Comments on: Sympathy with McCain – I too was rejected by the New York Times http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/ Just another Pajamasmedia.com weblog Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:06:12 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: TBogg » Fear of a Heh. Indeed. world http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-139533 TBogg » Fear of a Heh. Indeed. world Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:38:28 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-139533 [...] shares his pain: When I read this morning on the Drudge Report that the New York Times had rejected John [...] [...] shares his pain: When I read this morning on the Drudge Report that the New York Times had rejected John [...]

]]> By: Alex Reed http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96256 Alex Reed Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:28:33 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96256 The middle of The End? "Credit Watch with negative implications." That's Standard & Poor's speak for, "The End is nigh," and that's the rating they gave The New York Times late Wednesday. It means they're just a step away from tagging The Times credit rating as non-investment or "junk" status. Read it <a href="http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/7/-extra-extra-new-york-times-nyt-about-to-get-downgraded-to-junk-" rel="nofollow">here</a> in Silicon Alley Insider, and weep for the slide of a once-great newspaper into the Styx. The middle of The End?

“Credit Watch with negative implications.” That’s Standard & Poor’s speak for, “The End is nigh,” and that’s the rating they gave The New York Times late Wednesday. It means they’re just a step away from tagging The Times credit rating as non-investment or “junk” status. Read it here in Silicon Alley Insider, and weep for the slide of a once-great newspaper into the Styx.

]]> By: Alex Reed http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96220 Alex Reed Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:32:23 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96220 The Times just reported today that their second quarter earnings were <b>down 82%</b> since last year! Times CEO, Janet L. Robinson, didn't see any hope on the horizon for the rest of 2008, and maybe not until the end of 2009. Earth to Ms. Robinson, sadly, at this rate, The Times will be kaput long before then. And I am entirely sincere when I say "sadly", because The Times was once a great newspaper. Check out this <a href="http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2008/07/23/ny-times-ceo-no-end-in-sight-to-the-pain" rel="nofollow">smart article</a> by Joe Bercovici at Portfolio, and there's <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0887d6aa-58da-11dd-a093-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1" rel="nofollow">more</a> in The Financial Times. The newsstand price of the paper is being hiked (for the second time within a year) another $.25 to $1.50 for the daily timesian experience come mid-August. When an analyst on the second-quarter earnings call this morning asked whether the price hike would mean $10 million more in earnings, The Times' CFO, Roland Caputo (any relation to Neil?), gave the most wonderfully timesian answer: "It's a bit more nuanced than that.....". He went on to say (when the laughter died down?) that, "contractual obligations with wholesalers" would curtail the amount of the increase that would actually end up in The Times' till. Huh? There may be good financial reasoning in this move, but being a dull-witted non-reader of The Times, all I see is desperation to extract whatever pennies are possible from any direction to offset the tide of red ink. Remember, they hoped to navigate out of their little problem by axing, sorry, downsizing the newsroom by 100 souls with buyouts and then layoffs. They had projected that the buyouts would cost $30 or $35 million. Now it looks to cost more like $40 to $50 million. All these moves are desperately defensive, the actions of a company going down the tubes. Pinch is giving upbeat interviews here and there. One puff piece in Ad Age quoted an nameless (of course) Times reporter who opined, "The fecklessness of the Bancrofts reflected that Arthur had sharp values. .... He may not be a business visionary, but he is stalwart in a way that they were not." Well, the last time I looked, the Bancrofts et al are still counting their $5 Billion plus, the whole Dow Jones organization, and most visibly The Wall Street Journal, have been getting into good fighting trim, getting more lively and limber, expanding, and generally working up a fine appetite to eat Pinch's lunch. I would be surprised if the Times shareholders are quite such a happy bunch in the face of their ever-shrinking prospects. The Times just reported today that their second quarter earnings were down 82% since last year! Times CEO, Janet L. Robinson, didn’t see any hope on the horizon for the rest of 2008, and maybe not until the end of 2009. Earth to Ms. Robinson, sadly, at this rate, The Times will be kaput long before then. And I am entirely sincere when I say “sadly”, because The Times was once a great newspaper. Check out this smart article by Joe Bercovici at Portfolio, and there’s more in The Financial Times.

