ping
I just don’t see it. Looking coldly at the numbers, I suppose the ‘brand’ has some value, but they still have to sell advertising to make money. And there are just too many other broadcast and narrowcast advertising venues now competing with newspapers for them to stay viable.
Much advertising goes to television broadcast and newspaper broadcast because of inertia. Sooner or later the advertisers will all move to more efficient delivery systems. It’s inevitable.
As far as this hedge fund, I don’t know what they can be thinking. Perhaps the NY Times company has a funded pension plan that can be looted. I still believe that’s what The Gravedancer (Sam Zell) has in store for the Tribune Co. Sell off what can bring quick cash - The Cubs, land, buildings - and then fold the company and loot the pension money.
Pointless. All Class B (voting) shares are owned by Putz Sulzberger and his family.
It’s amusing to read the Time’s McCain endoresement, where they lament his refusal to walk away from ‘discredited rightwing economic theories’, especially if one has a graph of the Times stock price handy.
A hedge fund has no chance of turning around The New York Times regardless of who they put in charge.
It’s like insisting on a new captain for the Titanic AFTER the ship hit the iceberg.