PDA

View Full Version : The Future of the New York Times



Mister Mets
01-23-2008, 04:39 PM
The conservative website Real Clear Politics had two interesting articles on the future of the New York Times.

Ed Lasky, editor of the American Thinker expressed his belief that Rupert Murdoch wants to position the Wall Street Journal as the premiere national General Interest newspaper, which may be possible due to some snafus by the Times. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/murdoch_takes_on_the_ny_times.html)

John Ellis notes the advantages of Google buying the Times. (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/01/might_google_buy_the_new_york.html)

RebootedCorpse
01-23-2008, 04:52 PM
Complete fucking bullshit.
The Times is the best newspaper in the world.
The reason you've heard of their few snafus is because the Times makes so few.
No newpaper is as trustworthy or as able to break the HUGE story as the Times.
Ruppert Murdoch is a piece of shit that runs hack papers.

BCD
01-23-2008, 04:54 PM
It's the New York Times, it IS newspapers.

mike black
01-23-2008, 05:04 PM
Complete fucking bullshit.
The Times is the best newspaper in the world.
The reason you've heard of their few snafus is because the Times makes so few.
No newpaper is as trustworthy or as able to break the HUGE story as the Times.
Ruppert Murdoch is a piece of shit that runs hack papers.

The Wall Street Journal is a hack newspaper?

Bill Nolan
01-23-2008, 05:05 PM
Feh. The NY Times will be the last newspaper eventually. They'll never give up, never surrender!

Mister Mets
01-23-2008, 05:09 PM
Complete fucking bullshit.
The Times is the best newspaper in the world.
The reason you've heard of their few snafus is because the Times makes so few.
No newpaper is as trustworthy or as able to break the HUGE story as the Times.
Ruppert Murdoch is a piece of shit that runs hack papers.
Quick clarification.

By "snafus" I meant financial problems, as opposed to any ultimately minor controversies.

Whether or not Rupert Murdoch is a piece of shit has little to do with the finances of the New York Times.

The last I heard (which was admittedly an year ago) was that the Times isn't doing too well, as evident by this entry about financial losses in 2006. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8N0AEB80&show_article=1) They weren't doing too well in the second quarter of this year, as evident by this press release. (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-pressArticle&ID=1030554&highlight=)

Nick Spencer
01-23-2008, 05:12 PM
Complete fucking bullshit.
The Times is the best newspaper in the world.
The reason you've heard of their few snafus is because the Times makes so few.
No newpaper is as trustworthy or as able to break the HUGE story as the Times.
Ruppert Murdoch is a piece of shit that runs hack papers.

I think we've had this debate before haven't we?

The Paper of Record in this country is The Washington Post. Has been since Watergate.

But the Times has all the prestige and tradition on its side. But its reputation, given the myriad of editorial fuckups over the last two decades, has taken a serious beating.

I will admit that moving to New York has softened me a bit on this, but really, most great investigative reporting is done by WaPo now, not the Times.

Neither is in any danger of being eclipsed by the new Journal though. That's a fucking laugh.

Brad N.
01-23-2008, 05:13 PM
The Wall Street Journal is a hack newspaper?


Their editorial page, yes. Some of the rest is as well.

RebootedCorpse
01-23-2008, 05:15 PM
The Wall Street Journal is a hack newspaper?

Not yet. It will be. It takes some time to undo a century of high standards.

Nick Spencer
01-23-2008, 05:15 PM
Their editorial page, yes. Some of the rest is as well.

Yeah, as a pure NEWSPAPER its not really viewed on the same level as the NYT or The Post.

It's impact on the business community is unquestioned, but again, as an overall newspaper... not so much.

RebootedCorpse
01-23-2008, 05:16 PM
I think we've had this debate before haven't we?

The Paper of Record in this country is The Washington Post. Has been since Watergate.

But the Times has all the prestige and tradition on its side. But its reputation, given the myriad of editorial fuckups over the last two decades, has taken a serious beating.

I will admit that moving to New York has softened me a bit on this, but really, most great investigative reporting is done by WaPo now, not the Times.

