As MRC's Tim Graham wrote on April 22, the hearing was spurred by the steady drumbeat of newspaper closings around the country, and calls from some Democrat lawmakers to bail out and subsidize the newspaper business.
While others testified on newsprint business models and the impact of the Internet, Gainor's statement to the subcommittee highlighted liberal bias as a major factor in the industry's decline. "The concept of a journalist as a neutral party has become a punch line for a joke, not a guideline for an industry," he said.
Gainor pointed to the scant newspaper coverage of last week's tea party protests as an example of editorial bias. He also cited a number of surveys and polls: "'By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win,' Pew reported. Other surveys confirmed it: According to Rasmussen, 'Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin.'"
He specifically called out the New York Times. "The number who believe 'almost nothing' in the newspaper is nearly identical to those who do believe," he told the subcommittee. "And while newspaper credibility has taken a hit among both Democrats and Republicans, it is lowest among Republicans with the Times having just a 10 percent credibility rating in that group. One person in 10? You could write graffiti on a wall and have more people believe you."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
God Bless you Mr. Gainor
April 23, 2009 - 09:32 ET by Lord ErondIt's about time someone else cited other things other than "declining revenues".
"Please get your facts right, then you may distort them as you please" -Mark Twain
"Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
Drudge posting about Congressional Fatties
April 23, 2009 - 12:25 ET by Joe BlogsPerhaps the title should be
BMI's Gainor Tells BMI Gainers Liberal Bias Has Hurt Newspapers
Ow-ee
April 23, 2009 - 09:40 ET by GalvanicGainor: ". . . You could write graffiti on a wall and have more people believe you."
That's ironic. Grafitti is the principal source of NY Times reports.
The next biggest source is the anonymous "Some," as in "Some say . . . "
Government-Media Complex
April 23, 2009 - 09:46 ET by FedUpEvenMoreI thought the main source of the Times stories was liberal blogs. Which is a less credible source than graffiti. The dems want to bail the papers out so that their propoganda can continue through a supposedly unbiased medium. What a farce!
What Bias ??
April 23, 2009 - 09:56 ET by iveseenitallJust ask any "liberal" and they will tell you that the media is not biased. Oh, in their "reports" about his first 100 days they say that Obama is the greatest president ever. Humm...
NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"
Lib mentality
April 23, 2009 - 09:59 ET by FedUpEvenMoreIt's because libs are useless idiot zombies who would bow down to Obama no matter what he did. They will blame the Republicans for anything that he does wrong. What a mental disorder they have.
Bravo Mr Gainor
April 23, 2009 - 09:57 ET by VinncyGWe couldn't have said it better. However, the mere fact that the Democrats are holding meetings on saving the newspapers certainly does not help the cause of fair and balanced reporting. It will only strengthen a stranglehold on the media and make them puppets of the left.
In another great story about my favorite liberal rag the NY Times reported in a Jacksonville newspaper the following:
Analyst: NYT stock could be worth zero
Jacksonville Business Journal - by Tim McLaughlin
Comments
Related News
A case could be made that New York Times Co. shares are worth nothing as the newspaper company’s debt load threatens to overwhelm its earnings power, a Barclays Capital analyst said Wednesday.
“Net debt to (operating profit) is way too high,” Barclays analyst Craig Huber said in a research note. “We could argue the stock to zero given the high debt load.”
The New York Times Co. posted heavy losses in the first quarter, with executives largely blaming New England newspaper operations that mostly consist of the Boston Globe. The newspaper’s unions recently received an ultimatum to slash costs or face shutting down.
Even if the New York Times Co. unloaded its 17.75 percent stake in New England Sports Ventures (NESV), which includes the Boston Red Sox, for an estimated $150 million after-tax, Huber estimated, the company’s year-end net debt would be 4.5 times EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). That’s still too high, Huber said.
“In our opinion, newspapers cannot cost cut themselves to prosperity and an online-only newspaper model is not profitable, not even close,” Huber said in his research note. He cut the company’s stock price target to $1 a share.
New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) shares closed Wednesday at $4.94.
Huber pegs the private market value of the Globe at $100 million, a far cry from the nearly $1.1 billion the New York Times Co. paid for the paper in 1993. He estimates the Globe will generate about $359 million in revenue this year, resulting in an EBITDA loss of nearly $27 million.
New York Times Co. bought its stake in NESV in February 2002 for $75 million.
“We view the 17.75 percent stake in the Boston Red Sox as having among the very best long-term asset appreciation potential at the company, and thus we are disappointed that the company needs to sell it,” Huber said. “... In our opinion, the long-term viability of the company may be at stake, though.”
Daily newspapers nationwide are struggling amid declining circulation and the recession-driven decline of advertising revenues.
Thursday, April 23, 2009, 10:03am EDT
Analyst: NYT stock could be worth zero
Jacksonville Business Journal - by Tim McLaughlin
Comments
Related News
A case could be made that New York Times Co. shares are worth nothing as the newspaper company’s debt load threatens to overwhelm its earnings power, a Barclays Capital analyst said Wednesday.
“Net debt to (operating profit) is way too high,” Barclays analyst Craig Huber said in a research note. “We could argue the stock to zero given the high debt load.”
The New York Times Co. posted heavy losses in the first quarter, with executives largely blaming New England newspaper operations that mostly consist of the Boston Globe. The newspaper’s unions recently received an ultimatum to slash costs or face shutting down.
