New York Times reportedly more than doubles photographers' pay rate

I don't know anyone working full-time earning less than AU $60,000. Most are on $70,000 or more. And that's a reliable income. Photography jobs are generally less reliable, not full-time, and require specific technical skills and equipment so should pay higher per hour. The minimum wage per hour for casual workers in Australia is $17.50 plus 25% casual loading, so it's over $22 p/h = $180 per day, and that could be someone selling donuts.

Wages in the US are not so competitive anymore.

Shhh, keep quiet peasants. Talking about raising minimum wage in the US is considered socialism. What we need is more low-wages manufacturing jobs in rural areas, and tax cuts for the 1%.

Spoken like a true elistist.

That attitude is why "your side" lost the election.

But you still think your right and others not like you are wrong, simply because you say so. You put people down and judge people you don't know, because of their beliefs. And instead of learning, you think you already know.

In a way I feel bad for you, because the Washington and the media has set up this all or nothing attitude, and for "critical thinker", you sure seem to have taken the bait.

I watch Fox, I can critically think, and I don't think I'm any better or worse than you.

I don't really disagree with you about the more popular right wing media outlets being more about opinion than fact... Still, I don't really see wha that has to do with the story.

my side ?? your side ???? spoken like a true backside

elections dont really exist in america ..if the person with fewer votes gets the oval office ..\

if they did a different maniac would be in the white house today

anyone who van watch fox news for more that 10 minutes without throwing up
or having their head explode has my total respect

Trump won because the Electoral College gave three small conservative rural states a larger voice in the election than the majority of voters who supported Clinton. 3 million votes were essentially disallowed and the country is going to suffer mightily for it.

The irony is that the very people who support Trump will be those who suffer the most from his dismantling of the so-called Welfare State and the Big Government they love to hate. And they don't have a clue because their main sources of information such as Fox News have done a great job of obfuscating the truth. The corporate and political elites in Trump's admin direct him behind the scenes. Their true allegiance is to the military industrial complex and not the working class and poor people who elected Trump. They manipulate their fears and prejudices to gain their support, so they can provide even greater financial gains to the rich and corporate America by cutting programs and cutting taxes mainly for the richest 10%.

it's the left wingers whom confuse the news when it's no more than an editorial

NYT, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

the country will be gutted trump may bring his management style to the table and bankrupt the country

he certainly will give nothing to his dim supporters , they will have what little they have transferred to the 1 % .... the permanent wars will continue liberals and working illegals will be blamed for all americas woes and the agenda to morph "meica" into the first 3rd world \ 1st world nation in history will advance as part of a many decades old continuing plan .

its truely insane to have a psychotic egomanicial 4 time bankrupsy sexually deviant russian operative fu nctionally illiterate twitter clown at the head of the executive branch

the founders of this nation are spinning like quarks in the grave...
would the great thinkers , jefferson or Madison or Frankin or Adams have believed that america could have descended into such an intellectual cesspool so deep as to elect such a man? or even "electoral college "him into the presidency ?

Right-Whingers are confused about a lot of things.

Oh...and Neil...I feel bad for you, too.
"I watch Faux and I can critically think"...those two thoughts cannot exist in the same sentence, sorry.

Aaron801 Wrote:
"I don't really disagree with you about the more popular right wing media outlets being more about opinion than fact"

Watch MSNBC or CNN -- then watch Fox Business News (FBN). The former are filled with shrill hysterical mud slingers -- the latter, measured, good humored
reporting. The king of opinionated misrepresentation is MSNBC's garrulous Chris Matthews followed by Chris Hayes and the insufferable Rachel Maddow. As for the quality of writing in the NYT, it was dumbed down about 40 years ago to accommodate the diminished capacity of those educated by the US public school system and who prefer 1 picture to a 1000 words. As for FoxNews -- it's not about news at all -- just entertainment and eye candy.

Bingo, @lightandaprayer. The saddest part in all this is indeed how the down-trodden will fare. They tried to lob a grenade into a system that they, understandably, feel is rigged against them. Unfortunately for them, those were real pineapple dimples and the establishment keeps on trucking. Trump may be infuriating/scaring liberals but he's going to stomp all over his "base", just wait and see.

Well, don't leave us all hanging now. What would you consider to be "real" news?

Any evidence supporting your statement? If not, then you are a source of fake news.

That's a really popular thing to say right now, I realize... I just have trouble seeing how it's particularly true, especially when compared with so much of alternatives.

It seems that the right wing opinion is that news either hews to the a conservative viewpoint or it's a lie... Sometimes the facts aren't flattering to a conservative worldview.... and yet they're still the facts.

I guess you watch Faux News. Duh.

And of course he/she doesn't reply to any because he/she knows it's not true.

If 'Fox & Friends' say its fake news then it must be true.... right? Praised by a president that supposedly can't read:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd79UsXSLWg

All the dumbness in one go.

Jjss....keep digging. You haven't got to the bottom of your hole yet.

"Great" newspaper, my derriere. It's become little more than a tabloid rag, catering to special interest groups. It's sad, as it once was the preeminent American newspaper with gifted editors at the helm.

@MichaelCourtney Well that's just silly and anyone with a lick of sense knows it. . . BTW, have you bothered to look at the photography lately? The NYT has some very talented and dedicated staff photographers and regional stringers. I'm concerned that the increase in the day rate may mean that staff positions will be cut. . . It's happened at many papers with both reporters and photographers.

Yes, I noticed; I was in the biz. As I noted in my comment, the NYT and similar newspapers have been paying a pittance for many years, even when owning a newspaper was considered equivalent to having a "press for printing money." I'm talking about when papers had net profits of 20-30% and even higher.

Now the Times finally gets around to raising the day rate to $400 and we are supposed to be sooo grateful! We don't really know how much an average editor's salary has been affected. . . But that salary includes benefits such as health care, retirement, paid time off, etc. A stringer pays for all of that plus 15% self employment tax and equipment depreciation, etc. Now that $400 doesn't look so good does it?

Yes, newspapers are facing hard times. But photo stringers have been poorly compensated forever and it's about time they got a raise. My concern is that staff PJs are going to lose further ground as papers use cheaper stringers and layoff more staff positions. Stay tuned. . .

My point is that when it was possible, the papers were unfair. They are still being unfair but now they have an excuse. If a publication cannot afford to compensate a staff photographer, then they should at least fairly compensate stringers. A "day rate" has always been a questionable method of compensating freelancers; it favors the publication, not the photographer. And the stringer contracts usually give up any chance of realizing additional income from the images. The fees received for the licensing of images from all third-party sources accrue to the paper, not the photographer.