Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Report: Wife Scratched Tiger Woods' Face, Chased His SUV; Update: Police Unable To Interview Couple Today
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
The NY Times Company, which has been trying to slash costs and taking loans on its building and from a Mexican billionaire, announced a first-quarter loss of $74.5 million today. The Times reports this "compare[s] with a loss of $335,000 in the period a year ago, as it joined the roster of newspaper companies recording the steepest advertising declines in generations." Advertising revenue dropped 28% (including online advertising drop of 8%), but the "worst drop, 31.4%, hit the New England Media Group, which consists primarily of The Boston Globe and its site, Boston.com. The company has told unions at The Globe that the paper is on track to lose $85 million this year, and that unless deep cuts are made, the paper will be sold or closed." The fate of the Boston Globe has prompted Senate John Kerry (D-Mass) to hold Senate hearings about the newspaper industry next month. Update: Henry Blodget thinks the Times will run out of cash in 12 months. Photo: wallyg on Flickr
NY Times Lost $74 Million During First Quarter
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (12) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Lefty propaganda doesn't sell like it used to. As the unofficial mouthpiece of the DNC, I suspect a bail-out may be in the pipeline for the Times.
These facts, coupled with the democrats' stunning defeats in the last two elections show us that America has had enough with the left wing. The success of Fox News also shows that Americans prefer right wing propaganda.
I think the rise of online news sources is more the focus than 'the rise of fox news' here.
I know smart, educated moderates who have long since given up on the NYT.
right as always
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/10/nytimes-surges-cnet-slumps/
Since Big Newspaper is a Democrat propaganda tool; what could a far-left politician like Kerry do except try to steer taxpayer money their direction?
the issue is, not the nature of NY Times' content, but how paper media will survive in the 21st century. paper advertising is much more profitable per ad than web. what remains to be seen is how these large news groups will adjust to the new reality: people across the nation are buying less newspapers.
this is a discussion about a medium, not a political stance unless, apparently, you are a right-wing curmudgeon.
I removed the bookmark from my toolbar three minutes before reading this!
Senate hearings? FOR WHAT? The business of *print" news is dying. The NYT and any other newspaper can live on online. I haven't subscribed to a print newspaper in over ten years. Why should I? Online is more convenient, no papers piling up that I have to put in recycling, and the news online is instantly updatable (with proper FACT CHECKING and VERIFICATION OF SOURCES FIRST of course - take note bloggers). I don't even subscribe to print magazines anymore. The last time I subscribed to a magazine, I opted for the digital edition through Zinio.
Gothamist, I think you need to feed your trolls a little better... they are so ravenous that they are pouncing on any post in order to posture and blow hot air. WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE TROLLS???
The NY Times is just a badly run business. If they would just listed to Tom Friedman they would realize that the Sulzbergers should step aside and let the Indians and Chinese run the business.
So has Craigslist killed more hookers or newspapers?