The newsstand price of the paper is being hiked (for the second time within a year) another $.25 to $1.50 for the daily timesian experience come mid-August. When an analyst on the second-quarter earnings call this morning asked whether the price hike would mean $10 million more in earnings, The Times’ CFO, Roland Caputo (any relation to Neil?), gave the most wonderfully timesian answer: “It’s a bit more nuanced than that…..”. He went on to say (when the laughter died down?) that, “contractual obligations with wholesalers” would curtail the amount of the increase that would actually end up in The Times’ till. Huh? There may be good financial reasoning in this move, but being a dull-witted non-reader of The Times, all I see is desperation to extract whatever pennies are possible from any direction to offset the tide of red ink.

Remember, they hoped to navigate out of their little problem by axing, sorry, downsizing the newsroom by 100 souls with buyouts and then layoffs. They had projected that the buyouts would cost $30 or $35 million. Now it looks to cost more like $40 to $50 million. All these moves are desperately defensive, the actions of a company going down the tubes.

Pinch is giving upbeat interviews here and there. One puff piece in Ad Age quoted an nameless (of course) Times reporter who opined, “The fecklessness of the Bancrofts reflected that Arthur had sharp values. …. He may not be a business visionary, but he is stalwart in a way that they were not.” Well, the last time I looked, the Bancrofts et al are still counting their $5 Billion plus, the whole Dow Jones organization, and most visibly The Wall Street Journal, have been getting into good fighting trim, getting more lively and limber, expanding, and generally working up a fine appetite to eat Pinch’s lunch. I would be surprised if the Times shareholders are quite such a happy bunch in the face of their ever-shrinking prospects.

]]> By: bob m http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96212 bob m Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:00:16 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96212 Lem, re your Jul 22, 2008 - 9:31 am comment: the NYT is being consistent. They endorsed McCain over Giuliani because they believe that of the Repubs, he would put in place more of the policies they prefer, by working bipartisonly across the aisle. They endorsed Obama over McCain because he would put in place even more. Lem, re your Jul 22, 2008 – 9:31 am comment:

the NYT is being consistent. They endorsed McCain over Giuliani because they believe that of the Repubs, he would put in place more of the policies they prefer, by working bipartisonly across the aisle. They endorsed Obama over McCain because he would put in place even more.

]]> By: jedrury http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96107 jedrury Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:07:56 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96107 Tess: Your Times snarkiness shows through. For the Times to demand McCain to define "victory" is absurd because victory is simple; defeat the insurgents, crush Al Qaeda, leave behind a viable functioning political system and a military capable of handling any insurgency uprising. For you to believe that the Times really wanted that definition as a precondition is fiction; it denied McCain the privilege it granted Obama for specious reasons because for the leftist Times it so damn hard to give any conservative, moderate or Bushian, any space on its op ed page; Kristol and that milk toast David Brooks are token enough. Tess:

Your Times snarkiness shows through.

For the Times to demand McCain to define “victory” is absurd because victory is simple; defeat the insurgents, crush Al Qaeda, leave behind a viable functioning political system and a military capable of handling any insurgency uprising.

For you to believe that the Times really wanted that definition as a precondition is fiction; it denied McCain the privilege it granted Obama for specious reasons because for the leftist Times it so damn hard to give any conservative, moderate or Bushian, any space on its op ed page; Kristol and that milk toast David Brooks are token enough.

]]> By: Captain Hate http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96099 Captain Hate Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:40:14 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96099 I just did a search on the Uni-bama's original op-ed for the word "victory": Nada. I just did a search on the Uni-bama’s original op-ed for the word “victory”: Nada.

