Lost in the outrage yesterday over the New York Times's decision to discount its ad price for the disgraceful MoveOn.org "Betray Us" ad about General David Petraeus from at least $167,000 to $65,000 (described by NewsBusters' Brent Bozell as, in effect, co-sponsorship) was this awful financial news:
UPDATE: New York Times Reports Weak Ad Sales
CHICAGO (Dow Jones) -- Shares of New York Times Co. hit a new 52-week low Wednesday after the company reported a steep advertising revenue decline in August at the unit that includes its flagship newspaper and the Boston Globe.
Revenue at the publisher's News Media Group dropped 4.6% from the same month a year ago, to $121.5 million. Classified revenue, traditionally considered the most vital component of newspaper advertising, plunged 20% on weakness in real estate, help-wanted and automotive ads.
New York Times stock (NYT) was down marginally at $20.31 in midday trading. At one point, the shares hit a new one-year low of $20.19.
"ONE-YEAR low?" Try at least ten (that's as far back as NASDAQ.com charts will go; NB's Terry Trippany caught the stock-price decline, which has since worsened, back on Tuesday):
NYT's share price has dropped over 25% in the past four months, and 60% since it acquired what may end up being a terminal case of Bush Derangment Syndrome in the summer of 2002.
Long-suffering NYT shareholders surely long for their own surge. They won't get one as long as the company is willing to leave over $100,000 on the table for a politically favored advertiser.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NYT stockholders speaking with their wallets
September 13, 2007 - 10:33 ET by RJThe discount was nothing less than a political contribution....and shareholders are unwilling to pay, out of their own pockets, for the paper's financial and ideological support of the nutroots.
MoveOn Ad
September 13, 2007 - 10:43 ET by River CityRJ:
We must have been writing at the same time with the same thought!
“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” Ronald Reagan
I have contended this for
September 13, 2007 - 10:48 ET by dscottI have contended this for quite some time, Sulzberger is making contributions to the Dem Party against the shareholders interest. It's one thing to loose your own money or donate it, it's quite another thing to misrepresent to the shareholders that the NYT is in business to turn a profit when in fact he turned it into a propaganda outlet, thus violated his fiduciary trust. If I were a shareholder, I'd be suing to break the Sulzberger lock on the control of the company.
There is no such thing as free, someone has to pay for it. If Sulzberger is giving deeply discounted rates to a political organization or someone who is making political statements, in effect the shareholders are the ones who pay the difference between the regular rate and the discount by the loss (or lowering) of their dividend.
The NYT is not the only one doing this, Air America is doing exactly the same thing. Free positive air time to those it agrees with. McCann-Feingold is a sham it is being used to choke off contributions to the Repub Party, all the while the Dems are getting free air time and print space. Air time and print space has a significant value. The Dems don't have to pay for it while the Repubs do.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
MoveOn.org Ad Discount
September 13, 2007 - 10:39 ET by River CitySince MoveOn.org has announced its primary reason for existing is to get a democrat elected to the Whitehouse and to get democrats elected in general, why couldn't this discount be viewed as a campaign donation? I know it doesn't go to a particular candidate and MoveOn is not a traditional advocacy group. But they have made it clear what their purpose for existing is. Why wouldn't the discount be a campaign contribution from the Times? Just wondering.
“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” Ronald Reagan
So, where's the media bias?
September 13, 2007 - 10:50 ET by Roger the ShrubberSo, where's the media bias? *chuckle*
Damn. I tried to get that out with a straight face....
Tom, I'd like to add one
September 13, 2007 - 10:56 ET by dscottTom, I'd like to add one more thing of particular importance, since Sulzberger and others should have known their actions would decrease the value of the NYT stock via a loss of circulation, I suspect a very savy player would have shorted the NYT stock in order to offset the losses they would have incurred by following this business (rather propaganda) model. Are there any SEC reports or filings that would indicate who shorted the NYT stock in the last 12 months from the uptick shown on the graph in 2006/2007??? If any of the Sulzberger Clan or his associates shorted the NYT stock, they would have commited the crime of Insider Trading.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
That is exactly what we
September 13, 2007 - 18:24 ET by buddycThat is exactly what we need to start doing. Had we republicans with the balls to do this I would certainly contribute. We should also spend some money to start demanding the Justice Suter(sp) resign. He is an idiot. Republicans should NEVER miss an opportunity to rip that ahole in any discussion they participate in regarding the Supreme Court. He is completly out of touch with reality and betrayed the President and people who supported his nomination. It has worked for democrats who regularly use such tactics in attacking Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.
In would seem that Justice Stevens would be a prime target as he is senile, too old to serve and he betrayed those that appointed and supported the senile jerk.
Time to start not only responding in kind but escalating. I don't care for Newt but we need someone like him to attack.
No Ad revenue, no NYT
September 13, 2007 - 11:09 ET by JayTeeUrge your local Advertiser to NOT put Ad's in the NYT...that hits 'em in the pocketbook....nothing like un-employed Liberals with no newspaper to publish.
