The Times underwent a round of buyouts and layoffs in 2009. | REUTERS Possible NYT layoffs rattle media

In the news business, no one is safe — not even senior editors at The New York Times.

The media business was shaken on Friday when it was reported, first in New York Magazine and confirmed by POLITICO, that managing editor John Geddes, assistant managing editors Jim Roberts and Rick Berke, dining editor Susan Edgerley, and former Times Magazine editor Gerry Marzorati could all be casualties of the Times’ effort to cut costs.


“It is hard to imagine there are too many sacred cows left in any newsroom, given the general state of our industry,” Raju Narisetti, the head of The Wall Street Journal Digital Network and a former Washington Post managing editor, told POLITICO, without specifically responding to The New York Times cuts but talking about ongoing cost-cutting efforts across American newsrooms.

( Also on POLITICO: Layoffs at Bloomberg Gov)

The Times underwent a round of buyouts and layoffs in 2009, but the possible departure of high-level Times staffers signals just how dire the current state of news media is.

“In today’s news environment, nobody’s job is safe. Not mine. Not yours. Not Marcus Brauchli’s, who was recently forced out [as editor] at The Washington Post, which is reason enough for me to reiterate my maxim that everybody in our business should always be looking for their next job,” said Jack Shafer, the Reuters media critic who was fired from Slate last year. “I trust that the great people forced out at the Times will soon get the good jobs they deserve.”

Times executive editor Jill Abramson told staff in December that the paper had to cut 30 newsroom positions, but would be “forced to go to layoffs” if it could not secure enough voluntary buyouts. With the Jan. 24 deadline for those buyouts fast approaching, only two staffers — culture editor Jonathan Landman and reporter Jacques Steinberg — have publicly accepted the offer, though others are believed to have done so privately.

(In an email to POLITICO following publication of this article, Edgerley said she was not going to be asked to leave. “I am not leaving the Times. I love the work, the place and the people and plan to stick around,” she wrote. Roberts, who declined to comment when contacted by POLITICO, later tweeted, “I am not being laid off.”)

( PHOTOS: 10 controversial magazine covers)

In a memo to staff on Friday, Abramson denied rumors that layoffs were imminent. “It is NOT true that we already know that interest in the buyouts won’t be robust enough to prevent involuntary measures,” she wrote.

Abramson also sought to temper some of the hype and the rumors. “We had buyouts and layoffs in 2009. These are not different,” Abramson told POLITICO Friday afternoon.

But sources at the paper, who spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, said this time feels different.

“Whatever sense of invincibility that Times employees still feel after the earlier rounds of cuts is being chipped away in this round,” said one Times Guild member, who is not affected by the latest round of cuts.

“The fact that only non-Guild members are at risk of being fired right now is grist for some very uncomfortable gallows humor around the newsroom,” the staffer continued. “But no one believes this round will be the last. … Everyone believes more cuts will come eventually. That’s partly why this round stings so much.”

Most staffers who spoke to POLITICO, including some whose names have been mentioned as possible candidates for layoffs, said they were in the dark about the Times’ plans. But sources in New York and Washington voiced far more trepidation than their foreign colleagues.

“No one seems especially worried in foreign,” one Times staffer said.

If there was a general consensus among staffers, it was that the Times would not be able to achieve 30 voluntary buyouts by the Jan. 24 deadline. Some also noted that not all “voluntary buyouts” were actually voluntary. One newsroom source told POLITICO that Landman, the former culture editor, told his staff that he had been told to take a buyout.

“That’s one way Jill is reducing headcount and remaking the newsroom,” the source said. “But that’s not the only way. Some people are leaving entirely of their own accord.”

Media watchers noted that high-level departures from the Times would be noteworthy, but not altogether unsurprising.

“Not to sound too cold about fellow professionals losing their jobs, but the reported cuts of 30 people in a newsroom of 1,000-plus does not sound extreme in today’s business environment,” Shafer said.

“I know from experience, having been laid off by Slate in 2011, that the jobs of the highest-paid people in the newsroom are the most vulnerable when cost-cutting time arrives ‘and management must make cost-benefit decisions about where they can get the most bang for their editorial buck,” he added. “Offering buyouts to some of the highest-paid journalists seems to be the pattern at the Times, if the early stories about buyouts and probable layoffs are right.”

“Isn’t fat usually at top and middle?” one newspaper industry veteran said.

Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy told POLITICO that the paper was “not commenting on this process while it is ongoing (with the deadline for these newsroom buyouts not being until Jan. 24).”

Reports of the rumors come the same day that the paper announced it would be dismantling its environmental desk, though managing editor Dean Baquet said the move did not mean that any of those staffers would be laid off.

One staffer, the Guild member cited above, tried to look for the silver lining.

“Let me attempt to be optimistic: Maybe the scary sense of uncertainty that permeates the place right now will inspire creativity, innovation, risk-taking,” the staffer said. “Emphasis on ‘maybe.’”

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated Susan Edgerley’s role at the paper. She is dining editor, not an assistant managing editor.

This article has been updated.

CORRECTION: Corrected by: Kourtney Geers @ 01/12/2013 10:08 AM Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated Susan Edgerley’s role at the paper. She is dining editor, not an assistant managing editor.