the beginning of the Internet. 20 yrs ago articles wrote about the real cost of what your newspaper would ….
Back then when it still had big advertisers.
A lot of big co ‘s adv have also disappeared along with the stores they were adv…. because Amazon has devoured their retail business, book stores all but gone, everything is e and who knows if they’re really making any adv dollars either way.
it’s consumers not the newspaper.
Really disgusting.
New York IS Restaurants, Art Galleries, and Theater!! Terrible call!
Well then maybe they should have paid for big ads. They essentially got FREE advertising off the backs of others, operated their business while others paid for it.
So long. Guess you should have spent your big ncome on ads.
You’re right in a way. Suburban businesses that coveted coverage didn’t always support the paper, probably because of budgets. It works both ways. Advertising pays for editorial salaries, and it’s a brand new media world. And this is not new: Years ago, the paper killed it’s Sunday Metropolitan section, in-depth coverage of the boroughs and beyond. This is the next phase. And it kills me. The section reporters are among the paper’s most talented.
Really. The most talented writers in the country most all of them in the nyt everyone in the country read it now we are left with
the local tabloids. Eeeehhhhh.
Article states this was not an economic secision but a philosophical one. And for that, they are devastating small businesses and non-profits throughout the area. Disgusting.
They aren’t getting rid of NYC cultural coverage. Stuff an hour or two outside the city, yes.
The article states new York tristate region
which includes all of the boroughs.
I guess I never considered
talent being restricted to a region.
This is the new New York Times like Coke had The New Coke. Big BIG mistake.
I can certainly understand the advertising pressure involved in this kind of decision. But there’s a Catch-22 for non-profits who would love to advertise in the Times yet can’t afford their exceptionally high rates. One small ad would eat up our entire advertising budget (and then some) for an entire year.
Our Powerhouse Theater partnership with fellow non-profit New York Stage and Film has served as a proving ground for hundreds of new theater works over the past 30+ years, including this year’s Tony winners for best play (The Humans) and musical (Hamilton). Our Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center offers high level exhibitions (regularly reviewed in the Sunday Times) and asks no admission fee. These kinds of offerings at Vassar make high quality arts experiences an affordable option for people in our region, who don’t have to take on the high costs of a trip to New York City. The reality is that even calendar listings and small blurbs in the Times have an enormous impact on getting people to value our cultural offerings, and to buy tickets for offerings when we need to charge admission. Understandably the Times needs to turn a profit, but there’s a reasonable public service role for it to play. Sure the Times could use more advertising to support such coverage, but the cost of that coverage also won’t make much of a dent in the Times’ profitabliity.
Profit???????
That’s funny. All newspapers have in the last ten yrs have been continuously and repeatedly reporting extreme dire conditions of trying to continue publishing.
ie. losing big money for years and years.
It is sickening. Yes.
That’s the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And no offense, NYT, you are not going to do justice to LA coverage from Manhattan. How can you compare to the Daily News and the LA Times and even the LA Weekly? Or CityWatch? How arrogant, to assume that you can gut the coverage the NYT has done well, for a generation, and better than most, to cover a region you know NOTHING ABOUT.
“Why should a newsroom that just announced lofty international ambitions spend resources covering news of no interest to readers in Beijing or London?” Why should readers in New York, the greater tri-state area, and others interested in the city and the region, read the New York Times? Little reason now. Cancel subscriptions, dear readers. Step in, competing newspapers. Good Luck, NYT, you’re going to need it.
Interesting that quoted in here is a totally useless and expendable “public editor.”
You say they were laid off, but that is not technically true. These are not layoffs in the employment sense. Even steady longtime freelance contributors have no job benefits. When the Times drops them, they simply stop being paid, period. No unemployment benefits. It’s ‘Thank you very much and don;t let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.’
i have always felt that the New York Times thought there was nothing between Manhattan and Southampton. I guess now they think there is nothing between New York and London. But they’ll still review theater in Europe, and one wonders why.