Neither is in any danger of being eclipsed by the new Journal though. That's a fucking laugh.

The Washington Post does excellent work as well. But NYT is still the standard.

Albert
01-23-2008, 05:17 PM
Yeah, as a pure NEWSPAPER its not really viewed on the same level as the NYT or The Post.

It's impact on the business community is unquestioned, but again, as an overall newspaper... not so much.

Murdoch has owned the Post for decades. And it's a rag.

EDIT: OH SNAP you meant Washington Post. Disregard!!

Mister Mets
01-23-2008, 05:18 PM
Yeah, as a pure NEWSPAPER its not really viewed on the same level as the NYT or The Post.

It's impact on the business community is unquestioned, but again, as an overall newspaper... not so much.If only it was owned by someone with impressive resources who could spend the money necessary in making the General Interest stuff more appealing. Someone who owned Fox Sports for example.

Mister Mets
01-23-2008, 05:19 PM
Murdoch has owned the Post for decades. And it's a rag.I think he's referring to the Washington Post.

Wasn't The New York Post a rag before Murdoch?

Nick Spencer
01-23-2008, 05:19 PM
Murdoch has owned the Post for decades. And it's a rag.

Washington Post. Not The New York Post.

Heh. The New York Post is trash.

Albert
01-23-2008, 05:19 PM
I think he's referring to the Washington Post.

Wasn't The New York Post a rag before Murdoch?


Washington Post. Not The New York Post.

Heh. The New York Post is trash.

Sigh...see my edit. I caught it, but not in time. :surrend:

Yes, that makes much more sense!

Nick Spencer
01-23-2008, 05:23 PM
The Washington Post does excellent work as well. But NYT is still the standard.

I agree in the sense that if you polled Americans, or asked them to name one paper, the NYT would be it. And that's very impressive.

But with journalists, and political figures themselves, WaPo is miles ahead. I used to be a personal assistant to a US Senator, so getting papers for guests, meetings, etc. was constant. I'd get asked for today's Post without fail. The Times not so much. Same when I worked press advance-- the Post is where all investigative reporters dream of working.

The NYT though, probably does a better job on the softer sections, though-- nobody reads the Post for book reviews, ya know?

Albert
01-23-2008, 05:24 PM
The NYT though, probably does a better job on the softer sections, though-- nobody reads the Post for book reviews, ya know?

Absolutely right. As a entertainment/culture reporter myself, I find that the NYT is just about tops in that regard.

RebootedCorpse
01-23-2008, 05:25 PM
I agree in the sense that if you polled Americans, or asked them to name one paper, the NYT would be it. And that's very impressive.

But with journalists, and political figures themselves, WaPo is miles ahead. I used to be a personal assistant to a US Senator, so getting papers for guests, meetings, etc. was constant. I'd get asked for today's Post without fail. The Times not so much. Same when I worked press advance-- the Post is where all investigative reporters dream of working.

The NYT though, probably does a better job on the softer sections, though-- nobody reads the Post for book reviews, ya know?

I can see the argument about Beltway investigative stuff being the post's baileywick, but from top to bottom, The Times is simply awesome. Even their obituaries are like works of art.

Nick Spencer
01-23-2008, 05:29 PM
Although I should point out that for STAFFERS on the Hill, the obsessions are Roll Call and The Hill, who beat The Post and The NYT on countless stories on a near daily basis, and usually give you better coverage. But interestingly enough, I never saw an actual politician reading either one.

Kirblar
01-23-2008, 05:32 PM
WAPo's editorial page is shit now though. (The paper's personal one.)

Nick Spencer
01-23-2008, 05:36 PM
WAPo's editorial page is shit now though. (The paper's personal one.)

I actually kinda like it. They make mistakes, but I like that they're at least making an attempt at a moderate tone.

Kirblar
01-23-2008, 05:38 PM
I actually kinda like it. They make mistakes, but I like that they're at least making an attempt at a moderate tone.
They're still defending the Iraq invasion.

Nick Spencer
01-23-2008, 05:41 PM
They're still defending the Iraq invasion.

Yeah... again, not perfect. They really bit on that one. Big time.