]]> By: Rubicon http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96098 Rubicon Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:27:03 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96098 Bias or partisanship are not a problem. The "problem" comes when media outlets or "journalists" claim fairness while they overtly & covertly work to push an agenda. In addition, the issue becomes despicable when media mix their views or agenda in with the news as though their agenda "is" the news. This is why the New York Times & other media organizations are losing out. Add to this their failure to embrace or even acknowledge the existence or potential of an alternative method & you have a recipe for failure. The NYT has become so "in the tank" for leftist ideology, that when they publish almost anything, their liberal position is an integral element of the subject. The NYT wants the world to believe not only that they are not biased, but that all surely must agree with them, or they surely must be uneducated, stupid, & heartless, conservative, religionists, whose false deity has clouded their ability to think! The internet has proven beyond doubt that the NYT is not only expendable, for many, they feel it will be a good thing when the NYT is expended. That they lose money, yet pay the family dividends, proves to many the NYT are not only biased, they are bad managers! One guy I spoke to the other day said, "bleeding to death what was once an icon of America, would be a sin, if they were not so pretentious about themselves. Not only are they wrong, they are totally wrong." Bias or partisanship are not a problem. The “problem” comes when media outlets or “journalists” claim fairness while they overtly & covertly work to push an agenda.
In addition, the issue becomes despicable when media mix their views or agenda in with the news as though their agenda “is” the news.
This is why the New York Times & other media organizations are losing out. Add to this their failure to embrace or even acknowledge the existence or potential of an alternative method & you have a recipe for failure.
The NYT has become so “in the tank” for leftist ideology, that when they publish almost anything, their liberal position is an integral element of the subject.
The NYT wants the world to believe not only that they are not biased, but that all surely must agree with them, or they surely must be uneducated, stupid, & heartless, conservative, religionists, whose false deity has clouded their ability to think!
The internet has proven beyond doubt that the NYT is not only expendable, for many, they feel it will be a good thing when the NYT is expended.
That they lose money, yet pay the family dividends, proves to many the NYT are not only biased, they are bad managers!
One guy I spoke to the other day said, “bleeding to death what was once an icon of America, would be a sin, if they were not so pretentious about themselves. Not only are they wrong, they are totally wrong.”

]]> By: tess mcneil http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96097 tess mcneil Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:38:39 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96097 <i>That the Times would demand McCain to define “victory” is absurd.</i> Yes, heaven forbid a candidate for President lay out his view on the most pressing foreign policy issue of the moment. Talk about elitist! That the Times would demand McCain to define “victory” is absurd.

Yes, heaven forbid a candidate for President lay out his view on the most pressing foreign policy issue of the moment.

Talk about elitist!

]]> By: Lem http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96096 Lem Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:17:47 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96096 It’s disingenuous for the NY Times to say it needs McCain to define “victory”, when any body with a minimum modicum of English could tell them an<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDVhYWQzMmQ3YWRlNzFkYjRmZmY4ZTQzZmUwZjJhZjI= " rel="nofollow"> antonym</a> to “victory” they are very much familiar with. It’s disingenuous for the NY Times to say it needs McCain to define “victory”, when any body with a minimum modicum of English could tell them an antonym to “victory” they are very much familiar with.

]]> By: Anita Hope http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96095 Anita Hope Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:58:10 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/21/sympathy-with-mccain-i-too-was-rejected-by-the-new-york-times/#comment-96095 Giving the NYT any important time is ridiculous. They started out a freedom of speech information paper. However, times have changed and printing free speech and opinions in the NYT is a thing of the past and thus will be what terminates them in the business. When a newspaper chooses to be selective in what they print and close the windows of who does the writing for them they make the move towards failure caused by reducing the public reader from having an open mind to discuss or debate both sides. They now have the opportunity here by blogs and freedom of expression and as a former debator, seeing the newsprint fade is sad, however, just being able to type this and reach so many and read others opinions is great. We are all so lucky to expand our minds. Giving the NYT any important time is ridiculous. They started out a freedom of speech information paper. However, times have changed and printing free speech and opinions in the NYT is a thing of the past and thus will be what terminates them in the business.
When a newspaper chooses to be selective in what they print and close the windows of who does the writing
for them they make the move towards failure caused by reducing the public reader from having an open mind to discuss or debate both sides. They now have the opportunity here by blogs and freedom of expression and as a former debator, seeing the newsprint fade is sad, however, just being able to type this and reach so many and read others opinions is great. We are all so lucky to expand our minds.

]]>