posted June 30, 2008 02:35 PM            

It's been downhill ever since for newspaper revenues as people just stop reading their lies. There have been consolidations of papers, change in ownership, borrowed cash to prop up their failing newspapers and sale of assets. Nothing has worked because they still don't get it.

They've attempted to blame the Internet, blamed the economy, blamed talk radio and every other possible cause while ignoring the real cause of their well deserved demise.

The other thing they haven't done is to start telling the truth. They're so deep in the muddy tank for O'Bomber they can't see daylight. Running phony polls, ignoring real news stories while publishing puff pieces for O'Bomber isn't going to gain the public's trust.

Their present prediciment couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch and I'm happy to have predicted this result way back when.

Newspapers, reeling from slumping ads, slash jobs
Sunday June 29, 4:52 pm ET
By Seth Sutel, AP Business Writer

Deep job cuts, outsourcing and more asset sales coming as the newspaper industry retrenches

NEW YORK (AP) -- Even for an industry awash in bad news, the newspaper business went through one of its most severe retrenchments in recent memory last week.
Half a dozen newspapers said they would slash payrolls, one said it would outsource all its printing, and Tribune Co., one of the biggest publishers in the country, said it might sell its iconic headquarters tower in Chicago and the building that houses the Los Angeles Times.

The increasingly rapid and broad decline in the newspaper business in recent months has surprised even the most pessimistic financial analysts, many of whom say it's too hard to tell how far the slump will go.

"They're in survival mode now," said Mike Simonton, a media analyst at Fitch Ratings, a credit analysis agency.

"We had very grim expectations for the sector," Simonton said, and publishers have either met or surpassed his estimates for how bad the results would be.

Last week alone, deep staff cuts were announced at The Hartford Courant and The (Baltimore) Sun -- two Tribune papers -- as well as at The Palm Beach Post and the Daytona Beach-Journal, while The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press said they hoped to reduce the head count in their joint operations by 7 percent through buyouts. The Boston Herald said up to 160 employees would be laid off as it outsourced its printing operations, and in a memo explaining the terms of its job security pledge, the Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J., said it is operating in the red. The week before, McClatchy Co. said companywide staff cuts of 10 percent were coming.

Tribune, meanwhile, told its employees Wednesday that it hoped to wring more value out of its "underutilized" real estate in Chicago and Los Angeles, extending an asset-selling program Tribune is pursuing to service a $13 billion debt load, much of which it took on from going private.

Tribune has already reached a deal to sell one of its largest newspapers, Long Island-based Newsday, but ran into delays early this month in liquidating Wrigley Field, where the Chicago Cubs play, when negotiations for the field's purchase by a state agency broke down over financing. Tribune is also moving to sell the Cubs.

Tribune has enough money to meet its debt requirements this year, bond analysts have said, but it must make headway on asset sales in order to meet its obligations in 2009.

Tribune's troubles reflect broader problems in the industry, where a deepening economic downturn is worsening losses from a long-term shift away from print advertising toward online, especially in classified categories like help wanted, autos and real estate, where rivals such as Craigslist, Move.com and AutoTrader.com are thriving.

Advertising is by far the most important source of revenue for newspapers. And in the first quarter, their overall ad revenue slumped 12.9 percent, led by a 24.9 percent drop-off in classifieds, compared with the same period a year earlier.

In fact, the industry group that compiles and releases ad revenue figures, the Newspaper Association of America, this month stopped putting out quarterly press releases with the numbers, though it quietly updated them on its Web site.

NAA spokeswoman Sheila Owens said in an e-mailed statement that the organization will now put out press releases only with full-year data "to keep the market focused on the longer-term industry transition from print to a multiplatform medium."

Some say complacency in the industry about the threat the Internet posed is to blame for the current quagmire.

Speaking on the CNBC business news cable channel Friday, Sam Zell, the real estate magnate who is now Tribune's CEO, said newspapers have historically been "monopolies" in their local markets and "insulated from reality," according to a transcript of his remarks provided by CNBC.