Even if the New York Times Co. unloaded its 17.75 percent stake in New England Sports Ventures (NESV), which includes the Boston Red Sox, for an estimated $150 million after-tax, Huber estimated, the company’s year-end net debt would be 4.5 times EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization). That’s still too high, Huber said.
“In our opinion, newspapers cannot cost cut themselves to prosperity and an online-only newspaper model is not profitable, not even close,” Huber said in his research note. He cut the company’s stock price target to $1 a share.
New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) shares closed Wednesday at $4.94.
Huber pegs the private market value of the Globe at $100 million, a far cry from the nearly $1.1 billion the New York Times Co. paid for the paper in 1993. He estimates the Globe will generate about $359 million in revenue this year, resulting in an EBITDA loss of nearly $27 million.
New York Times Co. bought its stake in NESV in February 2002 for $75 million.
“We view the 17.75 percent stake in the Boston Red Sox as having among the very best long-term asset appreciation potential at the company, and thus we are disappointed that the company needs to sell it,” Huber said. “... In our opinion, the long-term viability of the company may be at stake, though.”
Daily newspapers nationwide are struggling amid declining circulation and the recession-driven decline of advertising revenues.
We can only dream this is true.
Bias?
April 23, 2009 - 10:09 ET by iveseenitallLefty bias? Give us a few examples, Mr. Gainor. Congress isn't doing anything for the next two years.
NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"
isia... Congress isn't
April 23, 2009 - 16:05 ET by bigtimerisia...
Congress isn't doing anything for the next two years.
Oh how I wished that weren't true, unfortunately the majority of them are intent on destroying our Constitutional Republic with every vote they can!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Gainor admits bias
April 23, 2009 - 10:06 ET by Hanoverfistand is summarily shot to death by "Non Partisan" "Journalist".
I called last week to
April 23, 2009 - 10:10 ET by Captain RepusI called last week to cancel my 30+ year subscription to the L.A. Times telling the agent that I would no longer pay for an ultra-liberal propoganda machine. They offered to give me a Thursday thru Sunday delivery for $1.65 a week to keep my account.
This rate obviously doesn't even pay the cost of the ink so I assume they think the left-wing propoganda conduit is more valuable than running a profitable business. Methinks there must be some big-time funding coming from someone, or the prospect of a govt bailout must be pretty high.
Actually, I believe the government should just take over total control of all the major newspapers and periodical rags. That way we could be assured of getting truth in reporting.
Most people buy a newspaper
April 23, 2009 - 11:38 ET by Chris NormanMost people buy a newspaper to read the news. If the paper, instead of supplying the news, supplies propaganda, warped and twisted information, or is missing important news stories entirely, then, obviously, the product doesn't work as advertised. Would one buy any product that doesn't remotely work as advertised?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
**Chris Norman
April 23, 2009 - 11:44 ET by pelicanmarshYou nailed it, Chris.
I'm encouraged, maybe naively, that this meeting took place at all. Imagine a man saying, under no uncertain terms, that liberal bias is killing journalism....love it.
But who's listening besides those of us who are already aware?
"Listen, I told that cow of a liberal mom that you have that it was over between us, and she needs to stop sending me money and nude photos."
.
May 4, 2009 - 15:20 ET by rexdraconim"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!" -me<
Bias is tricky
April 23, 2009 - 13:26 ET by hobieThe trouble with bias is that you can't see it without a bit of introspection.
Liberals don't think that newsmedia is biased because their biases are aligned, and therefore, to liberals, newsmedia is simply speaking truth.
It is kind of like polarized lenses and those little Maui Jim demonstration displays where if you look at the display without polarized lenses you don't see anything, but if you look at with polarized lenses, there is a bunch of neat colors there.
It works the same for conservatives, of which I am one. When I see an article or posting that makes sense to me, it is because it agrees with some elements of my bias.
I have discontinued my subscriptions to newspapers because the ones in my town only report the liberal bias. We have mexican nationals writing about immigration, hippies writing about social issues, and apologists writing about how bad the US is. The only conservative voice in the entire newspaper was an editorial each Friday by Mike Rosen. When the paper sent me an email asking why I discontinued my subscription, I told them that I don't want their paper for this very reason: Your reporters cannot distinguish between fact and opinion.
The single largest difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge that they have a bias. Conservatives can and should wear it on their sleeves.
I agree with this person's testimony to congress that bias is contributing to the decline of newspaper subscriptions. When the newsmedia alienates a chunk of the population, insulting their viewpoints on a daily basis, it should come as no surprise that the alienated population doesn't want to buy the news product anymore.
AJC Pitch
April 23, 2009 - 14:12 ET by slickwillie2001In Atlanta, the primary selling pitch of the AJC is that if you use the coupons in the Sunday edition, you can recover the cost of the subscription when you shop for groceries. That tells you what they think of their own paper.
Gainor Allowed to Speak at a Conyer's Committee??!!
April 23, 2009 - 15:02 ET by nofateHow did this happen? Surely someone did not do their homework and let this conservative slip through the cracks. As Gainor pointed out in his statement:
And, if you are a member of the dinosaur print media, you believe passionately that anyone, especially the doltish commoners who continue to not buy your newspaper, are clueless and if you just keep pushing your agenda hard enough, some day they will wake up. And if that doesn't work, the government will give you funds to make it work. Whatever gets the job done, right?
Kudos to Dan for having the guts to sit there and say what he did to a Conyers committe.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Mr. Dan Gainor... many,
April 23, 2009 - 16:01 ET by bigtimerMr. Dan Gainor... many, many thanks from our home to yours...more than you know...much appreciated...you are speaking for us.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart