Hold the Nuts

Art with elephant dung.  Photos of tortured prisoners, the victims of Hitler's Europe, Saddam's Iraq and countless battles from war. 

The New York Times has published all of the above - and more - but this is too disturbing for readers' sensibilities?

Is anyone shocked as to why the value of our nation's once most respected newspaper continues to hurtle downward?

Comments

[Greg]

I wonder did any of the genius's at Instapundit take the time to compare the stock value of the New York Times as compared to any other newspaper organizations? I am kind of curious if they did because most newspaper stocks have plummeted in the last few years? Perhaps someone might have compared the rise and fall of the New York Times stock with that of other newspapers, but that might require a little nuance and some intelligence. Perhaps one might look into the rise of internet productions as a measure into how the stock and performance of newspapers are doing. Again, that would require some research and analysis and who has time for that? Then again with vehicles such as Ebay and Craigslist being so popular, you might even look into that as reason why classified receipts have lessen in recent years. But then again, who has time for any coherent research, let's just boil it down to what I would guess you would demoan is liberal bias. Of course this is a bias that which no one has yet to discover on any wide term basis, yet it seems to be the frequent cry of those on the Right. Nice try, but unless you can document that this is out of pace of any other major newspaper, you are just making stuff up.

Newspaper Stocks Hit 10-Year Lows
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/14/newspapers-media-advertising-biz-media_cx_lh_0914papers.html

Investors continue to shun newspaper stocks despite the possibility of more newspaper mergers and growth online.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/06/news/companies/newspapers/index.htm

More Carnage Coming in Newspaper Stocks
http://www.247wallst.com/2007/03/goldman_sachs_m_1.html

[Peg]

Sorry, my friend. The Wall Street Journal is thriving:

http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=128182

I believe that USA Today is also doing well.

Go figure.

[Greg]

What is the general trend with newspapers these days. I am speaking as a general business trend in the newspaper business. Is the trend up or down for newspapers. Are newspapers overall adding staff, or cutting staff? I could swear I read somewhere where some newspapers no longer have foreign offices and few reporters over seas and other pluses. Could this be because the newspaper industry is at a boom?

Did you take into account that the Wall Street Journal was recently bought up by Rupert Murdoch which had an increase in the share price right before the buyout? Don't think so. Did you bother to look into how much money has papers such as Washington Times (home of right-wing nutjobs) loses a year? Overall newspaper stocks have lowered, and all analysis have pointed to the reasons I have stated. These lower sales are due to the increased numbers of people who get their news via the internet, and decreased classified sales as causes. Can you point to any evidence that it is because of so-called liberal bias that the Times is losing money?

In the end you could be right, I have yet to see anyone but the right wing make this claim, not a single business expert or stock analyst has made such a claim, yet I guess because you and the right wing fringe says so it must be so. Like I said before, it seems as if facts and evidence have a liberal bias, truly interesting.

[Peg]

Oh, the trend for most newspapers is definitely downward. But - I do not think that USA Today is particularly conservative; they simply have been far, far better at delivering what people want, and in a format that people like. The problem with most newspapers is that they are not following the Laws of Evolution; change with future trends, or die. Yes; you are correct that this is not unique to the New York Times.

But - all that being said, Greg - you do not find it amusing that the New York Times' sensibilities are offended by quoting Jackson's use of the word NUTS? I do find that funny and amazing myself.