MioMyo wrote:
>
> Couldn't happen to a more liberally partisan democrat mouth-piece.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html
Primary Choices: John McCain
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for
president.
The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of
Iraq.
They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even
now
to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them
strongly
on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.
Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John
McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George
Bush
style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a
record
of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he
would
offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the
Republican
field.
...
>
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0887d6aa-58da-11dd-a093-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
>
> 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.
|
