Jul
27
2012

#rsrh New York Times Co. losing $29.3 million a month.

There.  I fixed the title of this New Yorker piece for them; for some bizarre reason the people over there thought that the real news to be gleaned from the NYT’s unfortunate fiscal situation is that “[a]t the company’s big three papers — the Times, International Herald Tribune, and Boston Globe — print and digital ad dollars dipped 6.6 percent to $220 million, while circulation revenue was up 8.3 percent to $233 million.”  Heck, the New York Times itself was more objective about the situation that they’re in*.

Not to be unkind, but it’s not good news when a company’s traditional revenue source has fallen through the floor sufficiently that the second best revenue generator catches up with it.  And there’s a limit to… oh, what’s the use? The NYT wants to be the propaganda arm for the Democratic party intelligentsia, despite the fact that such a goal is clearly not profitable on its own.  It’s not going to change any time soon; indeed, as long as its current ownership is willing to eat the costs, it’s not going to change at all.

Moe Lane

*The NYT Co. used to make a profit, you know.  At least in the short term.

4 Comments

  • Justin BeFair says:

    It is a shame that the NYT has lost so much respect, but we have seen what happens when an institution becomes so overtly biased.

    The NYT has gone the way of MSNBC and other Libbie/Leftie/Proggie propaganda news feeds.

  • BigGator5 says:

    What. A. Shame.

  • Vic the Cranky says:

    Oh the humanity

  • Murgatroyd says:

    I’m so broken up abut it, I’m gonna dance a little jig of sorrow. Maybe quaff a few brewskis in mourning.
     
    First there was “Punch” Sulzberger. Now the NYT is stuck with “Pinch.” Does anyone know the nickname of Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, the heir apparent? “Punk”? “Prank”?

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com