Actually, what I heard from a close relative of Sorkin's -- I can't be more specific without blowing that person's identity -- is that one of Sorkin's ambitions is to go into finance and work for a private equity group. That's what this person told me about a year ago.
Obviously a lot has happened since then, so his plans might've changed, or maybe that was just one of several things he was considering. But that's what this person told me. #newyorkobserver
Sorkin is a star. Too much so to go to the Observer, unless it were to be remade into a real newspaper, maybe focusing on real estate and finance (and the incestuous relationship between the two). But that would take an investment by Jared, which he doesn't need to do if his whole point is to promote his wife. #newyorkobserver
I'd heard a reasonably well-sourced estimated that Sorkin was making about $200,000 a year. But that included something for DealBook.
The real question would be this: what is the nature of Sorkin's fee for running the financial blog and email newsletter?
Even if it's only a flat amount, other New York Times writers would start asking questions about compensation for their own blogging.
And if these "unusual incentive arrangements" included some kind of bonus for hitting targets for DealBook subscriptions, for instance? That would go against Times orthodoxy, the belief that journalism is necessarily compromised by any obvious quest for popularity. #newyorkobserver
Our caretaker system causes this. If you are laid off you get unemployment benefits, if you are fired you do not.
So in bad times, big companies cull the herd of the slow movers and quickly look to replace them with new young energetic employees. Sort of like in card games where you cast off what you know is bad and hope to get something better. MS and Google I'm sure are doing likewise.
Also, large layoffs are less likely to draw wrongful termination lawsuits than if you get rid of the dead weight as you go along.
It's a system that is crueler than it should be thanks to good intentions and the law of untended consequences.
@macbeach: Wait. I thought that if fired or laid off, you got benefits, while if you quit you did not. At least in CA. If you're correct, my summer staycation strategy of interpreting Casual Fridays to mean Naked Fridays is woefully flawed.
I've always hated places that think the hip new thing for Engineers is open work places where you can see and hear every damn thing the guy or gal next to you is doing.
One word. Cubical.
Yeah, I know it's a bit old fashioned, but hey, not all of us like to be watched as we slide that finger up our nose and while we slouch in our chase and occasional use the free hand to scratch unmentionables. SMS, I'm talking about you too.
@Shamoononon thanks Rocephin: To show how old I am I remember a time when cubicles were the fashionable but stupid new thing and a sign of importance was to actually have your own office. Come to think of it I still think that way.
I think the Consumerist moderator must be out to dinner.
I read this for consumer and corporation-related news.
I don't read this site for articles calling the President a 'Psycho'. I don't read this site for comments bashing soldiers, ESPECIALLY on Veteran's Day.
I'm sorry that so many people here apparently have such pent-up rage against the US Army and current administration. Go to Daily Kos or something up that alley for that.
There are plenty of comments here blatantly breaking the 'Consumerist Comments Code', and with certain things said in that article, they're all in line.
This is the first, and hopefully last, time that I've really been disappointed in what I've seen on this site.
I can't believe some of these comments... why do people hate the army so much? A lot of this country's greatest leaders served in the army... fine men and women from all over this nation are serving right now...
People you don't even know are/were in the army are in the reserves....
11/06/09
Obviously a lot has happened since then, so his plans might've changed, or maybe that was just one of several things he was considering. But that's what this person told me. #newyorkobserver
11/06/09
11/06/09
The real question would be this: what is the nature of Sorkin's fee for running the financial blog and email newsletter?
Even if it's only a flat amount, other New York Times writers would start asking questions about compensation for their own blogging.
And if these "unusual incentive arrangements" included some kind of bonus for hitting targets for DealBook subscriptions, for instance? That would go against Times orthodoxy, the belief that journalism is necessarily compromised by any obvious quest for popularity. #newyorkobserver
11/06/09
I am sure he loved being approached by Kushner, very flattering; enough so to continue to appear interested in the gig. #newyorkobserver
07/14/09
Is it a reference to Dan Brown's hit novel?
07/14/09
07/14/09
So in bad times, big companies cull the herd of the slow movers and quickly look to replace them with new young energetic employees. Sort of like in card games where you cast off what you know is bad and hope to get something better. MS and Google I'm sure are doing likewise.
Also, large layoffs are less likely to draw wrongful termination lawsuits than if you get rid of the dead weight as you go along.
It's a system that is crueler than it should be thanks to good intentions and the law of untended consequences.
07/14/09
If you're correct, my summer staycation strategy of interpreting Casual Fridays to mean Naked Fridays is woefully flawed.
04/16/09
I swear I've seen that guy in a hardcore M-on-M porn cut. Not that I dig that stuff.
04/15/09
04/15/09
04/15/09
I understand that facebook's only true virtue is the "Here, know and it's real" deal, but honestly. Screw these hubristic cunts. Screw its users.
If we ever get population issues on Earth, Facebook people gotta go.
04/15/09
04/15/09
One word. Cubical.
Yeah, I know it's a bit old fashioned, but hey, not all of us like to be watched as we slide that finger up our nose and while we slouch in our chase and occasional use the free hand to scratch unmentionables. SMS, I'm talking about you too.
04/15/09
11/11/08
I read this for consumer and corporation-related news.
I don't read this site for articles calling the President a 'Psycho'. I don't read this site for comments bashing soldiers, ESPECIALLY on Veteran's Day.
I'm sorry that so many people here apparently have such pent-up rage against the US Army and current administration. Go to Daily Kos or something up that alley for that.
There are plenty of comments here blatantly breaking the 'Consumerist Comments Code', and with certain things said in that article, they're all in line.
This is the first, and hopefully last, time that I've really been disappointed in what I've seen on this site.
11/11/08
11/11/08
People you don't even know are/were in the army are in the reserves....
this is really disturbing to read.
11/11/08