Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New York Times Gets Life Support
Townhall.com ^ | November 11, 2012 | John Ransom

Posted on 11/11/2012 2:11:45 AM PST by Kaslin

The common stock of the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) plunged from $10.87 last week to a close of $8.19 on Friday after the liberal mouthpiece announced that its 3rd quarter net income dropped 85 percent.

While analysts are blaming soft advertising revenues, I think something more ominous is happening at America’s national, bleeding-heart newspaper.

(Editor's note: I'm taking a few days off. I'll see you guys again on Tuesday with a crop of Email and Hate Mail)

For sure, advertising revenues are dropping nationally as economic conditions have deteriorated over the last two quarters.

Newspapers in general are struggling still as advertisers turn more money over to digital. Unlike newspaper display ads, which are just dead print on a page, digital ads can measured. Advertisers like that, a lot. 

But still advertising revenues for the NYT are plunging in industries where we have been told by no less an authority than –gasp!- the New York Times: “Hurray! The recovery is finally on its way!”

If the economy is improving- as the publisher would have us believe- the rest of the paper’s operations didn’t get that memo.      

“[T]he lack of business confidence is growing in many, many segments, financial being one of them,” said the Times’ Chief Advertising Officer Denise Warren, according to Poynter.org. “Entertainment was down due to a lack of major releases in the quarter. Department stores had weak retail sales performance, so that impacted us. And then real estate is down, mostly due to the lack of new development in the New York market.”

Retail, Finance and Real Estate are experiencing lack of “business confidence,” as are “many, many segments” say the business folks behind the Times.  

You wouldn’t know it if you read the pages of the Times, however. On the editorial side- as opposed to the advertising folks who have to pay the salaries for the editorial folks- they think things are improving in our economy.

“Rise in Household Debt Might Be Sign of a Strengthening Recovery,” says the Times. “Hard-Hit Cities Show a Housing Rebound”; “The Perils of Feeding a Bloated Industry”- the bloated industry being financial services. “Barack Obama for Re-Election,” say the editors.    

But besides using the economic disconnect between editorial and ads as a cheap shot at the questionable content of the New York Times, there is a real-life point.

Even as economic conditions continue to deteriorate, the Grey Lady refuses to acknowledge the obvious: Obama’s policies are responsible for the worst post-recession performance since the 1930s.   

“President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth,” says the Times. “He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless.” I don’t know how they wrote this without laughing or crying.

The rest of the editorial reads like a desperate suicide note as well, or least a desperate plea for a death panel to decide the fate of the New York Times.

They even go so far as to label Mitt Romney “dangerous.”

“Mitt Romney offers dangerous ideas,” continues the editorial, “when he offers any.”

Mitt Romney is about as dangerous as a cold cup of decaffeinated coffee.

But still Mitt brings more experience in running any one thing on his resume than Obama brought to the presidency taking all of his experience combined.  

The New York Times, on the other hand, has been a hit parade of bad and reckless ideas for four years. And they have even taken the trouble to list them out for us in their editorial “Barack Obama for Re-Election.”  

They are for the ballooning deficit; they are for more stimulus; they are for the codification of Too Big to Fail as expressed in Dodd-Frank; they want to raise taxes, but let the Bush tax cuts expire. They want more money for bad real estate debt; they think the most important right to defend now is the right to abort under any circumstances.  

If you had a playbook to deepen our fiscal crisis and keep our economy on artificial respiration, the Times editorial in support of Barack Obama would read as the narrative description.

They even go so far as to say that not only did Barack Obama kill Osama Bin Laden, he also “ended the war in Iraq.”

Really? There are a half a million fighting men and women who would dispute that notion.

When you wonder what happened to the greatness of our country you have to first start with awful financial performance of the Times over the last decade. There might be a connection between their plunging profits and their plunging standards.    

I suspect that the Times resents the free market where readers get to decide on their own that they’d rather watch Fox News than read the New York Times.

But advertisers don’t resent it at all. They like that kind of market a lot.  

So, yes; soft advertising revenues are part of the problem at the New York Times.

But the bigger problem at the Times is soft thinking.        


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/11/2012 2:11:49 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’ll take my victories where I can get them. Die a slow agonizing death NYT.


2 posted on 11/11/2012 2:17:24 AM PST by SueRae (See it? Hell, I can TASTE November from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
While campaigning in 2007-08 Obama visited many newsrooms where he quietly floated the idea of newspaper bailouts. This increased his popularity with the print media. After Obama was inaugurated a couple of Democrats in Congress wrote a bill to that would have provided federal money to failing big city newspapers. Even with big Democrat majorities in both houses the bill was shot down.
3 posted on 11/11/2012 2:29:49 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

Bye, bye, NYT. I hardly knew ya.


4 posted on 11/11/2012 2:31:16 AM PST by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Who are the Times advertisers? They need to be publicly boycotted by the right until they stop. A concerted boycott could put the Times under. It should only be a start.


5 posted on 11/11/2012 2:38:54 AM PST by wrencher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I would love to have the funds it would take to buy it, then make Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter or Jerome Corsi Editor in Chief!


6 posted on 11/11/2012 2:48:00 AM PST by Bon mots (Abu Ghraib: 47 Times on the front page of the NY Times | Benghazi: 2 Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
NYT's new editor, imported from the BBC( of all places) starts new job this week. He's been implicated in the rapidly expanding BBC sex scandal..and may not last the year. Another great job by Pinch...

The Times is just about all out of stuff left to sell off to keep funding the losses

7 posted on 11/11/2012 2:54:18 AM PST by ken5050 ("One useless man is a shame, two are a law firm, three or more are a Congress".. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

NYT’s big-spending pundit, Nobel Prize Joker, Paul Krugman, doesn’t have any comments?


8 posted on 11/11/2012 2:55:01 AM PST by granada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; abb; al baby

I like this article. I might read it again tomorrow.


9 posted on 11/11/2012 3:16:00 AM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

That moron Sulzberger thinks the answer to his mismanagement of this piece of crap is to go internet and establish a paywall. If they won’t buy it in print why would they buy it on the internet. Paying for the Times propaganda rag on the internet is as popular an idea as paying for a case of digital herpes.


10 posted on 11/11/2012 3:16:40 AM PST by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots

“I would love to have the funds it would take to buy it...”

My favorite day dream. I wonder how many other Freepers share it.


11 posted on 11/11/2012 3:28:23 AM PST by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

Amen Brother——nothing would please me more than seeing the whole liberal bunch that works there standing in the unemployment line.

And add the whole of MSNBC to that line too.


12 posted on 11/11/2012 4:15:07 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

It seems that the clear thinking at the New York Times has been judged to be irrational by those knuckle-dragging,
ignorant, doltish, stupid, Christian morons in flyover country.

/sarcasm/

IMHO


13 posted on 11/11/2012 4:18:46 AM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

They have a ton of Obama books sitting on their desks and shelves. Perhaps they could have a book sale?

Its kinda strange to walk into a business and see BOs books displayed.


14 posted on 11/11/2012 4:21:44 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

“...nothing would please me more than seeing the whole liberal buch that works there standing in the unemployment line.”

There is no such thing as unemployment for Progressives. It is now called long-term, extended, unemployment benefits
that stimulate the economy which was destroyed by George Bush and made worse by the rich not paying their fair share of taxes. See? Ya know.?

/s/

IMHO


15 posted on 11/11/2012 4:26:46 AM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ripley

Moe truth than sarcasm in that.


16 posted on 11/11/2012 4:27:49 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ripley

More truth than sarcasm in that.


17 posted on 11/11/2012 4:34:26 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There will. Be no “death” of the NYTimes. It, like all drive-by major outlets, will be directly subsidized by the DNC. It’s only a. Matter of time.


18 posted on 11/11/2012 4:37:25 AM PST by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bump


19 posted on 11/11/2012 4:48:36 AM PST by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuckee
That moron Sulzberger thinks the answer to his mismanagement of this piece of crap is to go internet and establish a paywall. If they won’t buy it in print why would they buy it on the internet.

That's a smart move in a way, here's why...

More people are going to the internet to read their news. The NYT isn't dying only because they are a liberal rag, the bigger reason is the medium is shifting. Newspapers got extremely bloated and the internet in increasing as a media vehicle. Here's where it's really smart - in the print edition you reach a 500K+. In a paywall internet edition you reach Millions.

Selling this market to advertisers, where you can show real times results is a no brainier! Or at least it should be...

20 posted on 11/11/2012 4:50:09 AM PST by sirchtruth (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Times advertising is likely too expensive for most users. The large ads are targeted to the 0.1% wealthy. Monster and other services are superior places for help-wanted ads. So, the advertising base for non-premium items is moving away to Craig’s List, Ebay, and community papers, and the help-wanted print ads are shrinking.

The NYT has tried to monetize its material on line, but who wants to register and wind up on their advertising and junk email list?


21 posted on 11/11/2012 5:10:10 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine (Cynical about the political process. Who, me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Makes my day!!!!!


22 posted on 11/11/2012 5:17:37 AM PST by Marathoner 244
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is exactly what needed to happen. Romney would have simply enabled this the dysfunction, corruption, and nepotism between the government/market/media pillars of our society to continue. Without truth we will never succeed. The media is in bed with the enemy, and. It is money that makes her bend over at will. The market and the government have a revolving door between them that exchanges employees, favors, and money. It has to stop.


23 posted on 11/11/2012 5:21:32 AM PST by mgist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Mrs. B.S. Roberts

HEY!! I just realized...WHEN the Times goes down the drain, I’ll be forced to come up with a NEW tagline for FR.
I’ve been so proud of it. But, frankly, I’m already working on my new line in gleeful anticipation.
Oh happy day!!


24 posted on 11/11/2012 6:24:53 AM PST by CaptainAmiigaf (NY TIMES: "We print the news as it fits our views")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kitkat
“I would love to have the funds it would take to buy it...”

Hold off for a bit longer, they will be a more of a bargain every day that Ollibaba is in office.. by the end of his term, the Gray Lady, who has been a willful whore for THE LEADER, will be a cheap street walking prostitute.. yup.. :)

25 posted on 11/11/2012 6:46:15 AM PST by carlo3b (Less Government, more Fiber..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You might remember that at one point this regime proposed subsidizing the “mainstream” media. (A good way to control it completely.) Is this the opening to try it again?


26 posted on 11/11/2012 6:48:48 AM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Mitt Romney is about as dangerous as a cold cup of decaffeinated coffee."

Ew. Maybe that's why he lost.

27 posted on 11/11/2012 6:55:45 AM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I've been saying for years that most employees of the MSM today are mere skid marks on Journalism's shorts.. Maybe Journalism heard me and said to himself

"Hmm, why do I care what that little nobody thinks. Then on the other hand it's been decades since I washed my underwear. . . ."

28 posted on 11/11/2012 7:13:25 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

Show me who a newspaper that has a growing, revenue-positive paywall.


29 posted on 11/11/2012 7:15:03 AM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
When they've lost Clark Kent, they've lost the country.


30 posted on 11/11/2012 7:29:25 AM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth.
5 trillion in debt hell of a job.

/s


31 posted on 11/11/2012 9:29:04 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Boycott Comcast, they own MSNBC and are big supporters of Obama!


32 posted on 11/11/2012 10:49:14 AM PST by IslamE (epiphany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver
Show me who a newspaper that has a growing, revenue-positive paywall.

Not sure. Good point. However, it's the way newspapers will HAVE to go to survive. Maybe not paywall, but internet for sure.

33 posted on 11/11/2012 12:31:52 PM PST by sirchtruth (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I used to like reading their non-political articles. I fought off the urge to subscribe to the online when it became paid. And now I refuse to even click on their website -- let their number of hits drop

it's better to go to www.telegraph.co.uk

34 posted on 11/12/2012 4:37:15 AM PST by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson