Businessweek: How Can The New York Times Be Worth So Little?

Thanks for the heads up. That certainly explains why the Times endorsed Hillary as the primaries began.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=endorse hillary&st=cse&oref=slogin

 

Oops.

 

I just love that you decry the Times' so-called "hypocrisy and agenda" with absolutely no sense of irony. I guess, to borrow a tired page from your well-worn and tired book, if it doesn't jibe with what you believe to be correct, it must be hypocritical and agenda-driven.

That's right. We can say that to you too!

You're a real piece of work.

 

If only that were a possibility, but there's no way the Sulzbergers are going to sell. They've got an iron fist around the NYT board. The company could be so successful if it went private, but it won't.

 

For your hunch to have merit, right-wing papers would have to be bucking the trend when it comes to circulation declines. And when you see the already small circulations of papers like the Washington Times and the New York Sun actually decline, you know it's not happening that way.

So to blame the decline of circulation of a paper on the same left-wing op-ed slant it has had for many years is wishful thinking.

Papers across the board are struggling. The Times is no different from anybody else in that regard.

 

I hear a lot about the imbalance of the coverage of Obama and McCain, but I ask you, should the media NOT say that Obama spoke before over 100,000 Germans, WASN"T well-received on his trip, or that many of the major players are coming over to his side of thinking on what to do with Iraq.
I understand the need for fairness, but if we have to choose between accuracy and fairness, I choose accuracy. Journalist seem to be being put in a position where they are asked to handicap Obama's campaign to cover for McCain's weak campaign. That's not right.

 

How about this: Left wing or right wing aside, the Times has no credibility after Raines and Blair and other examples of their integrity going down the shitter. Maybe the readers are responding.

 

That may have more merit. The Times hasn't needed to severely slash staff and cut news hole to tarnish its brand name the way other papers have.

 

"Has no credibility" would mean "zero," and I believe the NYT is far from being bereft of credibility.

The NYT isn't perfect. It still carries a wee bit of weight, though.

 

Agreed. "No credibility" is hyperbole, at best. I still think the point is valid. The NYT's brand has been tarnished by (somewhat) recent controversies in the same way other papers have had their brands tarnished by corporate slashing. The Times standards are so high, to have something like Blair happen is just unforgivable to some who have come to expect an elite level of professionalism from it.

The Podunk Daily News' brand is not as damaged as much by a fabricated Jason Blair piece (surely, it would do damage though) but when your entire empire is built on this image of thoroughness and professionalism...that's a tough blow to take.

 

I have an old friend who was a New York City cop. In the 1990s I was giving him shit about one of the scandals -- I think it was the Abner Louima atrocity -- and he said, "How many fucking people do you think are on the force?" I forget how many there were at the time, but there are currently more than 37,000, according to the NYPD Web site. My friend says, "How can you expect not to have any bad people in a group that size?" The NYT newsroom has well over 1,000 people. I can understand why uninformed people keep yelling "Jayson Blair," but to see him mentioned on a journalism board as anything more than an aberration baffles me. It can happen in any newsroom that employs humans, which I believe covers all of them. And if you think it can't, you need to open your fucking eyes.

 

Nice language, Frank.