New York Times Fire Sale: De Plane

titanicI thought this historic page seemed appropriate, right?

As we all know, NY TImes has been rated Junk by Moody’s and they had to borrow $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim–at 14% interest. I remember when that was a loan shark rate.

They also sold their building and are now leasing their offices.

Now they are forced to sell their plane.

The New York Times Company (NYT) is so strapped for cash that it has been forced to put its Falcon on the block.  How will journalism survive?

Apparently, their CEO hasn’t noticed there’s a problem though.

Meanwhile, CEO Janet Robinson doubled her own comp last year, to $4.4 million.  

These people report on Bank of America, AIG and Citigroup CEO compensation. How ironic.

24_roller-skatesI’m not sure how they will get around to locations now. But it doesn’t look good, does it?

Why am I reminded of…

23 Responses

  1. At least the NYT is doing what it can on its own to try to survive. The problem is they are a dinosaur on the verge of the ice age. It’s time to dump the daily paper and move on. Who wants to read yesterdays news…it’s so yesterday.

  2. Maybe if they cozy up to Nancy Pelosi, she’ll let them fly in her plane…I mean the US government’s plane.

  3. DE you’re right. Most newspapers are dinos now, really. They’ve been too smug to keep up with the times. You can get their news free on the internet from direct sources such as Reuters, AP. These newspapers just take the same releases and print them. For the most part, local newspapers provide things like obituaries and local happenings. And the elderly who are not on the net are probably all that’s left for them as subscribers. They live for advertising and the fact is, the price of advertising is attached to number of subcribers. Local supermarkets aren’t going to pay big bucks for an ad in a nearly dead paper. I see that some local papers are moving to Sunday Only, where the coupons are. But even that isn’t a sure thing, as now local businesses have taken to bulk mailing their own flyers as we all well know. So the future is kind of grim for newspapers as a whole. They are just the most archaic of mode of news and, as you say, late with the news. Technology ate their lunch a long time ago. I’m not sure how they can even adapt if they wanted to. On one level, I am pleased because pigs like Gannett and other companies like them allow their local papers to be as political as they want, so the news is always slanted or missing. In many cities in America, local papers have elected mayors and council people with their own perferences getting the best press and their ‘enemies’ getting the worst press. It’s been corrupted for so long it will be good to see it end. Still, there are people who depend on that newspaper for the news for whatever reason, even if it’s slanted. for them I am sorry. Let’s face it though, the younger gen aren’t readers much either.

  4. I still find value in my local newspaper – for local news only. For a while now my conservative Republican paper has been including Donna Brazile among its editorial page writers. I don’t know whether this was pre-election, but it’s been happening for a while. Makes me very curious about how people are offered and chosen as editorial writers. She doesn’t seem to be like the “token” liberal that we have had in the past.

  5. well, I wonder what this will mean about that pension…
    can it all get any worse Uppity?

    I wonder.

  6. I am heartsick when I see papers written off like this! I have been a paper reader all my life. If you think some 20-somethings half manufacturing stories that are up online for comment for 3 hrs or reduced to 140 characters is going to keep a public informed enough to ward off this intrusive new govt, I say it won’t be that way! All TV and blogs and even those dopey news magazinesradiate out from papers… If you write off papers, the center will not hold.

  7. Papers have always had a point of view. Would you rather “pigs” like Gannett control everything centrally?

  8. vbonnaire, yes it can get worse, and I fear that we are on the precipice.
    via a vis the NYT, based on their contribution to society over the past 10 years, will we really miss them? I know the timeless excuse – without our reporters digging into stories and background information, how would……
    that might have been true, but it is not longer. Their reporters, some of whom might actually be terriers, are controlled by their editors, who are controlled by the owners, who don’t give a tinker’s damn about anything other than money. I’ve come to the conclusion that they don’t give a darn about Corporate sustainability and/or profit either….one thing and one thing only matters – money in their own pockets and power to get more money.

  9. I will miss the Times worse than fire! My gosh, all this destruction of society is scary as hell!

  10. Maybe we can get back to independent newspapers that investigated and printed facts not just opinions.
    For newspapers to survive they have to be relevant . For a long time they have been no better than birdcage fillers.
    The newspapers have been slowly becoming corporate whorehouses with no redeeming value.

    WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

  11. Star I know you are a fan of newspapers. I just got fed up locally with our right wing publisher running an entire county with lies and sins of omissions. Yes they are a point of view, and sometimes they cleverly disguise their point of view in news and that’s dangerous because people actually believe their tripe. I do like the wall street journal though, and would miss that. For national news, I would prefer to go directly to Reuters. I find that the UK is more objective with our country’s news and aren’t afraid to print what our in the bag media won’t print.

    Maybe if the NY Times weren’t so obvious with the leeching of their point of view into everything, they would do better.

  12. Without a free press, we don’t have a democracy. It’s worrisome that so many papers are going under. Are we going to wind up with one media source, state run TV news or something?

    But I sure can see why so many of these places are going under. Besides paying themselves unrealistic salaries, they don’t even resemble journalism anymore. They didn’t try to bring us the truth about the Bush administration and they sure haven’t shined a light on Obama either. People turn to newspapers for information, they want some access to what’s going on, not propaganda or pieces that make nice with whatever administration is in charge.

  13. Oh I agree we don’t have a democracy without a free press. The thing is, I don’t think our press has been free for a very long time.

