OVERVIEW: I believe that the sale of The Tribune Company last week to investor Sam Zell is an unrecognized low-water mark in the newspaper publishing business. In fact, after subtracting the value of the Tribune's non-newspaper properties from the deal, what little value remains indicates that the value of having access to a newspaper's readers is a mind-boggling 70% less than it was a mere seven years ago.
Is it possible that Tribune Company investors are paying the price of many years of relentless misreporting and biased reporting at its newspapers, especially those it acquired when it bought Times Mirror in 2000? While the numbers presented here of necessity involve a fair amount of approximation, it's hard to avoid concluding that the answer is "yes."
A chart of The Tribune Company's stock performance during the past eight years shows that it has clearly been an underperformer:

That big dip you see in the graph above in early 2000 represents the market's initial reaction, noted in this New York TimesSelect tease, to the Tribune's Times Mirror acquisition announcement:
MULTIMEDIA DEAL: THE IMPACT; Investors Overreact to Deal, Analysts Say
March 14, 2000Tribune Co's agreement to buy Times Mirror Co spells bad news for Tribune shareholders; Tribune's stock falls $6.375, more than 17 percent, to $30.8125, its lowest level in more than a year; but some big investors and stock analysts say worries that $6.45 billion deal will hurt Tribune's profits were overdone .....
The stock recovered in the week that followed and restored the size of the deal to the $8 billion level. But it's clear now in hindsight that the "overreactors" were on to something.
The fact is that the Los Angeles Times and the other newspapers acquired in the Times Mirror purchase have dragged down the Tribune Company ever since it acquired them for over $8 billion seven years ago.
Things appeared to go well at first. in June 2001, a bit over one year after the Times Mirror purchase, The Tribune Company's 10K-A report to the SEC stated that the market value of the stock was just under $8.7 billion. Including dividends, this means that investors had achieved a pretty decent low double-digit return after the acquisition.
But by March 2007, having had six more years to take advantage of the Times Mirror's four newspapers it had acquired (The Los Angeles Times, Hartford Courant, The Baltimore Sun, and Long Island's Newsday), the Tribune Company had degraded to the point that it was worth about 6% less, or $8.2 billion, to investor Sam Zell.
Now consider that the Tribune's Chicago Cubs baseball team, which Zell plans to sell, is estimated to be worth about $600 million, up from roughly $250 million in 2001.
Take the Cubs' value out of both 2001 and 2007, and the rest of the company's value went from $8.45 billion ($8.7 billion minus the Cubs' $250 million) to $7.6 billion (Zell's purchase price of $8.2 billion minus the Cubs' $600 million) -- a decline of 10%. Consider inflation during that time, and you're looking at a meltdown in real value of well over 25%.
Next, look at the Tribune's 23 television stations. What if the Chandler family, one of the others who looked at buying the company, are right in their belief, noted here, that those stations are worth $4.2 billion? That would leave the remainder of the company worth only $3.4 billion (the $7.6 billion taking out the Cubs minus the TV stations' $4.2 billion).
The non-newspaper remainder of the Tribune Company includes:
- Superstation WGN.
- Chicago radio powerhouse WGN-AM.
- Tribune Entertainment, which owns 11 syndicated TV shows, the most famous of which are "Family Feud," "South Park," "Soul Train," and "Candid Camera."
- 24-hour news channel Chicagoland Television.
- Six other smaller properties.
It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to assign a value of at least $1 billion to all of these (it could very well be much higher). This leaves a relatively paltry $2.4 billion to spread around to the newspapers, which include:
- The Chicago Tribune
- The four former Times Mirror properties noted above
- The Orlando Sentinel
- Nine other smaller papers.
How paltry is that $2.4 billion?
- The Tribune company paid $8 billion for Times Mirror in 2000. This included "extensive magazine holdings" worth at most $1 billion, leaving $7 billion in value assigned to the then roughly 1.85 million reader circulation of the four Times Mirror newspapers. That's a price per reader, if you will, of about $3,800.
- Even if you assign no value to the company's smaller newspapers, it appears that Sam Zell was just able to pay $2.4 billion to "buy" about 2.3 million readers at the company's six major newspapers. That's a price per reader of about $1,040 -- a decline of over 70% in just seven years.