Kirblar
01-23-2008, 05:46 PM
I like RealClearPolitics. It's a great news aggregate, pulling together the day's editorials.

Mister Mets
01-23-2008, 05:46 PM
I agree in the sense that if you polled Americans, or asked them to name one paper, the NYT would be it. And that's very impressive.

But with journalists, and political figures themselves, WaPo is miles ahead. I used to be a personal assistant to a US Senator, so getting papers for guests, meetings, etc. was constant. I'd get asked for today's Post without fail. The Times not so much. Same when I worked press advance-- the Post is where all investigative reporters dream of working.

The NYT though, probably does a better job on the softer sections, though-- nobody reads the Post for book reviews, ya know?
From my understanding, the NYT is still king amongst journalists (although the Post is respected).

For politicians, I could understand why the Washington Post is ahead, just because it'll focus more on national politics.

NickT
01-23-2008, 05:47 PM
Is the NYT mainly available in New York?

Brad N.
01-23-2008, 05:57 PM
Is the NYT mainly available in New York?


You can get the Times anywhere that is good. Plus I think they offer subscriptions to the Sunday Times anywhere.

Mister Mets
01-28-2008, 03:55 PM
This Yahoo story demonstrates my previous statements about the Times being in poor financial shape. (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080128/ny_times_shareholders.html?.v=11) Granted, the same problems exist for most of the print industry.


Shareholders Plan Proxy Fight at NYT

Investors Plan to Name Their Own Slate of 4 Directors at N.Y. Times Co.

NEW YORK (AP) -- A pair of investors disclosed plans Monday to name their own slate of four directors at The New York Times Co., saying the current board hasn't acted aggressively enough to meet the demands of the rapidly changing media industry.

The investors, Firebrand Partners and Harbinger Capital Partners, laid out their position in a letter to Times' Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson. The letter, dated Sunday, was disclosed in a regulatory filing Monday.

The Times said Friday that Harbinger had notified the company of its intention to name four directors for election at its next annual meeting on April 22. Firebrand indicated that it was working together with Harbinger and that together the two companies owned 4.9 percent of Times stock.

Investors pushed the Times' shares up $1.41, or 9.6 percent, to $16.07 on Monday on optimism about possible changes there. However, Goldman Sachs publishing analyst Peter Appert, in a note to investors, said he was maintaining his longstanding "sell" rating on the stock as advertising moves to the Internet and other media.

"We do not see an easy or quick fix to what ails the company (and industry), other than continued investment to drive a migration of revenues and earnings to Internet-based operations," Appert said. "It is not clear to us what Harbinger and Firebrand bring to the table to address this challenge."

Harbinger had also disclosed on Friday that it intends to name directors at another newspaper company, Richmond, Va.-based Media General Inc. Both companies are controlled by families that hold supervoting stock, but in both cases the investors are seeking to nominate directors that are elected by non-family shareholders.

Firebrand Partners' founder Scott Galloway said in his letter that he and Harbinger had no intention of changing the Times' two-class share structure, which allows the Sulzberger family to maintain control of the company.

But Galloway added that the current board, "while impressive in stature, has not been effective in inspiring the requisite bold action this media environment demands."

Galloway said in his letter that he wanted to meet with Times managers to discuss an "optimal capital structure" for the company and to find a way to transform the Times "from a low growth company to a robust firm that is both the newspaper of record and the most trusted starting point on the Internet."

The Sulzberger family holds supervoting stock allowing them to elect nine of the company's thirteen directors. Galloway and his partners are seeking to name nominees for the other four directors, which are elected by holders of the company's publicly traded shares.

Last October, Morgan Stanley fund manager Hassan Elmasry abandoned a two-year campaign to get the company to change its two-class share structure. That can only be done by the Sulzberger family, which has indicated no intention of doing so.

Like many other newspaper publishers, the Times' stock has declined sharply over the last year as advertising dollars and readers continue to migrate to the Internet. Over the past 52 weeks it traded as high as $26.90 last February and as low as $14.01 last week.

