An anonymous source in the CIA told me that the New York Times is secretly squirreling away millions in cash, which is stuffed in aluminum tubes buried in the desert outside of Monterrey, Mexico.
Um, what financials, per your link? First indicator that someone has no idea what they are talking about: linking to Yahoo Finance out of some lame adherence to what? Indie-Internet Cred? At least Google provides ROE and competitor data easily. Look at the past two years -- ROE was way down in 2006 (I have no idea why -- do you?), but solid in 07. Hammered in Q3, but so were a lot of people. Note that debt has been shrinking. Maybe they don't want to pay for a credit line they aren't tapping, since even though the last reported quarter was about as bad as you can imagine, they still had net change in cash that was positive. Losing $400MM on an annualized basis, but still managing to not bleed cash? Sounds like the NYT is perhaps better than everyone thinks. Problem is the same as it always is: it burns everyone's ass that the family basically raised a big ole middle finger to conventions of media biz returns and shareholder input. You don't like the two tier stock system? Sell your shares. Last I saw, it was a free country. Note too that before you get all in a tizzy that the Bancroft's are looking a lot less dysfunctional than they were a year ago.
@ninety_nine: First indicator that someone has no idea what they are talking about: linking to Yahoo Finance out of some lame adherence to what? Indie-Internet Cred?
Another indicator that someone doesn't know what they're talking about: Failing to consider whether the information provided is actually appropriate for the audience.
And then cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle.
I don't dispute your analysis. But your tone undermines its persuasiveness. Your analysis is good, and worth considering -- why make it so hard for people to swallow?
"...his doomsday scenario, which not even Hirschorn really believes is going to happen: "what if The New York Times goes out of business-like, this May?"
You slay me. Not likely to happen? Didn't keep Gawker from making it a headline.
If Hamilton had written a post about how the USA Today is in a death spiral, I'd be smirking. If it had been about how ABC (or better yet, Fox) was bleeding cash, I would be goosestepping with schadenfreude.
But the New York Times, no, no. Really, no. For all its faults -- and they are enormous -- we do need the Times. Just imagine if uncle Rupert's Wall St. Journal was the only serious paper left. The Times would leave a major void if it went away.
@saintjim: I'm with you. I think the NYT's reporters have been hitting a high peak recently. Not sure what I would plug the void with. WSJ's not getting noticeably better, most other papers are getting worse. Even if I shifted primarily to Reuters or Google News, I would miss the NYT.
01/13/09
01/12/09
01/13/09
Another indicator that someone doesn't know what they're talking about: Failing to consider whether the information provided is actually appropriate for the audience.
And then cursing the darkness rather than lighting a candle.
I don't dispute your analysis. But your tone undermines its persuasiveness. Your analysis is good, and worth considering -- why make it so hard for people to swallow?
01/12/09
01/12/09
You slay me. Not likely to happen? Didn't keep Gawker from making it a headline.
01/12/09
But the New York Times, no, no. Really, no. For all its faults -- and they are enormous -- we do need the Times. Just imagine if uncle Rupert's Wall St. Journal was the only serious paper left. The Times would leave a major void if it went away.
01/12/09
01/12/09
01/12/09