(Yes, I know that this ignores Sunday readership, but I am confident that if it were considered, the 70%-plus decline in the value of a newspaper reader would still hold. -- Ed.)
Now let's return to the question at the beginning of the post:
Is it possible that Tribune Company investors are paying the price of many years of relentless misreporting and biased reporting at its newspapers, especially those it acquired when it bought Times Mirror in 2000?
In the face of such a steep decline (and even though the Internet and other factors have surely been been partial contributors), how can anyone doubt it?
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
quoth the raven, "nevermore"
April 8, 2007 - 20:46 ET by Pragmatic-ManSulzberger, take note. Brush up on your Poe. Bias has consequences, and the media has been undergoing a slow bleed of readership for quite a while now. Seemingly irreversible trends.
I wonder if history will ever attribute the oncoming decline and fall of the liberal media establishment, to George Bush. After all, it is their absolutely blind hatred of our President that has led them into such dire "times".
I know, I know, the media has always been liberal and biased, even back to the first two world wars. But has the MsM not fallen so far left as to have missed the last rope before going over the falls?
My question is when will they
April 8, 2007 - 20:59 ET by bigtimerMy question is when will they ever learn?
a lib is his own worst enemy
April 8, 2007 - 21:16 ET by Pragmatic-ManA lib is his own worst enemy. By their very nature they will never learn. Cats will never bark. (a favorite line from my republican uncle)
This is where my moniker rings again... pragmatism prevails, always. The revanchism agenda of the left will be their undoing, as the steady unwavering voices of conservatism march on.
But, this said, there are those among us neo-cons who were once blind and now see clearly. As the joke goes, "hey mom, these kittens used to be Democrats, and now they're Republicans!"
Sam Zell is a smart businessm
April 8, 2007 - 21:11 ET by jdhawkSam Zell is a smart businessman. While the all headlines are about the sale of the two newspapers, I think he bought them to get at the media assets. He will certainly sell off the baseball team and the media assets, which he probably values as greater than his entire investment if sold separately, and let the newspapers go the way of Air America.
One possible situation, given Zell's support of the Republican party, is that he turns the two newspapers into the Fox New's of print. Given his inexperience in this area, that is doubtful though.
Which ever way that it goes, my bet is that the newspapers' editors and writers are in for a rude time of it! lol
What I read about this and Ze
April 8, 2007 - 21:18 ET by Gat New YorkWhat I read about this and Zell's goals is that he is more focused on transforming the traditional newspaper business model, aligning it more with the Internet, and seeking to regenerate sagging advertising revenue. Had the newspapers been purchased by Burkle, his focus would have been to make the newspapers reflect his far left ideology and let it go the way of Air America.
Zell is preaching relevance and content
April 8, 2007 - 21:38 ET by RJThat's my understanding, too, GATNY. The operative phrase Zell uses is relevance, fueled by content. He says that's the key that will drive revenue. Changes and outcomes will depend on what he thinks needs to be done to achieve that.
The question is, will he agree that the liberal model of these newspapers is the way to get the right content and relevance?
He initially said that he was
April 8, 2007 - 21:45 ET by Gat New YorkHe initially said that he was not focused on content because he believed in professional journalists doing their job. Therein lies a lot of interpretation. One thing is for sure. The days of these newspapers being the house organ for the Democratic Party are numbered.
content drives relevance
April 8, 2007 - 22:00 ET by RJ"CHICAGO --In his first extensive interview since agreeing to acquire the Tribune Co., billionaire investor Sam Zell said he did so as a long-term investment, and having the right content is the key to the company's success."
But since our major CT newspaper, The Hartford Courant is part of the deal, I hope you're right that the days are numbered for these newspapers being the house organ for the Democrat Party. The Courant is at least as bad and probably worse a left wing rag than any other in the deal.
I would believe that Zell wil
April 8, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Gat New YorkI would believe that Zell will be very measued in his inital actions and will not over reach and risk alienating the editorial rooms just yet. But I agree that he will seek to have balanced editorial in all newspapers. The downside will be less posts for NewsBusters.
Evening GAT,As to your last s
April 8, 2007 - 23:09 ET by bigtimerEvening GAT,
As to your last sentence....I wouldn't complain about that in this instance!
