Poetic Justice

Reaping What They Sew...


It seems that the fortunes down at the NY Times continue to sink, as Morgan Stanley sells their entire 7% stake today.

Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest shareholder in New York Times Co., sold its entire 7.3 percent stake today, according to a person briefed on the transaction, sending the stock to its lowest in more than 10 years.

The person declined to be identified because Morgan Stanley hasn't made the sale public yet. Traders with knowledge of the transaction said Merrill Lynch & Co. brokered a $183 million block trade of 10 million New York Times shares this morning.

Hassan Elmasry, managing director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, unsuccessfully challenged the Sulzberger family's control of New York Times Co. through super-voting stock that gives them a board majority. Shareholders owning 42 percent of the company, parent of the namesake newspaper and Boston Globe, withheld support for directors at the publisher's April annual meeting.

As this blogger has pointed out time and time again, the "dead tree" legacy newspapers continue to suffer staffing cuts following a decade or more of circulation losses.

Now it looks like the people backing the financing of the publicly held hard copy lamestream media outlets are taking notice and abandoning ship.

Of course, in typical fashion, the "professional news writers" can't possibly bring themselves to publicly attribute the entire situation the truthful underlying cause:

New York Times shares slid 43 cents, or 2.3 percent, to $18.48 at 4:04 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, the lowest since January 1997. The stock has declined 24 percent this year.

Other newspaper stocks, including Gannett Co., owner of USA Today, and McClatchy Co., publisher of the Miami Herald, are also trading at 10-year lows because of the loss of advertising to new media such as the Internet and the decline in classified ads linked to tumbling housing sales.

What?

Yes, they are losing a little advertising revenue to the new media, but you don't see me making any cash out of my endeavor, and most of the so called "new media" is in it for the sport of the adventure and to correct a national if not international crime that's been happening for eternity.

The reality is that mostly places like the NY times are losing READERS to the new media because they lie their ass off are highly edumicated idiots are spineless partisan hacks wouldn't know the truth if they vomited it out of their ears and nostrils, can't write their way out of a wet brown paper bag and further...

the number of classified real estate ads has nothing to do with anything.

See how they take the imaginary "burst of the housing bubble" that has been targeted at the President and the Republicans and turn it into the reason why the largest group of partisan liars in newsprint are having hard "financial times" (excuse the pun)?

Yeah, tomorrow you'll probably read a headline directly alleging that the NY Times stock price decline is BUSH's FAULT...


...