Several other major newspaper publishers remain under family control, including McClatchy Co. and The Washington Post Co. Last year, Rupert Murdoch bought Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, after winning over a sufficient number of that company's fractious controlling family, the Bancrofts.

Galloway, who is a clinical associate professor at The Stern School of Business at New York University, said in his letter that he wanted to work with the Times' board to redeploy capital to speed up the company's ability to acquire digital businesses.

"We regularly have detailed discussions on these kinds of strategic issues with our investors," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said, "and our board regularly reviews our portfolio of businesses to determine if they meet our targets for financial performance, growth, and return on investment while remaining relevant to our strategies. As always, we remain open to ideas from, and dialogue with, our investors."

In addition to himself, Galloway said he also intends to nominate as Times directors: Gregory Shove, an adviser to Galloway's investment firm Firebrand Partners and a former executive at AOL; James Kohlberg, a co-founder of the private equity firm Kohlberg & Co.; and Allen Morgan, managing director at the Mayfield Fund, a venture capital firm.

NickT
01-28-2008, 03:57 PM
You can get the Times anywhere that is good. Plus I think they offer subscriptions to the Sunday Times anywhere.
Cool, didn't know if it was limited or not.

Ryan F
01-28-2008, 04:01 PM
Are there any newspapers that are doing well? I haven't heard of any.

Andrew j
01-28-2008, 04:08 PM
Cool, didn't know if it was limited or not.

I live in the DC area and every starbucks carries both the Wash Post and the NYT.

Ryan F
01-28-2008, 04:16 PM
I live in the DC area and every starbucks carries both the Wash Post and the NYT.

Every Starbucks in the country caries the NYT, so that means it has pretty much universal availability here. It's also in pretty much every gas station, and you can get a subscription anywhere in the country (I used to have one here in California).

Andrew j
01-28-2008, 04:49 PM
Every Starbucks in the country caries the NYT, so that means it has pretty much universal availability here. It's also in pretty much every gas station, and you can get a subscription anywhere in the country (I used to have one here in California).


I thought it might be in every starbucks but I wasn't sure.

Jonathan Callan
01-28-2008, 04:54 PM
The Wall Street Journal is a hack newspaper?

It's definitely not The Times.

I had a politics Professor that used to ask for anything even close. He conceded the Washington Post reluctantly. Everything else he used to say: "regional tabloid".

Wubbs
01-28-2008, 04:57 PM
The Wall Street Journal is a hack newspaper?
Give him time. ;)

Andrew j
01-28-2008, 04:59 PM
It's definitely not The Times.

I had a politics Professor that used to ask for anything even close. He conceded the Washington Post reluctantly. Everything else he used to say: "regional tabloid".

Wall Street Journal is a terrific newspaper for financial news.

NickT
01-28-2008, 05:28 PM
I live in the DC area and every starbucks carries both the Wash Post and the NYT.


Every Starbucks in the country caries the NYT, so that means it has pretty much universal availability here. It's also in pretty much every gas station, and you can get a subscription anywhere in the country (I used to have one here in California).
I see.


Don't get me wrong, I knew it wasn't New York only because I've seen it around (including foreign countries). But I could imagine that with a country the size of the US, something called the New York Times might not reach all corners.

Brad N.
01-28-2008, 05:31 PM
I see.


Don't get me wrong, I knew it wasn't New York only because I've seen it around (including foreign countries). But I could imagine that with a country the size of the US, something called the New York Times might not reach all corners.

How far does the London Times reach? Not being snarky, I'm curious and don't know. I still have a copy from when I lived there for a summer when I was 16. Ahhhh, 1991, what a magical year.

NickT
01-28-2008, 05:36 PM
How far does the London Times reach? Not being snarky, I'm curious and don't know. I still have a copy from when I lived there for a summer when I was 16. Ahhhh, 1991, what a magical year.
It took me a while to work out which paper you meant :)

It reaches the whole country and has a US edition. It's called The Times, which is odd since a Google search indicates lots calling it the London Times, but I can't find evidence of a name change :)

Mister Mets
04-28-2008, 06:18 PM
The latest figures aren't good. (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003795106)

Daily circulation's down 3.8% while the Sunday paper is down 9.2%