LOL... What a moron you are Fukgo. Read the article you idiot. I'm not the
one re****ting the economically damning information regarding the times. So
why didn't they mention other liberals rags? I dunno, maybe because of the
NYT liberal bias they are taking the biggest hit.........
"fargo116" <fargo116@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:32e30eea-4d76-4806-82fa-a8a7888b14d3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 23, 7:58 pm, "MioMyo" <USA_Patr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Couldn't happen to a more liberally partisan democrat mouth-piece.....
& LOL...Yo-Yo doesn't tell you that this is an effect of the economy as
& is happening to ALL newspapers. Take a look at Gannett in his own
& do***entation, for example.
& He's just pissed off because the NYT wouldn't print Grampa's latest
& editorial because it wasn't newsworthy.
Discussing liberal bias in the main stream press, like Chris Matthews says
about bamby, sends a warm tickle down my leg...........
& S. Olson
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0887d6aa-58da-11dd-a093-000077b07658.html?n...
>
> The New York Times suffered a 16.4 per cent decrease in June advertising
> revenues and warned on Wednesday that the effects of high oil prices, a
> slowing economy and the housing crisis were likely to weigh on its
> prospects
> for some time.
>
> "I think it's clear that many of the advertising budgets are tightening
> up,"
> said Janet Robinson, chief executive of the New York Times Company,
> predicting a "tough" second half of the year.
>
> The June performance followed an 11.9 per cent decline in May
advertising
> revenues, and suggested that an already deep erosion in newspaper
> advertising could be accelerating. Ms Robinson said the company would
> respond by raising newsstand prices for the New York Times from $1.25 to
> $1.50 per copy beginning in August, marking the paper's second increase
in
> a
> year.
>
> That announcement came as the company re****ted that second-quarter
profits
> fell 82 per cent to $21m, or 15 cents per share, compared with the same
> period a year ago, when it benefited from a $94m gain from the sale of
> television stations.
>
> Excluding that and other one-time events, income from continuing
> operations
> was down 5.5 per cent for the quarter. Revenue fell 6 per cent to $742m.
>
> The New York Times Company's results were the latest sign of gloom from
> the
> newspaper industry, which is now feeling the effects of a slowing
economy
> as
> it grapples with an ongoing migration of readers and advertisers to the
> internet.
>
> Gannett, the largest US newspaper chain, last week re****ted a 36 per
cent
> decline in second-quarter earnings, including a 17 per cent drop in
> advertising at its flag****p USA Today newspaper.
>
> Times' executives on Wednesday pointed to weakness in a variety of
> advertising categories, including Hollywood studios, department stores,
> technology products and telecommunications.
>
> Among the worst-hit was real estate classified ads, which first moved
> online
> to lower-cost competitors and are now drying up altogether in hard hit
> property markets like California.
>
> This year, the New York Times offered voluntary redundancies to about
100
> newsroom employees, a rare step for a paper that has prided itself on
> adding
> journalists even while competitors were retrenching. The company said on
> Wednesday that the voluntary buy-outs were expected to cost $40m-$50m.
>
> One bright spot for the company was its About.com website, where
revenues
> increased 15.8 per cent to $28.6m amid higher advertising. That helped
its
> internet revenues grow 12.8 per cent to $91.3m for the quarter,
accounting
> for 12.3 per cent of its total revenues.
|