Going forward, if ad revenues continue to slide rapidly, companies including Journal Register Co., MediaNews Group Inc. and -- in the absence of further asset sales -- Tribune could then risk violating their loan terms, said Emile Courtney, a media industry credit analyst for Standard & Poor's.

Already, just two major publishers have investment-grade debt under S&P's ratings -- Gannett Co. and The New York Times Co. The industry is divided between them and "everybody else," Courtney said.

posted June 30, 2008 03:19 PM            

quote:

---

However, the handwriting was on the wall when the Pew Report came out showing that only 21% of respondents believed all or even most of what the NYT prints as news.

---

I thought you told me that you weren't going to promulgate that lie any further. I guess you're a liar, too. Remember? Mean ol' AG kept picking on you, waiting on your acknowledgement that you failed to understand the poll from which you plucked a misconstrued piece of information.

posted June 30, 2008 04:27 PM            

The Pew Report shows exactly what I said it says. Regarding the credibility of the New York Times, only 21% of respondents believe all or even most of what they print.

You've gotten your butt kicked over and over on the subject of the Pew Report.

Your version is fantasty. My analysis was borne out in the real world when what I said was going to happen...happened.

posted June 30, 2008 04:48 PM            

quote:

---

You've gotten your butt kicked over and over on the subject of the Pew Report.

---

I've always handed you your ass on a plate when it comes to the Pew poll. Your stubborn refusal to accept the truth doesn't make the truth any less real.

posted June 30, 2008 05:44 PM            

Most of what you post is so preposterous as to be instantly recognized for what it is...nonsense. Your analysis of the Pew Poll falls into the same category. What I said came to pass and that's the very best test of what the Pew Poll actually meant..in the real world where you don't do so well.

posted June 30, 2008 05:50 PM            

quote:

---

You indicated I said you were picking on me.

---

I did no such thing. I didn't even imply it.

quote:

---

Your analysis of the Pew Poll falls into the same category. What I said came to pass and that's the very best test of what the Pew Poll actually meant..in the real world where you don't do so well.

---

posted June 30, 2008 06:00 PM            

The reason newspapers are losing their as$es is because people don't trust them and stopped reading their lies. Advertisers follow readers and viewers.

Cause and effect borne out by American attitudes about the news media in America.

Your lies are beginning to bore me acoustic.

"Mean ol' AG kept picking on you"

Posting that without attribution is the same thing as you saying it.

posted June 30, 2008 06:13 PM            

quote:

---

The reason newspapers are losing their as$es is because people don't trust them and stopped reading their lies. Advertisers follow readers and viewers.

---

That is not what the poll said, however. If you merely said this (the above) instead of illegitimately saying that Pew backs up your assessment there wouldn't be an issue. Pew does cite that Americans are losing faith in the media, but most of the major newspapers still do garner an overall favorable opinion.

quote:

---

Posting that without attribution is the same thing as you saying it.

---

posted June 30, 2008 06:50 PM            

It's also perfectly reasonable to draw the conclusion that when people don't trust the news media to tell them the truth, they stop buying the product...which for newspapers is newspapers. It's also reasonable that advertising and advertising rates are tied to subscription rates and when people stop buying papers...for any reason...advertisers disappear.

Once again, your logic..or in this case illogic refutes your position.

posted July 01, 2008 04:37 PM            

Newspapers have lost large numbers of subscribers and newspaper advertisers followed them.

Exactly what I said was going to happen.

The reason that happened...as I knew it would, is because respondents to the Pew Poll said the news media were not highly credible and only 21% of respondents believed all or even most of what the Times prints.

posted July 02, 2008 10:12 AM            

I said that would happen and it did happen.

posted July 02, 2008 01:20 PM            

..."only 21% of respondents believed all or even most of what the Times prints."

posted July 02, 2008 03:10 PM            

Under Print Media Believability:
column 4 is headed by "Believe all or Most". Looking down the left hand column of print media sources we find the New York Times and in column 4..those who believe all or even most we find only 21% saying they do.

posted July 02, 2008 03:21 PM            

How To Win An Argument in Two Paragraphs or Less:

The question asked people to rate on a scale, which clearly means that Column 4 isn't the only column that is being rated favorably. We all know that the WSJ traditionally holds favorability with the public, and NYT's numbers are very comparable with theirs.

posted July 02, 2008 05:33 PM            

The chart setting out "Print Media Believability" clearly shows only 21% of respondents to the Pew Poll said they believe "all or most" relating to New York Times believability.

The other side of that same coin is that 79% of Pew Poll respondents didn't believe "all or most" relating to the believability of the New York Times.

posted July 02, 2008 05:43 PM            

By your flawed argument, 76% of respondents don't believe "all or even most" of what the WSJ prints.

Why did Rupert Murdoch want to buy the WSJ? (Answer: In order to use WSJ's credible vehicle to tackle the NYT.) How is the WSJ doing financially?

posted July 02, 2008 06:07 PM            

Clearly, those who didn't choose category 4..those who believe "all or most"..believe less than "all or most".

They rated the AP even more unbelievable than the New York Times. Lots of trouble at the Associated Press too.

Perhaps Murdock sees an opportunity to straighten the WSJ out, deliver truthful news and make another ton of money in the process by turning the WSJ around.

posted July 02, 2008 06:36 PM            

quote:

---

Clearly, those who didn't choose category 4..those who believe "all or most"..believe less than "all or most".

---

That couldn't be any further from the truth. The question asked people to rate believability on a scale. If people wished to express that they don't believe the NYT they would have voted more in the first and second columns. They didn't. They understand what it means to answer a question on a scale. See the National Enquirer's results if you want to see what it actually looks like when people express extreme disbelief.

posted July 03, 2008 11:18 AM            

What I predicted is happening and has been happening.

LA Times to cut 250 jobs, including 150 news jobs
Wednesday July 2, 10:39 pm ET
By Ryan Nakashima, AP Business Writer

LA Times to cut 250 positions, merge print and online departments, print 15 percent less pages

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The Los Angeles Times plans to cut 250 positions, including 150 jobs in the print and online news departments, amid a continuing industrywide slump in ad sales, the paper's editor said Wednesday.

The decline in advertising, fueled by a weak real estate market, has boosted the copy-to-ads ratio above the industry target of 50-50, giving readers more stories than they can digest, while the paper competes for attention with the Internet and TV, editor Russ Stanton said.

As a result, the paper will undergo a makeover by the fall that will cut pages by 15 percent per week, eliminate some sections and trim story length, Stanton said.

"The number one reason that people cancel the L.A. Times is, they tell us, they don't have enough time to read the paper that we give them every day,"***hahaha, what bullshiit** Stanton said. "We're going to be more picky about the stories we choose to write long and a lot more picky about the ones we write shorter."

The Web and print departments will be merged into one operation with a single budget, and the company will also refocus on being more versatile, he said.

"We're great about putting out a paper; we're getting a lot better at putting up a Web site," he said. "We're not very good on TV or radio, and we don't do mobile at all. We need to do all of those things going forward."

The move followed an announcement last week that the paper's parent, Tribune Co., is exploring the sale of its headquarters in Chicago and the building in downtown Los Angeles that houses the Times.

A half-dozen major newspapers announced layoffs last week totaling about 900 jobs.

Also Wednesday, Journal Sentinel Inc. said it would cut about 10 percent of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's 1,300 full-time employees, and Media General Inc. said it would lay off 21 newsroom employees at The Tampa Tribune by early fall as part of a one-fifth cut in its news staff.

Stanton declined to say which sections would be cut, but he said the A section, containing foreign, national and top local stories, will get larger.

Last month, the paper said it would also stop publishing its money-losing monthly magazine using editorial staff. A new magazine is planned to launch as early as August with other staff.

The most recent cuts were made assuming the economy would stabilize early next year and were designed to help the paper "get ahead of the change that's roiling the entire industry," said Times Publisher David Hiller.

The combined moves "should make a significant contribution toward offsetting the revenue declines."

"It won't fully offset them, but it'll help," Hiller said.

The Times' weekday circulation fell 5.1 percent from a year earlier to 773,884 in March, while the Sunday edition fell 6.1 percent to 1.1 million, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. That ranked it fourth and second in the nation, respectively.

The editorial staff of 876 people will shrink by about 17 percent to more than 700 people by Labor Day. Jobs also will be eliminated in circulation, marketing and advertising, bringing total employment to about 3,000 at the Times, local weekly papers, the Spanish-language daily Hoy and latimes.com.

"These moves will be difficult and painful," Stanton said in a memo to staff. "But it is absolutely crucial that as we move through this process, we must maintain our ambition and our determination to produce the highest-quality journalism in print and online, every day."

Hiller did not provide details on the severance terms to be offered but said he expected they would be similar to earlier staff buyouts, including payment equivalent to two weeks' salary for every year of service, up to 52 weeks.

The paper cut 100 jobs, including at least 40 in the newsroom, in February. Continuing reductions have pared the Times' news staff from its 2001 level of nearly 1,200.

Tribune Co. said in May that its first-quarter advertising revenue declined 15 percent, contributing to an 11 percent drop in operating revenues from its publishing division, to $823 million from $926 million a year earlier.

That unit, which consists of the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsday and other newspapers, saw operating profit decline 74 percent to $37 million.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080702/la_times_cuts.html?.v=1

All this in addition to past Industry wide layoffs, restructuring and sale of assets and whole newspaper operations going back for about 2 years.

posted July 03, 2008 11:41 AM            

We were talking about Pew, and what their poll said.

An article that doesn't speak about a relevant newpaper's credibility in relation to it's declining circulation does absolutely nothing for your argument. News is free. That's why people aren't paying for it in the most simple terms.

WSJ had similar numbers to the NYT, and here's their status.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS128243+28-Apr-2008+PNW20080428

Why is WSJ's circulation growing if no one believes them? USA today had worse numbers in the Pew poll, and they currently enjoy the greatest circulation in the nation.

quote:

---

Newspaper circulation has been on a declining trend since the 1980s, but the pace of declines has picked up in recent years as reader habits change and more people go to the Internet for news, information and entertainment.

National newspapers like USA Today and the Journal have tended to hold their ground better, as have smaller-market dailies where competition from other media like the Internet isn't usually as intense.
Link

---

posted July 03, 2008 12:19 PM            

"We're going to be more picky about the stories we choose to write long and a lot more picky about the ones we write shorter."

ROFL!!!

That is hilarious!

posted July 03, 2008 12:47 PM            

It's even more comical when one realizes the Times routinely attacks business in California...in concert with the democrat controlled State Legislature which levies back breaking taxes and idiotic business regulation to the point armies of businesses have left California.

Lots of people laid off in California...which gives them a lot more "free time" with which to read the LA Times.

So, what's up with the phony excuse by the Times that people just don't have the time to read their newspaper.

Not only is the LA Times a charter member in the Lying Leftist Press Club but they even lie about the reasons they're losing circulation and advertising revenue.

Perhaps the publisher of the LA Times should have read that Pew Report which talked about credibility/believability of various newspapers. Found in those statistics is the fact that "your daily newspaper" enjoys a credibility rating of only 19%...2 percentage points below the toilet dwelling ratings of the New York Times.

posted July 03, 2008 12:56 PM            

I can't help it if you can't connect the dots between cause and effect.

Let me spell it out for you..once again.

Cause:
People don't believe the main stream media news reports...shown in the Pew Poll. The only thing the news media have to sell to consumers of news is NEWS. When those consumers don't believe the purveyors of news they react.

Effect:
Consumers stop buying the news from those whom they believe have been lying to them. Advertisers follow consumers. Result..falling circulation numbers and falling advertising revenues.

Both of which I predicted would happen when I read the results of the Pew Poll...and it has happened.