Evidently the 100,000 $$ Advertising Discount to "Move ON" is an excuse........No one is reading the NYT, so they HAVE to discount their ADs.
52 week lows, have to be addressed by management.....heads need to Roll, call in a Jihadist, they do this type of "head rolling".
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Sure about that?
September 13, 2007 - 11:49 ET by general companyheads need to Roll, call in a Jihadist, they do this type of "head rolling".
Not according to the NYT,,,,,,,?
General companion........Ah..contrair...
September 13, 2007 - 11:55 ET by JayTeeHey, we have Video Proof of the Jihadist's qualifications ...no matter what the NYT says.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
If I was silly enough to
September 13, 2007 - 13:08 ET by kgIf I was silly enough to have stock in the slowly sinking NYT and found out they turned down $102,000.00 profit I would be totally PO'd. But looking at their profit margin, only a fool would own stock in the NYT anyway.
Rudy Giuliani has asked the NYT for the "Move-On Discount"
September 13, 2007 - 14:07 ET by RJfor an ad he plans to run in their paper. No word, yet, on the Times' response......
Data
September 13, 2007 - 18:06 ET by ondskapSince July 16, 1986 when the NYT shares went public, the price per share, adjusted for splits and inflation, has gone from $18.17 / share to $20.24 / share today. That is a 11.4% return in 21 years and 2 months, or about 0.51% / year (over inflation).
Comparatively, the S&P 500, over the exact same time period, adjusted for inflation with the same adjustment numbers, has generated a return of 231.94% in 21 years and 2 months, or about 5.83% / year (over inflation).
This is the single reason I
September 13, 2007 - 18:17 ET by buddycThis is the single reason I just could never support McCain. His campaign finance "reform" was a joke. In a proper world the contributions like the NY Times just made to Moveon.org, aka moveback.org would be a campaign finance contribution that would have to be disclosed and limited. It isn't. He got suckered in a deal that might very well end up destroying the republican party. Look at all the money their supporters give to their 527's. Did you read the huffington post were they were bragging about "democrats beneifit from moveon.orgs add and can claim they had nothing to do with it"? That is pathetic. Where do republicans have the ability to make them account? Only the media could hold them accountable and they won't. It shows me McCain is an idiot just like Orin Hatch who got suckered into supporting Ginsberg and Breyer (sp). We need to elect brighter people even if they are fewer in number. Simply pretending to be a religious conservative isn't good enough any more. Screw the religion part of it. We need to find some people with higher IQs.
"Classified revenue,
September 13, 2007 - 22:19 ET by RMR"Classified revenue, traditionally considered the most vital component of newspaper advertising, plunged 20% on weakness in real estate, help-wanted and automotive ads".
So are you saying that the "brilliant" minds at The New York Times decided that it was in their financial interest to trash the Real Estate market, down-play the booming job market, and continue attacking the American automotive industry, simply to further the cause of Liberialism? Surely you jest.
The mind thrust at the New York Times combined with that at MoveOn.org could crush any pencil eraser in NewsBusters office.
So there!!!
So your contention is that
September 14, 2007 - 07:21 ET by dscottSo your contention is that the drop in ad revenue is strictly a function of the economy??? Hmmm, I wonder why the New York Post's circulation numbers continue to go up while the NYT's go down???? Hmmm, you think maybe the New York Post's ad revenue dollars might also be going up chasing after that increase in circulation???? It's called competition, yes liberals think that's so unfair.
Tom, how about some facts and figures on the New York Post. Let's see if there is any validity to RMR's assertion.
However, RMR, to answer your question, yes, the brilliant minds at the NYT chose the agenda over the financial wellbeing of the company and shareholders. After all, liberals are "entitled" to get their message out for the good of society and they expect other people to foot the bill as the price of progress for the good of society. We have seen this MO played out many times. The credo of liberal enlightenment: The smart people have to tell the dumb people what to do for their own good and of course the dumb people have to pay for it (PAYGO).
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
delete info in error
September 14, 2007 - 10:16 ET by dscottdelete info in error
NYT slipping into insolvency?
September 14, 2007 - 08:34 ET by Charles B. SimpsonJust suppose the NYT went bankrupt and had to close it's newsroom. Would most of America care? Who exactly reads, and how many, the NYT? How did this particular paper gain so much esteem and prominence? I,and many other Americans could care less if every employee of the NYT went on un-employment tomorrow.
Care less? Id love to see
September 15, 2007 - 07:05 ET by Shooter1002Care less? Id love to see that company go under and those liberal bastards lose their 401-k's, IRA's and have to go work for the Sanitation Dept.
Let me hear about Enron from the liberals then! A few guys raped that co., here liberal socialists all sacrificed it for their disgusting obnoxious political and economic system; socialism!
'There is no truth but that which serves the cause' should have been their motto.
Interesting: the stock
September 14, 2007 - 10:21 ET by MightyMouthInteresting: the stock starts to plunge sharply after the war starts. Let's see, could that have anything to do with the NYT obvious anti-war agenda? Hmmm... Naaaaaa!! must be something else /sarc.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...