[antaresequity]

Ultimatley this will reduce the readership of NYT. All else being equal, ciculation should drop, and if their cost/benefit analysis is correct profit should increase.

This sounds like a sound business decision, that as an ancillary beneifit to conservatives, reduces NYT exposure.

[Bonaparte]

"This sounds like a sound business decision, that as an ancillary beneifit to conservatives, reduces NYT exposure."

Exactly my take on this. They've already cut staff. They can't downsize any further than they already have. And relocating to lower production cost is not practical in their business. That leaves them with only one option, which they've invoked. The problem is that it perpetuates the vicious circle they've in. The 5 or 6 million in boosted profits is nothing. The Times' other operations will increasingly have to support this failing newspaper.