Thank you, decal, I hadn't seen that picture of CZJ before, and it definitely classes up the thread.
Tip to the NYT PhotoShopMeister (if he still has a job): next time you retouch the Dowdster, do something about those Allosaurus scales on her neck. Your last attempt painted over the wear and tear on her face, but left her head perched on something that looked like a wharf piling from before the invention of creosote.
(If I sound cruelly gleeful about MoDo's aging, it's because nothing says "justice" than man-hating feminists soaring past menopause and growing old alone with two cats).
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Below is the Reuters/Yahoo story on this good news.
NYT to lay off 4 pct of work force By Michele Gershberg
1 hour, 1 minute ago
New York Times Co. (NYSE:NYT - news) on Tuesday said it would cut about 4 percent of its work force, or 500 jobs, and warned that weaker newspaper advertising and rising costs could reduce earnings to less than half of Wall Street forecasts this quarter.
Shares in the New York Times fell almost 2 percent in after-hours trade as the company made its second job cut announcement since May, when it planned to eliminate 190 positions.
The publisher of the New York Times, Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune warned that third-quarter earnings per share would be in a range of 11 cents to 14 cents compared with 33 cents a year earlier. The forecast includes expenses of 4 cents to 6 cents per share for its previous job cut program.
Analysts on average had forecast earnings per share of 25 cents, according to Reuters Estimates.
The company will cut about 500 jobs over six to nine months beginning in October, including 250 positions at the New York Times Media Group and about 160 at its New England Media Group. The reductions include about 80 newsroom positions in total -- 45 at the Times and 35 at the Globe.
The newspaper industry has been struggling with a lackluster ad market, increased newsprint costs and circulation declines as reader turn more often to the Internet for news.
The New York Times and rivals have expanded their online offerings as a result, but the scope of Internet revenue has yet to replace newspaper advertising. In August, the company's About.com unit helped push total ad revenue up 1.7 percent. Excluding the information site, ad revenue fell 1 percent.
"If the (ad) budgets are getting cut, they are not getting cut online," said Christa Quarles, analyst at Thomas Weisel Partners who rates New York Times shares at "peer perform." "How do you transition your core (newspaper) business to being online? I don't think anyone has solved that creative-destruction dilemma yet."
Quarles said the New York Times Co trades at the higher end of peer valuations on a price-to-earnings basis. Company shares are down more than 21 percent since the start of 2005, compared with a 10 percent drop for rival Knight Ridder Inc. (NYSE:KRI - news) and a nearly 15 percent decline for Gannett Co. Inc. (NYSE:GCI - news).
LOWER AD GROWTH SEEN IN 2005
New York Times Co. Chief Executive Janet Robinson said the company would "aggressively reduce costs" across its businesses and grow its Internet operations to offset the weak ad market.
"In September, our largest month in the quarter, advertising has been challenging and visibility remains limited," she said.
"We continue to benefit from very strong double-digit advertising growth at our digital operations, particularly About.com," Robinson said. "But elsewhere, advertising is weaker than expected."
Newspaper analyst John Morton cited a 1.6 percent rise in New York Times newspaper group ad revenue for the first seven months of 2005. "Consumers are just not stepping up to spend money the way they usually do," spurring advertisers to hold back, he said.
The New York Times said it was too early to assess the cost of the latest job cuts. The company lowered the range of its 2005 revenue projections, expecting ad revenue growth to be in the low-single digits from a previous forecast of low to mid-single digits.
New York Times shares fell to $31.51 on Inet from their close of $32.13 earlier on Tuesday.
(Additional reporting by Deena Beasley in Los Angeles)
I don't have a problem with what you said. Anyone who so gleefully dances on the graves of American soldiers because she's thinking about the political cost to George Bush deserves more schadenfreude over her pathetic excuse for a life than any of us could dish out in a lifetime.
Oh, sure it does. Try this one - a bottle of cheap booze, and a vi..., uh, sex toy, with bad wiring, that short circuits at a critical moment.