  14. Yes they are a point of view, and sometimes they cleverly disguise their point of view in news

    The point of view showed all along in how they endorsed candidates–as for slanting, that is toward advertisers as much as toward favored politicians. I can’t even stand the idea of no paper…it makes me physically ill. We will not have the people paid to spend months on a story…politicians will fear no one! In Three Days of the Condor,would the villain have been scared if Redford said I am going to The Beast with this, or the Daily Kos or Wonkette? Everyone thinks this idea is so slick–all online, cinchy, piece of cake. But then, notice above, someone said maybe we need an independent paper–see they will be reinvented…but you can’t put some of this toothpaste back in…Once these are destroyed, a a lot of it is over. Everyone will know less–and the idiots will get away with more.

  15. Uppity Woman, on March 16th, 2009 at 1:45 PM Said:
    “Maybe if the NY Times weren’t so obvious with the leeching of their point of view into everything, they would do better.”

    Right, UW. If they were to break down and tell the whole truth about 0 and everyone associated with him, they might actually sell newspapers to people who want news, not propaganda or, God help us, political correctness..

  16. Newspapers have always had a point of view that was supposed to be relegated to the Opinion Page. We have relied on journalistic integrity and a code of ethics to provide stories that were factual, well researched, had multiple sources and allowed input from all sides of a story.

  17. “All you gotta do is put your mind to it…knuckle down, buckle down, do it, do it, do it…” – VERY CATCHY UW! The NYT’s corporate folks should have put their mind to keeping objective journalism a foremost priority. Maybe their readership and support would not have gone down the tubes. Key word = objective. Too much overt or covert bias burns bridges. Their CEO saw the writing on the wall and thus doubled the comp package to make out like a bandit as the Grey Lady sinks.

  18. I’ve found it harder and harder to read the NYT since the election; most of the blue-wrapped things get tossed in the trash unopened. Maybe by the time I can bear to read it again, it’ll have disappeared. Very sad, really. They should never have compromised their journalistic integrity to get on the Obama-Cool bandwagon.

  19. I’ve no inclination to defend the NYT. I never subscribed to it, never rushed to read copies of it lying right in front of me when I’ve visited friends who (used to) read it faithfully.

    But the conversation here has quite understandably expanded to include the entire medium and role of newspapers across the country. So I thought for a moment about smaller papers whose contributions often are bigger than their budgets and ad revenues might have us assume.

    They do real investigative journalism, frequently beating the big Washington, Boston, LA, Chicago and NY papers to the punch. They may live up tp some of their old-fashioned names–

    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
    South Florida Sun-Sentinel
    Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    Times-Picayune of New Orleans

    The last one should be familiar. Their office remained open during Hurricane Katrina, or what I prefer to call Hurricane Strock because it was an Army Corps of Engineers disaster. The editors and reporters at the paper kept up the pace, kept the heat on the politicians, after the national press, and bloggres too, lost interest in the subject.

    Would NOLA be the same if the Times-Picayune hadn’t been there? Could the situation be even worse? Yes.

    We know that lesson from 8 years of GW Bush. Some of us will have to learn it, again, with 4 or maybe 8 years of Obama, who btw rarely mentioned New Orleans during the long primaries and election. Cynthia McKinney did, but not Obama.

    Think back to 9/11. The NYT never did then what the Times-Picayune staff had to do after Hurricane Strock. The NYT offices never had to be so resourceful, and put so much personal skin on the line, for very long like the New Orleans journalists did.

    I’m just sayin’….

  20. I’ve no inclination to defend the NYT. I never subscribed to it, never rushed to read copies of it lying right in front of me when I’ve visited friends who (used to) read it faithfully.

    But the conversation here has quite understandably expanded to include the entire medium and role of newspapers across the country. So I thought for a moment about smaller papers whose contributions often are bigger than their budgets and ad revenues might have us assume.

    They do real investigative journalism, frequently beating the big Washington, Boston, LA, Chicago and NY papers to the punch. They may live up to some of their old-fashioned names–

    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
    South Florida Sun-Sentinel
    Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    Times-Picayune of New Orleans

    The last one should be familiar. Their office remained open during Hurricane Katrina, or what I prefer to call Hurricane Strock because it was an Army Corps of Engineers disaster. The editors and reporters at the paper kept up the pace, kept the heat on the politicians, after the national press, and bloggers too, lost interest in the subject.

    Would NOLA be the same if the Times-Picayune hadn’t been there? Could the situation be even worse? Yes.

    We know that lesson from 8 years of GW Bush. Some of us will have to learn it, again, with 4 or maybe 8 years of Obama, who btw rarely mentioned New Orleans during the long primaries and election. Cynthia McKinney did, but not Obama.

    Think back to 9/11. The NYT never did then what the Times-Picayune staff had to do after Hurricane Strock. The NYT offices never had to be so resourceful, and put so much personal skin on the line, for very long like the New Orleans journalists did.

    I’m just sayin’….

  21. You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone, people…

  22. Hey Star!

    Hush my mouth and freeze my face– one of the papers I mentioned yesterday, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, announces today’s printedition will be the last. The headline is “One Era Ends, Another Begins” on the front page, with a linked story about Hearst’s decision to switch to a digital “community platform” format:

    http://www.seattlepi.com/business/403793_piclosure17.html

  23. […] Additional Uppity Link: New York Times Fire Sale: De Plane […]

Comments are closed.