NY Times Gone In '09?

Update: Ed Driscoll, actually a fellow alum of mine, rounds up the decline of old media.

From 24/7 Wall St - based upon background and financials, ten major companies predicted to go away in 2009. Number 6 on the list? The New York Times. h/t An email from Pundita.

24/7 Wall St. looked at some of the largest and most well-known companies, reviewed their SEC filings if they are public, analyst reports, and media observations about their businesses and picked ten that probably won’t be around at the end of next year.

6) The New York Times (NYT) has to repay $400 million in debt in the first half of 2009. It does not have the money. It plans to mortgage its headquarters, but it is uncertain what that will bring in an uncertain real estate market. The firm’s Boston Globe and regional newspaper operations lose money, so they will be hard to sell. NYT is controlled by the Sulzberger family which has super-majority voting shares. That won’t matter much when the company runs out of money. Another big media operation, perhaps News Corp (NWS) which owns The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, will come in and auction off what it can and keep the flagship New York Times newspaper and NYTimes.com website.

Comments

[JayC]

Do you feel the schadenfreude? The NY Times is feeling it.

I can't say I'll miss any of the others, either.

[FedUp]

It's past time for the NYT to be gone! The reporting has been irreponsible and their bias is blatant. I will not miss one line of print!

[Brian L]

Haven't you been paying attention lately? A company no longer fails because they lose money. With their friends in power next year they'll get a bailout.

[JoeR]

All the news too big to fail.

[John]

Won't happen, though Pinch Sulzberger and the rest of the clan may end up as figureheads. Liberals have way too much invested in the idea of The New York Times to either let it die or let Murdoch gain control of it, so expect a generous infusion of cash from some of the usual moneybags subjects on the left (Soros, or someone with the same political mindset), and then expect the company to get some sort of bailout/tax break/tax credit option from New York City and New York State, with the tacit support from the federal government.

Things may not look good for the Times, but it's not going to die a quick death, and will likely have a good number of years left, even if its only a money-losing vanity publication for rich liberals to keep afloat for prestige value among their peers.

[MarkJ]

Question: How will the NYT change if the government takes it over?

Answer: It won't, except its employees will get a better health plan and Michelle Obama will be given a by-line.

[Denny, Alaska]

Or, as my local daily rag, the Anchorage Daily News That Fits Our Editorial Stance, puts it, as it goes from four to two sections in 2009: "we're resizing to better serve the community." No word yet from the parakeet cage bloc of voters on this development. The ADN, just like the NYT, will spout that "advertising revenues" are declining while not having clue #1 that their editorial stance(s) are so out of kilter with their readership. Kill 'em all and let Rupert Murdoch sort it out.

[David Davenport]

Gooberment-subsized NYT not that different from NPR.

[John]

"Another big media operation, perhaps News Corp (NWS) which owns The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, will come in and auction off what it can and keep the flagship New York Times newspaper and NYTimes.com website."

Please stop taunting us.

[Mwalimu Daudi]

The collapse of the New York Times would be as significant an event for democracy and freedom as the fall of the Berlin Wall.

And that is not hyperbole at all. The Times has been the docile and obedient bootlickers of some of history's worst regimes, from the Soviet Union to Fidel Castro to the Islamofascist terrorists who were killing Iraqi civilians and US troops in Iraq.

[Scrapiron]

The NYSlimes could become a success simply by becoming a 'news' paper.

[David Govett]

I'd be happy to buy the NYT for $1 cash, just for the thrill of firing every last tendentious ass is the building.

[mrkwong]

NYT - I'd love to see it fold. Sure, if I had more money than God I'd love to buy the thing just to pull the plug on it, but in the real world a Murdoch would have to see enough value in the brand - hopefully stripped of its current editorial crust - to warrant the effort.

Will the Obama administration let the thing fold? Could a President who more or less owes his election to the sinister (in pretty much every meaning in the dictionary) press let it slip beneath the waves? Could a freshman Senator-oligarch allow her most vocal cheering section dissipate?

As for a few of the other entities on that list - the writing was on the wall for Chrysler when Daimler-Benz decided to haul ass for Stuttgart.

DB took it over with delusions that the Chrysler nameplate was still some kind of premium brand in the US marketplace. They put the Pacifica and the Crossfire in the showrooms with a pricetag $10K above what the public was willing to pay for anything with the Chrysler name on it and buyers stayed away in droves.

When DB management realized that the Chrysler name wouldn't pull any kind of upscale margin, very early on, they slashed product development and started looking for a way out. The 300C/Charger was too far along to be affected, so it got into the showrooms and did pretty well and bought them a little lead-time.

Everything that's come since the LX-platform cars has been somewhere between cheesy and comically bad - the Caliber (baby Aztek), the Sebring (why would any company bring a new product to market that was DESIGNED to be tenth-best in its segment?), a whole line of Jeeps and little Dodge SUVs with bodies that scream wannabe-Hummer and interiors that would embarrass Fisher-Price. Okay, the Aspen's not the worst thing on the road and the current Viper's a whole lot better than what went before, but that and the aging 300C (live by the trend, die by the trend) aren't enough to carry a company.

[prestopundit]

Thanks for the happy news.

[RonT]

Hey,

Here in the Midwest, We don't harbor the prejudices you describe. If you live in New York and go to bed at night believing that your imported car is just the next best thing to sliced bread, well God Bless Ya. It's Not something that we worry about.

If your car has more cams, valves or bigger tires, then I hope you'll have just a riot when you attempt to diss your buddy whose car has less of each.

The rest of the the country really doesn't give a s**t about how you "rate" cars. You play this game, but only a few folks around you are watching.

Take a week to come out to the midwest. You'll find that pick-ups and SUV's are used everyday to transport people safely over long distances.

RonT

Toledo, Ohio

[xerocky]

The thing that I don't understand is why did they need that new building anyhow? The old had "grit". The new one is all glitzy, so... why? It's not like when they moved in things were going well for the newspaper industry. It's just such a stupid idea.

I don't get the NYT at all. They print crap, they make stupid mistakes. Will Shorts is a good puzzle maker though.

[Fat Man]

It will all be Geoge Bush's fault if the NYTimes goes under!

[jake]

Prediction... Disney Corp buys the NYT.

[Vaultenblogger]

Oh, the humanity. My heart bleeds. /sarc.