Several major media players, including print icons, are losing money. An April 20 article in the New York Times reported that the New York Times Company (NYT and the Boston Globe) and the Gannett Company (USA Today) declined in first-quarter revenue while the Tribune Company (the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times) actually lost money.
The Times has recently been rocked by major scandals such as Jayson Blair’s plagiarism and fabrication and Rick Bragg's plagiarism. Newsbusters and Times Watch have documented the Times’ leftward-tilting reporting and an inability to acknowledge reporting mistakes in stories like the Duke lacrosse hoax, the story about rape in the military that was printed when known to be false and the recent article which wrongly claimed an El Salvadoran woman was jailed for an illegal abortion. Radar Online noticed the lowering of journalistic bar at the paper and ranked their ten worst reporters. It’s no secret that the print media are in dire straits, and even the NYT wrote that the “disappointing results underscored the increasingly tough economic times faced by the industry as advertisers continued to shift their focus away from print to the Internet.” The Times gave the numbers for the downturn:
The New York Times Company reported a 26 percent decline in its first-quarter profit. Earnings were $23.9 million, compared with $32.4 million last year. Stripping out special items like staff reduction costs, an accelerated depreciation charge and a tax adjustment, the company’s earnings of 25 cents a share were the same as a year ago.
Within the Times Company’s news media group, which includes The New York Times and The Boston Globe, overall advertising revenue decreased by 4.3 percent. Advertising revenue at The New York Times Media Group declined 3.5 percent, and it was down 4.2 percent at The New England Media Group.
The Times Company can’t even get the Internet to work for them:
While newspaper companies have been eager to highlight how fast their Internet advertising is growing, the Times Company decided to reduce its 2007 guidance for Internet revenue growth, suggesting that the transition from a print advertising model may be a long time coming.
Here comes the understatement of the century:
“Clearly this is not going to be a bang-up year for the newspaper business,” said John Morton, an independent newspaper analyst. “There is stiff competition for Internet advertising, and the transition will take longer and may well be less profitable than was anticipated.”
The financial situation at the NYT Company is looking so questionable, in March, Standard & Poor rated the paper’s senior unsecured debt “‘BBB-plus,’ the third lowest investment grade rating.” Last month, TimesWatch.com had some serious words about the company’s future, saying it "shows no signs of increasing prosperity, only decline.”
Although is not meeting its 2007 Internet revenue forecast of 30 percent, it did rise 22 percent to comprise ten percent of the company’s total revenue. Janet Robinson, chief executive of the Times Company, who describes the advertising environment as “difficult.”
The Times wasn’t alone in advertising difficulties. At the same time that The Tribune Company is up for sale, its real estate ads were down 15 percent and their classified ads were down 14 percent. The publishers of the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune also reported a loss of $15.6 million after paying non-operating charges.
Gannett fared worse, and reported not just a first-quarter decline in revenue but an actual loss:
Gannett, which publishes USA Today, reported a 10.5 percent decline in its first-quarter profit, as income fell from $235.3 million to $210.6 million. Earnings declined to 90 cents a share, from 99 cents.
There is some good reporting in the media, but there is an awful lot of leftward-tilting cheerleading and bias. Maybe a little more hard news and facts and less editorializing disguised as reporting and readers will stop cancelling their subscriptions and turning to online sources.


















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Maybe a little more hard news
April 20, 2007 - 23:36 ET by bigtimerMaybe a little more hard news and facts and less editorializing disguised as reporting and readers will stop cancelling their subscriptions and turning to online sources.
Maybe is right... doubtful...but maybe.
They are agenda driven, always have been, always will be, to the very end of their self-inflicted demise.
The NYT wasn't always this bi
April 21, 2007 - 03:32 ET by Lynn DavidsonThe NYT wasn't always this biased and housing several writers who are open propagandists. At one point, they were still a liberal paper, but they weren't deliberately slanting news and obfuscating facts to support their beliefs. If they returned to liberal but not agenda-driven news, it would once again by seen as a little biased but reliable.
Their decline started when th
April 21, 2007 - 06:28 ET by Gat New YorkTheir decline started when they changed their motto to All the News We See Fit To Print.
Their decline started when th
April 21, 2007 - 17:01 ET by Lynn DavidsonTheir decline started when they changed their motto to All the News We See Fit To Print.
Unoficially, of course.
Unofficially but definately i
April 21, 2007 - 17:51 ET by Gat New YorkUnofficially but definately in actual practice.
I know the Globe, Times, and
April 21, 2007 - 09:51 ET by ThisnThatI know the Globe, Times, and USA Today could make money off me, if they changed their ways. I used to subscribe to two of them, and pick up the third frequently. And I tolerated their spew for a long time. But not any more. I won't even go to their Internet versions. Their selection of topics; their bias; their choice of opinion writers; and the obvious cherry-picking finally was too much. I"ve complained to all of them about this, to no avail. They don't care about readers like me; and it's now pretty clear they also don't care about making money.
What, pray tell, do they care about?
They don't care about readers
April 21, 2007 - 17:04 ET by Lynn DavidsonThey don't care about readers like me; and it's now pretty clear they also don't care about making money.
What, pray tell, do they care about?
For some of the reporters and many of the editors, it is ideology and "informing" the public about their issues. Don't forget raising awareness.
You mean--
April 21, 2007 - 17:17 ET by misterbillYou mean--thusly "this is the way I see it and I know better than most people, therefore I am right. A journalist would or should say "My interview with Algore and my viewing of his video raises some serious questions. What I have seen so far, indicates that Algore may be correct. However we have a number of recognized experts in the field who disagree with the Klaxon sounds from those who believe that GW is really happening and is largely caused by man. As an honest journalist, I will continue to study both sides of the issue and report them to you so that you can make your own decision."
PS As you can tell from my article , I do not work for the NYtimes, Globe, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia or almost any major city newspaper. I failed the pre-employment test. I told them "I cannot tell a lie."
NYT
April 21, 2007 - 12:36 ET by pocomocoThe MSM, TV and print, have reached the point of no return. For so long, their Marketing Departments kept a blind eye as to what was happening to them. NYT’s owner, Pinch, Punch, Slam, or whatever his name is, had, at a college recently, actually blamed the readers for the Times decline.
Well, in reality, you could say that the readers are to blame, because they don’t want to read the editorial bilge being spewed at them on a daily basis.
The clock is nearing midnight, and the Grim Reaper, known as Wall Street, is close at hand, and the MSM have nowhere else to go. They have sown their politically biased pap for so long that they are now reaping it in the form of their own demise.
(I love it when I wax poetic)