I'm sure there will never be posts for NB to run out of though....lol!
Transcript of an interview
April 8, 2007 - 21:57 ET by John in CATranscript of an interview by Hugh Hewitt of the LATimes media critic, Tim Hutten.
The short and dirty of it: It's not the LATimes fault they suck. It's someone else's fault. Most likely the original owners of the LATImes, the Chandler family, for selling to a big company out of the LA metro area. The Chandler's were greedy and rapacious and took the money and ran. My take on it.
It's a shame. I was a LATimes paperboy for two years. Hauling my loads of massive LATimes Sunday papers. Even delivered the Times when they printed the Watergate Transcripts. One hundred twenty Sunday papers, about 1400 pages that day, IIRC. Freakin' mountains of newspaper in my driveway when the driver dropped them off.
It was once a great paper. Read it everyday during high school. The sports section was as good as it gets - had the great Jim Murray. When I moved back to CA in '97 one of the things I really looked forward to was reading the LATimes again. Stopped reading it in '03. Haven't bought one since then. The coverage I was getting on the war just wasn't jiving with the coverage I was getting with radio and the internet. The opinion page just kept getting more and more biased. Decided I didn't need to spend that much money on a paper that didn't want to give me fair reporting and some balance on the opinion page.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
I feel the same way about the
April 9, 2007 - 18:31 ET by UnsaneI feel the same way about the San Antonio Express News (stopped reading it in 2001) and the Houston Comical. Even the old Stars and Stripes has fallen by the wayside. I bought one in Korea after arriving there and never bought another, due to its unfortunate position of being beholden to the garbage put out by AP and other wire services.
They can make ALL the excuses they want (younger readers don't have the attention span anymore! The Internet is our doom! blah blah blah), but I promise you if they have better content, and less biased reporting, they wouldn't be in the world of hurt they are in right now.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Newspapers are being used as
April 8, 2007 - 22:38 ET by MidAmericaNewspapers are being used as suicide bombers for the Left. A dying technology that is going to take down as many from the Right as they can before they flame out.
MidAmerica...You just made my
April 8, 2007 - 22:59 ET by bigtimerMidAmerica...
You just made my evening!
This has all the makings of a
April 9, 2007 - 00:06 ET by Scout FinchThis has all the makings of a turning point in history. Of course, MSM will present it as another media conglomerate purchase, blah blah blah....as the blood of its editors and 'journalists' flows. But it's possible that the blatant bias and official position as Democratic Party House Organ may be the undoing of many major newspapers across America.
Nothing quite like sunshine and fresh air!!!
Most organizations are as str
April 9, 2007 - 04:57 ET by Andrew H.Most organizations are as strong in the market as their employees cause it to be--hire goofballs and you're not going to survive. If they (in this case, reporters) can't do a quality job, you're going to lose sales.
Hiring people who have come out of liberal colleges--who didn't have the intelligence to discern what lib professors choke down their throats--you've hired a follower with a liberal bias--you've hired one who can't think on their own--or won't. Hiring anyone with a democratic background is knowing you're hiring someone who has been as much of a follower too. Not seeing the party for what it is tells me a lot about him or her--and to actually spend money on their tripe is to waste it.
If the Tribune was to hire good reporters they would make money and not lose it. It's as simple as that.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
As a Chicagoan, Zell must kno
April 9, 2007 - 21:33 ET by StockJockeyAs a Chicagoan, Zell must know what most Chicagoans know; traditionally the Tribune was read primarily by Republican suburbanites and the Sun-Times by the Democratic city-dwellers. The Trib was well known to be a conservative, serious, sober paper, while the Sun-Times was roudly considered (for good reason) a sensationalist rag. The Trib alientated their constituency at precisely the time when other altenatives became readily available.
It seems that Zell's plan is to keep the paper and pay off the debt with sales of the other assets. If, among his priorities is making the flagship paper a success again, then a significant change should be in store for the tone and content of the Chicago Tribune. I believe a return to the previous status quo of many, many years, of having two different editorial viewpoints would be welcomed locally at least among the traditional readers of the Trib.
I've got my fingers crossed that there will be a worthwhile local paper to read again. C'mon Sammy, give the people what they want!