Most "local" newspapers killed themselves and then blamed the Web. They simply stopped doing their proper job and started punching their customers in the face. That's a good way to gain Share Value when the venture capitalists are rich, but it's not a sustainable business.
The British DailyMail punches up, not down. If I want to know what's really happening right here, I usually read it in the DailyMail before I read it in "local" media.
The Daily Mail Online does a much better job of covering U.S. politics than American reporters. They don't shy away from covering the obvious and more.
Darned interesting, Don. As you know I've been following you since the first days of the blog before you retired. We sometimes may disagree, but I've never caught you reporting something that isn't true. Keep on truckin', my friend.
It strikes me that if the gubmint applied antitrust laws to the Daily Mail situation, it sure as hell ought to be doing the same with Facebook and Google.
The story of the Gazette vs. the Daily Mail reads to me as a microcosm of what we are witnessing today on steroids: the relentless pursuit for an ideology over common sense and just plain and simple reality.
While the Gazette owners were most likely motivated by greed, perhaps even jealousy, in part, to me it seems their leftist bent was at the root of their relentless battle. They were on a mission to silence the opposition!
What’s also interesting is how that decades long battle casts in sharp relief what eventually happens to all Leftist ideology. No matter how much their own idiocy and incompetence smacks them in the face, they just keep on coming, until they’ve torn it all down. They’re only capable of creating ruins out of whatever they touch.
Which they are starting to do right now. DEI getting ejected from Big Tech. Big Finance's ESG starting to crumble. AT a certain point the stupidity cannot be supported.
All sounds very familiar, Don. I've seen a version of it in Canada regarding media, but didn't personally experience that. Like I keep saying, all the institutions are against the people who support them. I find that so shocking and such a betrayal, and I wonder how we got here. I guess it's the education system. One of my best friends worked for what was a major Thomson paper in Canada for 25 years. I worked for the better-off newspaper chain, Southam, some independents and then the wire service, Canadian Press. (We started out at the same small city newspaper together and have remained friends during our various media and post-media careers.) Great reporter. Old school. She took a buyout after numerous salary rollbacks and her pension in jeopardy at the once mighty Thomson, now owned by a hedge fund, I think. We still laugh about the Thomson days of her having to prove that her notebook was full and show her pencil stub before she could get replacements. Former newspaper chain owner Ken Thomson was a notorious skinflint, but he was not a lefty. He just destroyed the papers financially, which I hated but he kept his politics out of it as far as I can remember. I remember in 2008 having to cover the annual meeting of the Canadian Newspaper Publishers Association, which was still grappling with the effects of the Internet. It was sad and pathetic because they were men and women from another time who could not adapt to what was happening. Thanks for the memories. It was a quite
The Sulzbergers of the NY Times is a heinous sewer of nepotism unrivalled anywhere else in the business. Given that initial evil, what they are today comes as no surprise.
Don Surber-- if you happen to see this comment, I believe more than a year ago, I read--on your blog?-- that the NY Times was now owned by a Mexican national, Carlos Slim. I understand that one or more of the Sulzbergers still hold positions on the Board, but I think they are no longer actually the owners. Is this true, or did I get it wrong?
Also is that really the name of the new Mexican owner, or is "Carlos Slim" just a pejorative nickname?
I've been wanting to point this out to my NY Times-reading family, but don't want to say something that is inaccurate.
02-18-23: I chip in with what I believe is the current story, although I'm certain that Don Surber would be better informed about this. His real name is Carlos Slim and he is a Mexican national. Back when "Pinch" Sulzberger was busy running the Times into it's own obituary section (he started a disastrous stock buyback program), they were in serious financial difficulty. Somehow, it ended up that Carlos Slim offered them a loan at about 16% interest (the details of this escape me, but the pointis that Sulzberger couldn't find funding from the usual legitimate sources). The loan was eventually paid off, although Slim might still hold a significant amount of NYT stock, etc. Well, Pinch parlayed this magnificent tour de force (think of him as a straight Don Lemon) by dumping his wife for some New Agey twit and then retired as publisher emeritus. His son today is the publisher of the company.
Thank you for this, Don Reed, very interesting. Hmmm, so I wonder if the Sulzberger's do actually hold the majority of the stock now. And if not, who does? I definitely recall hearing that at one time the NY Times was in such dire financial straits that they had to sell their flagship New York building (to get a big infusion of cash), and then lease it back (for a smaller monthly payment) in order to continue to occupy it.
That Carlos Slim transaction also raises alot of questions. The name just sounds like a pseudonym. Did (does) he have any connection to the Mexican drug cartels? Occasionally you hear people saying that the Democrats must be in cahoots with the cartels , which would explain why the Democrats aren't interested in tightening up our southern border. The Democrats also don't seem to be that concerned about our country being flooded with drugs; the suggestion is that they're "in on the take". So far as I know that is all pure speculation. But as we've all learned in recent years, the truth is often much stranger than fiction.
The Sulzbergers own what is called "B" stock and I do believe they still do control the company (it's been quite a while since I was conversant about these things, bear with me).
