1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New York Times troubles?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by wickedwritah, Oct 20, 2006.

  1. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    Have scanned past CNBC the past few days and I caught the end of one conversation mentioning NYTCo. as a potential takeover target, and another saying ad revenues are sagging.

    A story <a href="http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/10/19/newyorktimes-wallstreetjournal-latimes-tech-media-cx_lh_tvr_1019times.html">in Forbes</a> talks about the company going private, among other things:
  2. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Wicked, NYT cannot be taken over in the classic sense, because the shares bought and sold by the public aren't the same as those owned by the Sulzberger family. The latter are the voting shares that control the company. As a newspaper person, it's good to work for a company set up like that. As an investor, you should never ever own any shares in such firms.
    Basically, the Times Co. is struggling because the Boston Globe is sinking. And one of the reasons the Globe is sinking is because it's owned by the Times. The two papers compete for the same audience, Boston's large professional/suburban demo plus the immense population of the higher education complex (students, faculty, etc.).
    Let me put it this way. I've always taken both papers, but if I had to choose just one of them, it wouldn't be the Globe.
    Times shareholders should be allowed to kick Arthur Sulzberger in the nuts at the annual meeting.
  3. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    If nothing else, that would certainly improve attendance at such functions.
  4. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Not to mention the morale.
  5. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    Yes, Michael, it'd be more of a taking-the-company-private deal. I stand corrected.

    And you're right. The Globe, save its sports section, has sank like a stone. Do many Bostonians really want to read The JV New York Times?
  6. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    One more problem for the Globe-geography. The spokes from the Hub keep getting longer. Its target demo is being forced further and further west and south in the search for affordable suburban housing. This means more and more of them are getting early editions. It doesn't take them long to find out they can read the last edition on-line for free, which they then do.
  7. STLIrish

    STLIrish Active Member

    The Globe is just depressing these days, journalistically speaking. They need to quit trying to be the Times and put a little life in their pages.
  8. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    According to this morning's WSJ, it's not just the Globe. But the articles I've seen place the Globe's troubles squarely on broadband in Boston. Apparently Boston is the U.S. city with the third highest percentage of homes with high-speed internet.

    San Diego was first, I think, and I can't remember what was second.
  9. 2underpar

    2underpar Active Member

    if the globe's new publisher -- steven ainsley -- can't turn things around there, nobody can.
  10. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

  11. He'll get the Globe to level off. Which isn't saying much. But treading water is better than sinking.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page