Though Icelanders and people in the Azores might object, there actually ISN’T much between Manhattan and London, except water, fish and Sunrise Highway.
they could stick with the Sunday times with all the great sections/writers and just charge $10. Like a slick magazine.
The Times, to which I have been a loyal subscriber since I moved to Florida 6 years ago from NYC,is an increasing disappointment. It is now editorially skewed to subjects who, ironically don’t buy it or subscribe to it. Its digital efforts are pathetic. The Wednesday Food Section is a disgrace…with inedible recipes by Melissa Clark (sp?). Paul Krugman is a liberal screed who should be spending more time teaching at Princeton where I’m sure he’s being compensated by a capitalist salary that he rants against. Where has this venerable publication gone? One wonders how long it will survive, though for now…sadly it’s the only game nationally.
Why do you pick on Krugman (who merely points out, correctly, that most of this nation’s economic problems stem from under-regulation, rather than over? Apparently you don‘t find Times columnists like Ross Douthat and David Brooks “screeds” (FYI, a tract someone writes can be a screed; the writer of that tract cannot) — I guess their middle-of-the-road brand of conservatism is enough to soothe your savage breast.
I agree the Weds. food section is pathetic. I remember a time when my friends and I all looked forward to the food section–great articles, great writers, interesting recipes and restaurant reviews. The Melissa Clark recipes remind me of things you make when you want to clean out the fridge. I rarely read the articles anymore but admit that I’ve found some interesting non-Clark recipes and the restaurant reviews are still good. This section needs rethinking and an overhaul.
Spayd and Neutered
Local arts and restaurant reviews was a major reason to read the Times. I will no longer purchase the paper. BAD decision NY Times
Well now you can go make your own decisions.
There are several slick magazines that review the same topics, more expensive to buy.
Or just read reviews for free on the Internet.
Once there were free-standing regional sections. Then they were dropped, replaced with a few pages in the back of the Metro section. Now even those few pages are gone. As a publicist for some of Long Island’s leading art museums, I can attest to the impact of a Times review or article on exhibitions — always an immediate bump in attendance. We will no longer be able to reach those Times readers. The entire not-for-profit arts community will suffer.
But the Times will likely still want advertising from Long Island, Westchester, Connecticut and New Jersey.
It’s outstanding that the NYT has contributed
free space and free wages for that
category.
Not defending the New York Times specifically, but I do understand the financial perspective. The bottom line IS the bottom line and the proposed department slashing is a way to cut expenses. Sadly the revenues apparently aren’t keeping up with the expenses and somebody at the top decided to cut the non revenue generating costs. Over the years I have found the NYT to be morphing into a rich persons publication anyway. The Sunday Real Estate section is nothing more than a “Town and Country” extension with real estate offerings and transaction far beyond the reach of the 99% ers. The automobile section that also included the boating section was long ago relegated to the trash bin. As for news coverage, it is their perspective that certain geographic locations aren’t deemed worthy of their column inches. So be it. The 1% ers really don’t care anyway. I’ll be relocating from the region in the not too distant future and my daily reading on the New York Times will initially be reduced to the Sunday edition only but I foresee that becoming another place to slash MY expenses as well. I’ve always been a tactile information reader, but I’m also finding that online sources are equally as fulfilling and in this instance the NYT will be suffering another blow to their published subscription numbers. Let Macy’s and Gucci’s support their print editions, but with a waning print distribution I can’t see that happening for much longer either.
It seemed obvious they were covering the NY metro area less and less so this comes as no surprise. Too bad they don’t think local news and reviews are important. I live in the lower Hudson Valley and other local publications are less frequent, therefore, I turn to the NY Times first. In fact, I find that overall, their coverage of any news has been spottier and I wonder how they will continue when they keep trimming staff and spreading them so thin. They should trim more from other sections but obviously there is less advertising to lose by eliminating NY regional news than, say, Styles or T Magazine. Readers aren’t a priority anymore. Ad dollars always rule.
Shame on you NYT.
I have cancelled my online subscription. This is an oportunity for another paper to replace the NYT