To be sure, the term "shrinkage" means many things to people, especially fans of the hit television program "Seinfeld."
Yet, to folks at the New York Times, it means facing financial realities, and doing more to save money.
To right-thinking Americans concerned with the ongoing bias problem in the media, this shrinkage means less liberal propaganda.
As reported by the Associated Press Sunday (emphasis added throughout):
The New York Times is moving to a smaller format starting Monday, cutting 1.5 inches from its width and moving to what is becoming a newspaper industry standard of 12 inches.
The change, which the company originally announced a year ago, will result in cost savings of about $10 million per year, spokeswoman Diane McNulty said.
Conservatives applauding this announcement will be made even happier by the following:
The change will result in the space for news being reduced by about 10 percent, but the paper will make up for about half of that decline by adding extra pages. Additional pages may also be added from time to time to accommodate major news stories, she said.
Stand up and cheer, folks. Beginning tomorrow, there will be less liberal propaganda on the planet.
I'm verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Liner
August 5, 2007 - 14:36 ET by BarkerThe term "rag" means many things to people, too.
And I doubt my bird will notice the change.
It should be added that this
August 5, 2007 - 14:39 ET by Dave659It should be added that this diminution of the paper comes right after the price of the daily and Sunday editions has been significantly raised. Imagine how the Times would react if the price of some commodity like gasoline rose while the quantity and quality diminished.
New York Times
August 5, 2007 - 16:38 ET by allanfThe Sunday edition, which is diminished in page count (although it is historically smaller in the summer) is now $4.00 in New York City. The Sunday version of the national edition (distributed out of the New York area) is $5.00. That is a hefty price for a newspaper.
Thrity years ago the Sunday Times was a staple in Manhattan. Newsstands would have them rows of the times stacked five feet high. The City Edition, which hit newsstands in Manhattan at 8PM on Saturday would sell briskly.
Now you see fewer and fewer people reading the Sunday Times with breakfast. More and more of the smaller stores don't carry the Times and if they do, they have just a few papers.
It is clear that the Times is not what it once was. They have worked hard to obtain the moniker:
Good point!!!! Anyone
August 6, 2007 - 08:22 ET by kathleenirishGood point!!!!
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Rupert Murdoch to Queen's level 3 and Checkmate
August 5, 2007 - 18:15 ET by Lame CherryIn this day and age of simps, it is a rare treat to watch a real businessman play the field as Rupert Murdoch does. I told people long ago that while everyone is watching the WSJ, Rupert was watching the New York Times.
Mr. Murdoch I believe has a very healthy disdain for pompous rags as he is an Oz mate who had to always play rook to the Bishops of the English press. Nothing besides winning, power and influence moves Rupert Murdoch like sticking it the giants in competition with him.
Yes Rupert got the DOW for the trillion dollar windfall it will create in his business channel, but he has not forgotten how the New York Times has challenged him and screwed him over. A very big portion of the WSJ deal was to cut the New York Times off at the knees, replace it with the Journal and rub those pompous gluteous orifices noses in it every day.
Mr. Murdoch is going to destroy the New York Times. The Times is already contracting in response. Rupert when he blew into London cut prices for papers to a quarter strapping his competitions cash flow.
Right now Mr. Murdoch is moving on the high fashion trade millions in advertising the Times only gets. Murdoch will get that and slowly the New York Times will constrict as all they are is a paper made of paper and Rupert Murdoch is an electronic worldwide media empire not funded in millions like the Times, but billions.
Rupert doesn't want the times gone. He does want it so humiliated that all of it's pompous MSM and political leftists all leave it, chuckle politely at it's being gouche at Rupert's cocktail parties as the Times prattles on about how good Stalin is.
Liberals do not know it for they were trying to shut down talk radio, but Rupert Murdoch for right wing capitalism American style just took the whole chessboard while they whined about Limbaugh and Hannity.
Murdoch just took the world media board. Amazing play by this man from Oz for he is having one g'day mate.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Intersting take on the
August 5, 2007 - 20:33 ET by ncstevemIntersting take on the situation Lame.
I once sold ink to newspapers (1986 - 92) and we knew back then (before the internet) that newspaper's days were numbered. Even back then young people weren't reading them and it was only a matter of time that advertisers would begin to look elsewhere.
The internet has only hastened newspapers demise. The vast majority of subscribers are the 50 and over crowd (much like network news). Retail advertisers aren't interested in this demographic so they are strong arming newspapers to get lower rates for their ads. Classified ads are being lost to the internet. Young people get their news from the internet and TV--they don't read newspaper's 'old' news.
Newspapers will continue to contract to the point that they won't be able to carry the overhead involved in publishing, printing and distributing their product. My best guest is that we'll see newspapers begin to close in about 7 years and 15 years from now, the majority of newspapers will be history.
It couldn't happen to a nicer crowd.
It is a good move--but one
August 5, 2007 - 18:49 ET by Andrew H.It is a good move--but one that doesn't affect me. I won't buy a New York Times on a bet. There is no one in it to read.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Pinch a smaller prick now
August 5, 2007 - 20:26 ET by j17ghsPinch should take a male enhancement product for his problem. I suggest a mix of orange juice, cyanide, arsenic and the entrails of a dead animal left to bake in the sun until maggots completely cover the carcass. Puree all ingredients in a blender, add crushed ice and pour in a collins glass topped with a sprig of mint. Serves an entire newsroom staff. Salut, Pinchy, you lil' prick!
NYT and their shrinking credibility
August 5, 2007 - 21:43 ET by SportPoliticsNYT and their shrinking credibility.
Ok, wait a minute. I read here how they blew off the Constitution and snatched up some property in NYC booting out residents and businesses so they could put up a shiny new edifice. So I guess that will be free, not tens or hundreds of millions, to acquire and build, even with corrupt lib government influenced discounting and strongarming.
So, the truth is, the piece of crap scribbling lefties are worth less than the building their latte drinking smug nosed fancy dancy loon fellows need to lounge around in when they're gazing at their belly buttons and grinding off enamal over Bush hatred.
I'm not so sure downsizing the page is anything but a cost as well, since the presses probably have to be modified somehow. They'ell claim it's outsourced under a sub-corporation or some such cover.
So yes, I'm saying they're lying again. The best part is knowing the lefties realize they are worth less to their own glorious rag than some slightly more comfortable cubicle or braggards rights about location.
Spend all your dough NYT, while you claim there are "downsizing" needs... I guess the new building will take care of that.
Libs, your favorite institution is a greedy, uncaring, cold hearted, lying louse ! Lib, "You're fired!"
lol - silver lining
Not less liberal bias reported....
August 5, 2007 - 23:21 ET by Pasco ConservativeJust condensed a bit..
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any
man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
-Unknown
Noel, what if the NYT reduces the type size by 10%?
August 5, 2007 - 23:26 ET by Dave RIt could happen.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Why just 10%
August 5, 2007 - 23:38 ET by Pasco ConservativeReduce the type size 90%. Make it more unreadable than it is already.
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any
man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
-Unknown
I believe Elaine Benes,
August 6, 2007 - 08:11 ET by AlgerHissI believe Elaine Benes, regarding "shrinkage" said...
I don't know how you guys walk around with those things.
Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!