Posted on 08/03/2013 3:59:20 AM PDT by John W
BOSTON -- The New York Times Co. says it has agreed to sell The Boston Globe to the principal owner of the Boston Red Sox for $70 million, a massive drop from the record $1.1 billion it paid for it.
Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy confirms the sale of the Globe and other media properties to businessman John Henry.
The Times bought the Globe in 1993. Newspapers have faced difficulties in recent years as advertisers have moved more ads online.
The Times announced in February it was putting the Globe up for sale. The company's CEO said at the time selling the Globe would help the company focus attention on The New York Times brand.
Henry says the Globe's "award-winning journalism" and "its rich history and tradition of excellence" have established it as one of the most well-respected media companies in the country.
How much are buggy whips going for these days?
In true, anti-capitalist style.
One of the top maggots on the corpse.
Why would anyone buy a newspaper? Either a single copy or an entire company neither makes any sense.
A bargan for an anti capitolist liberal progressive
Advertising has moved on, and that was a major source of funds for newspapers.
Then the Media turned into a DNC operation. You cannot continuously antagonize half of your readership and stay in business.
But if a paper were to pay attention to the happenings of the world in a fair manner it could perhaps be saved and become of some value.
The building is probably worth more than that.
If they pay more than a bag us used baseballs, they got ripped off.
The New York Times is antiprogressive. The sale of the Globe means no more capital gins taxes for life.
Some teams go to extreme lengths to buy favorable press coverage. Think the Globe will be critical of the Sawx now?
Oh, is that so? No other reason, I guess. Well, let's ignore their political stances which turn off a lot of people; that has nothing to do with the situation.
I doubt that there is a newspaper left in America that is worth the paper that it is printed on.
I bid two bits.
Print newspaper’s major problem is with efficiency of delivery. Even with those organizations which published both morning & evening editions, there was a 12 hour delay is delivery times. Then there are the costs of getting the news to the customer (newsprint, presses & labor, paper delivery chain labor and add-on profits. etc.).
Radio and later television were the first major blows to the newspaper industry, increasing frequency of news delivery. Television added the element of “if a picture is worth a thousand words, how much more effective is a video clip”? Cable news channels hammered them even further with continuous delivery of news. Then along came the internet & computers providing on-demand, customer selective news, ads & features. It appeared that things could not get any worse for the newspaper industry.
Wrong! The smart phone took all of the befits of internet & computer delivery of news and made them totally on-demand by finishing the portability trend started by the laptop and expanded by the tablet.
Few people keep parrots or clean their own fish any more. Plastic tarps are cheap and don’t let paint soak through. Paper mache is about the only use left for newspapers. Oh, and there are still flies to swat and the occasional recalcitrant dog to discipline.
“award-winning journalism”
The awards came from other left wing journalists, and are worth nothing.
Boston Snow Globe
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.