New York Times Credit Rating Approaching Junk Status

[Religious Dick]

New York Times Credit Rating Approaching Junk Status

It looks like sacrificing even the semblance of professionalism for the sake of moonbat ideology hasn't been a winning strategy for the New York Times:

    The New York Times Co.'s continued struggles with declining advertising revenue prompted Standard & Poor's to caution Friday that it is inching closer to cutting the company's debt ratings.

    S&P said it placed all of the Times' ratings, including its key long-term corporate credit rating, on CreditWatch with negative implications. In plain English, that means the rating agency is leaning heavily toward a downgrade unless current financial trends at the company improve.

    S&P currently assigns the Times a long-term corporate credit rating of BBB. A one-notch downgrade would bring the rating down to BBB-. But in a research note Friday, S&P credit analyst Emile Courtney warned that a possible downgrade "may not be limited to one notch."

    That would drop the Times' long-term rating to BB+ or worse, which would leave it at sub-investment grade, or junk.

Junk status would bring the Times' credit rating in line with its journalistic standards under Publisher Pinch Sulzberger, the left-wing weenie who has been steering the formerly respected paper toward bankruptcy in the name of moonbattery.

You can see why moonbats want everything socialized. The free market is not kind to fools.

via Moonbattery

[Stray Pooch]

Junk status would bring the Times' credit rating in line with its journalistic standards

Couldn't have said it better myself.

In fairness, all newspapers are catching hell these days.  The print media is no longer fast enough, sexy enough or "e" enough to attract the kind of circulation (and therefore the ad revenue) it did before the internet (not to mention radio and TV, which started the inevitable decline of the print media so long ago).  It really is a shame, because the printed word is so important, but it is the march of communications progress.  I'm sure long ago town criers bemoaned the rise of newspapers.  "How impersonal!"  they must have ranted.  "Having to read the news by yourself instead of having it shouted to you along with all of your friends by a real person!  And who knows what evil those printed rags might bring into your own home, where your children can see it!"

Still, it is nice to see the NYT suffer.  No doubt they could do much better if they did not have to continually retract things they printed the day before.  All the news that's fit to fake.

[Michael Tee]

It's a junk rag so why should it not have junk credit?  They sold their soul to the Bush administration and the Zionist lobby when they printed that anonymously-sourced Judith Miller shit that basically backed up all of Bush's lies and helped propel the nation into war with Iraq.  Even though it was transparently phony at the time, I think a lot of people must have thought it was true BECAUSE it was in the NYT.  Good to see that sometimes there IS a form of indirect payback.

[sirs]

ROFL......1 article about Miller, and 250,000+ (albeit that's probably an exaggeration, but it's to make a point) articles bashing Bush & the war, and most recently McCain, along retracting lies on page A-25, about Bush (& Cheney, & the war) originally published on page 1.  And in Tee's world, that's selling their soul

Kinda like how those bipartisan commissions were CYA mode since they didn't have any Michael Moore's on their panels, to prove how "objective" they supposedly weren't

Priceless

[Michael Tee]

<<ROFL......1 article about Miller, and 250,000+ (albeit that's probably an exaggeration, but it's to make a point) articles bashing Bush & the war . . . >>

Uh, before you embarrass yourself any further, sirs, Judith Miller was a reporter for the New York Times, not the subject of an article in it, and she co-wrote a whole series of articles for it "proving" that Saddam did have WMD, all based on anonymous government sources high up in the Bush administration.  The NYT probably on the orders of its Zionist owners was pushing the WMD lies of the Bush administration beyond all limits of journalistic ethics. 

When it finally became apparent that the entire series was pure bullshit, Miller was fired.

[BT]

Just out of curiousity how many of you take delivery of a dead tree paper?

I haven't in 5 years.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I subscribe to the Miami Herald.

[Michael Tee]

About five years ago (best guess) is when we finally fired The Toronto Star but we still get a couple of suburban weekly papers delivered free.  We don't ask for them, we don't read them, but I don't have the heart to cut them off.  I believe in community newspapers even if I don't have the time to read them myself.  God-awful clutter though.

[BT]

Yeah i get the free weeklies too. Use them to start the fireplace or the charcoal chimney.

Most daily paers have lost revenue to the internet. Some have changed their emphasis to the web, others put columnists behind firewalls. And if that is the only thing that differentiates you from the pack that's  bad move.

It's all about drawing eyes to the ads, classified or otherwise. and that is why the Times is hurting.
They didn't adapt to a changing marketplace.

[fatman]

Just out of curiousity how many of you take delivery of a dead tree paper?

I get the Seattle Times every morning, and the Skagit Valley Herald every afternoon.  I prefer the newspaper to TV news, and I can't take the internet with me on my lunch break at work.

Plus I gotta support the loggers.

[sirs]

Judith Miller was a reporter for the New York Times, not the subject of an article in it, and she co-wrote a whole series of articles for it "proving" that Saddam did have WMD, all based on anonymous government sources high up in the Bush administration. 

Yea......and?  1 reporter vs the multitude of reporters that wrote and slandered Bush otherwise.  But I see your point.  Since the Times wasn't 100% anti-Bush. only 98%, they must have sold their soul       

[Rich]

I subscribe to two: The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Medina Gazzette.

I subscribe to the Gazette for the high school sports coverage.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yea......and?  1 reporter vs the multitude of reporters that wrote and slandered Bush otherwise.  But I see your point.  Since the Times wasn't 100% anti-Bush. only 98%, they must have sold their soul >>

Still plagued by that total inability to discriminate, to recognize various shades of gray, eh sirs?  Too bad.  It's a real handicap.

Judith Miller's bullshit stories weren't like the "multitude" of NYT reporter stories, they were long, prominently displayed and designed to swing public opinion around behind Bush's plans for war.  The choice to run the stories was similar to the decision NOT to run the illegal surveillance stories before the elections. 

When it really counts, when they can line up behind the establishment on key issues, they are always there.  The other stuff, the sniping at Bush, I feel they are just trying to show a little leadership in a media charge that is going to go in the direction of exposing him as an ass-hole anyway because, well, because he IS an ass-hole and that's something that no media campaign on earth can cover up forever.  They were sort of buffing up their credibility as "fearless" and "independent" in the morning after they had ho'd themselves out for him all night.  So guys like you could complain about the "liberal" or "left-wing" press and specifically in that context, the NYT.

[Michael Tee]

<<It's all about drawing eyes to the ads, classified or otherwise. and that is why the Times is hurting.
They didn't adapt to a changing marketplace. >>

That's generally true across the board, but the NYT in particular had a credibility problem stemming mainly from Judith Miller, the Jayson Blair incidentand the pre-election suppression of the illegal surveillance story that fortunately was not widely shared by other papers.

I previously posted about the TV advertising campaign featuring a number of phony "candid interviews" in B&W with people of all ages, in all walks of life, specifically emphasizing how they could "trust" the NYT.  I first noticed the ads on a trip to Manhattan, after I had started to reach for a NYT at the kiosk and then spontaneously decided to reach for something else instead, just because I was finally fed up with their bullshit.  I think a lot of other people were making the same decision at the same time as I was, and the NYT realized what their problem  (or one of their main problems) really was.  Lanya had seen the same ads, too.

[Amianthus]

I can't take the internet with me on my lunch break at work.

I take the Internet everywhere, thanks to my Nokia N800.