Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

End Times: Could the New York Times go out of business -- in May?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Media Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 03:44 PM
Original message
End Times: Could the New York Times go out of business -- in May?
The Atlantic: End Times
Can America’s paper of record survive the death of newsprint? Can journalism?
by Michael Hirschorn

....Earnings reports released by the New York Times Company in October indicate that drastic measures will have to be taken over the next five months or the paper will default on some $400 million in debt. With more than $1 billion in debt already on the books, only $46 million in cash reserves as of October, and no clear way to tap into the capital markets (the company’s debt was recently reduced to junk status), the paper’s future doesn’t look good....

***

Granted, the odds that The Times will cease to exist entirely come May are relatively slim. Many steps could be taken to prolong its existence....

***

Regardless of what happens over the next few months, The Times is destined for significant and traumatic change. At some point soon — sooner than most of us think — the print edition, and with it The Times as we know it, will no longer exist. And it will likely have plenty of company. In December, the Fitch Ratings service, which monitors the health of media companies, predicted a widespread newspaper die-off: “Fitch believes more newspapers and news­paper groups will default, be shut down and be liquidated in 2009 and several cities could go without a daily print newspaper by 2010.”

The collapse of daily print journalism will mean many things. For those of us old enough to still care about going out on a Sunday morning for our doorstop edition of The Times, it will mean the end of a certain kind of civilized ritual that has defined most of our adult lives. It will also mean the end of a certain kind of quasi-bohemian urban existence for the thousands of smart middle-class writers, journalists, and public intellectuals who have, until now, lived semi-charmed kinds of lives of the mind. And it will seriously damage the press’s ability to serve as a bulwark of democracy. Internet purists may maintain that the Web will throw up a new pro-am class of citizen journalists to fill the void, but for now, at least, there’s no online substitute for institutions that can marshal years of well-developed sourcing and reporting experience — not to mention the resources to, say, send journalists leapfrogging between Mumbai and Islamabad to decode the complexities of the India-Pakistan conflict.

Most likely, the interim step for The Times and other newspapers will be to move to digital-only distribution (perhaps preserving the more profitable Sunday editions). Already, most readers of The Times are consuming it online. The Web site, nytimes.com, boasted an impressive 20 million unique users for the month of October, making it the fifth-ranked news site on the Internet in terms of total visitors. (The October numbers were boosted by interest in the election, but still …) The print product, meanwhile, is sold to a mere million readers a day and dropping, and the Sunday print edition to 1.4 million (and also dropping). Print and Web metrics are not apples-to-apples, but it’s intuitively the case that the Web has extended The Times’ reach many times over.

The conundrum, of course, is that those 1 million print readers, who pay actual cash money for the privilege of consuming the paper, and who are worth about five figures a page to advertisers, are far more profitable than the 20 million unique Web users, who don’t and aren’t. Common estimates suggest that a Web-driven product could support only 20 percent of the current staff; such a drop in personnel would (in the short run) devastate The Times’ news-gathering capacity.

If you’re hearing few howls and seeing little rending of garments over the impending death of institutional, high-quality journalism, it’s because the public at large has been trained to undervalue journalists and journalism....

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/new-york-times
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, it would put an end to their snotty TV commercials.
"I mean, what would you give for that?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think some people grasp just how much the Internet's news offerings are tied into print.
Go to Google News and the vast majority of the links there are to the sites of a newspaper. Newspapers are still responsible for most investigative and enterprise reporting -- reporting that broadcast then takes, smushes up into a tiny segment, and regurgitates for a wider audience. Without newspapers, our democracy as a whole is made far more fragile even than it is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Much agreed, but do we really need any newspaper that shills for wars of aggression of 'pukes'
choosing? :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The New York Times is one of the best papers in the country, if not the world.
Judith Miller notwithstanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Affirmative. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh, please. People subscribe to the hard copy worldwide
It's the true McPaper out there. They still maintain their reputation despite becoming another propaganda outlet for the PNAC.

A lot of papers are in serious danger. The NYT is not one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. That 'shussing' sound is Murdoch rubbing his hands together
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-11-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Actually, it's Bloomberg that wants to get his hands on the Times.
Not Murdoch.

Not that it makes much difference. Bloomberg is a slightly refined version of Murdoch. Their politics and ambitions are comparable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Media Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC