Any questions NYT?

Plus, not only are we seeing papers suffer, but we’re seeing many of them completely going out of business.

ericdondero on December 25, 2008 at 7:46 AM

It’s just unbearably sad… *wipes away a tear*

/sarc

To make things worse, the Newsday lies about circulation has made advertisers seriously doubt the circulation numbers of all papers.

“The bad news for Obama: History shows that presidents usually start to lose support once they assume office and start making the tough decisions. But with eight in 10 currently approving of Obama, he can give away 20 or 30 points and still have a majority of the country on his side. That’s a reservoir of good will that may help him get things done in his first few months on the job,” Holland said.

These people are un-friggin’-believable.

Heh. Great call. Allah should create a new headline graphic for newspaper post mortem – a dead fish, laying on the front page of the NYT. Jaibones on December 25, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Let’s make a headline for the last day of the paper. Here’s my humble suggestion.

God New York Times Is Dead

Just another useless factoid.

Aw gee! Does this mean I’ll now have to look to the Chicago Tribune as my new source for bird cage bottom liner?

pilamaye on December 24, 2008 at 5:00 PM

If that’s snark, it’s really good snark. If not, then … dude.

The blogosphere, much of which piggybacks on traditional journalism’s content, has magnified the reach of newspapers, and although papers now face far more scrutiny, this is a kind of backhanded compliment to their continued relevance.

I think this is exactly right. I have personally read more of the NYT in the past year – all from HotAir links – than in my previous 40 years of life. The New Yorker doesn’t seem willing to clearly explain why, and it’s not rocket science: the good majority of Allah’s links to the NYT are mocking. So, as often as not I think, we are reading the Times more, only to laugh at them, and doing it all for free. This is not a healthy business model.

To be sure – I’m certain there are hundreds of blogs that link the Times as a supporting source for their arguments, too, and this doesn’t make NYT a penny more than our mockery does.

Bottom line: good riddens. And give me October 10th in the pool, after the 3rd Quarter 2009 earnings report shows them bleeding red ink like a stuck pig, and two years of desperate moves to stanch the flow show no results.

Name a major media player which supported Obama et al and didn’t lose audience share.

To be honest I sure there are a bunch of small town newspapers across the country that are struggling to survive and probably didn’t even support a candidate. Most of what is causing the newspaper business problems is just the fact that people are getting their news from elsewhere. However, in The New Times case bias might be playing a very small factor.

You know……….. after looking at that picture, the first thing that came to mind was kinda creepy………… incest.

Don’t worry, Soros will ensure the bailout with our money…. and then control the propaganda as teh Ghey old lady.

Seven Percent Solution on December 24, 2008 at 7:17 PM

Pinch’s dad had his own affair back in the 1950s, producing (according to “The Trust”, a bio of the Sulzbergers) a son who was completely disowned by the family. So the adultery thing apparently, like the paper itself, has been passed down from the previous generation.

The problem for newspapers like The Times today is the bigger a story is, the less proprietary it is, and people have literally hundreds of options via other publications, TV and the internet to get the news. It’s only when you get down to the very local level — where this news story or that may only be of interest to a certain group of readers — that newspapers aren’t threatened with alternative coverage, even if a small story may develop into something big later.

The Times’ problem is it’s staffed by a group of reporters who for the most part, think that because they work at The Times they only need to cover the big stories, which is why the paper’s N.Y. Metro effort always seems half-hearted compared to the city’s tabloids (and finding metro reporters who want to stay metro, instead of going to D.C. or overseas, is usually the exception, not the rule). And the paper, led by Pinch, seems to think blurring the line between straight reporting and advocacy journalism is a way to make the paper more “exciting” and lure new readers, mainly because the people they mingle with at Upper West Side cocktail parties like that the slanted Page 1 stories fit their world view.

So the options are to continue going left, alienating over half your potential readership (including those who think the Times is still too far to the right) and becoming basically a money-losing vanity publication kept alive by people like Soros, or going back to more straight reporting, including on less-exciting and more local stories, which might upset the newsroom egos but are ones that aren’t available from a myriad of other locations.

Name a major media player which supported Obama et al and didn’t lose audience share.

Can’t do it? ok, try this:

Name a major media player which retained some real sense of journalistic balance during the last election and didn’t gain audience share?

Can’t do that either can you?

Perfect… Now I know what to chant while doing my dance on that grave.

Thank You!

And the sooner the better

Plus, not only are we seeing papers suffer, but we’re seeing many of them completely going out of business.