Thank you for reminding me about the original NYT building fiasco, which was almost as spectacular a f/up as the stock buy-back program. Yes, dire finances mandated that they sell the old building (mega-prime A+ real estate).
Where to go? Build a new one, in The Toilet of Times Square, 8th Avenue and 42nd street, across the street from the dank and dismal Port Authority Bus terminal (for commuters to and from NJ).
Well, they built the new one and sold the old one for a song. RE operators then flipped the old building for a huge profit, not a penny of which went to the NYT.
Meanwhile, Sulzberger's continuing grandiose plans kept exploding in his face, and to pay for even more mistakes, they had to continually reduce the number of floors in the new building for the paper and rent out an increased number of floors to outsiders.
Look up the Judith Miller story for laughs.
Sulzberger's f/ups prompted a civil war in the Sulzberger family, which had grown quite accustomed to their stock dividends. This eventually resulted in an outsider CEO position being created.
Carlos Slim to my knowledge is his real name. No idea what the cartel situation is other than being the reason for thousands of murders annually.
Yes, the truth is quite often stranger than fiction. It would not surprise me at all if the alleged NYT recent profitability is the result of sham transactions worth millions of dollars in the form of electronic "subscriptions" to the paper --- paid for by criminals in the Demo-Communist party stealing federal funds from "black budgets" to pay for it to prop the NYT up.
It's the perfect scam --- no embarrassing piles of physical newspapers to throw away to hide the evidence!
Interesting. They killed themselves by killing the coal industry. I often wonder who is going to buy all these products the woke businesses are selling if they drive us all into poverty.
Did you know there are at least two sides to every political story? Readers of the New York Times do not. They have no reason to believe there are. By giving coverage people would not get otherwise, the London paper is now No. 13 among News & Media Publishers — in the United States — online.
It parallels the decline of America. Offshore is a giant, growing larger every day from financialization of the core of America. And inside we are having petty fights that divide, weaken and eventually destroy all that made America powerful and great.
I just bought $2,000 of industrial bearings last week. I always bought "made in USA" because the cost of removing and replacing the bearings is always more than the cost of the bearings themselves. Now, after 30 years of buying these bearings I notice they no longer say "made in USA". In fact, they don't say where they are made. This is always, with 100% certainty, the sign that they are "made in China". Industrial Suppliers know that "made in China" is a bad thing to have on the package, so they don't mark them. So under U.S. law a large crate of, say, 100 bearing comes into the country. You mark the crate "made in China" but none of the packages inside are marked "made in China". Voila !
America is now West Virginia coal country, with 2 coastal strips of land blissfully living off Financialization, skimming and churning, while the host is dying.
Dean Singleton is quite the villain himself. under his aegis the Denver Post whitewashed the 1992 election night riots, despite the rioters having damaged the Denver Post's own building.
I think someone enjoyed writing this.
I certainly enjoyed reading it :-)
Fascinating fable!
Most "local" newspapers killed themselves and then blamed the Web. They simply stopped doing their proper job and started punching their customers in the face. That's a good way to gain Share Value when the venture capitalists are rich, but it's not a sustainable business.
The British DailyMail punches up, not down. If I want to know what's really happening right here, I usually read it in the DailyMail before I read it in "local" media.
100% correct having lived through that.
The Daily Mail Online does a much better job of covering U.S. politics than American reporters. They don't shy away from covering the obvious and more.
Darned interesting, Don. As you know I've been following you since the first days of the blog before you retired. We sometimes may disagree, but I've never caught you reporting something that isn't true. Keep on truckin', my friend.
It strikes me that if the gubmint applied antitrust laws to the Daily Mail situation, it sure as hell ought to be doing the same with Facebook and Google.
The story of the Gazette vs. the Daily Mail reads to me as a microcosm of what we are witnessing today on steroids: the relentless pursuit for an ideology over common sense and just plain and simple reality.
While the Gazette owners were most likely motivated by greed, perhaps even jealousy, in part, to me it seems their leftist bent was at the root of their relentless battle. They were on a mission to silence the opposition!
What’s also interesting is how that decades long battle casts in sharp relief what eventually happens to all Leftist ideology. No matter how much their own idiocy and incompetence smacks them in the face, they just keep on coming, until they’ve torn it all down. They’re only capable of creating ruins out of whatever they touch.
The left destroys everything. Including eating itself eventually
Which they are starting to do right now. DEI getting ejected from Big Tech. Big Finance's ESG starting to crumble. AT a certain point the stupidity cannot be supported.
All sounds very familiar, Don. I've seen a version of it in Canada regarding media, but didn't personally experience that. Like I keep saying, all the institutions are against the people who support them. I find that so shocking and such a betrayal, and I wonder how we got here. I guess it's the education system. One of my best friends worked for what was a major Thomson paper in Canada for 25 years. I worked for the better-off newspaper chain, Southam, some independents and then the wire service, Canadian Press. (We started out at the same small city newspaper together and have remained friends during our various media and post-media careers.) Great reporter. Old school. She took a buyout after numerous salary rollbacks and her pension in jeopardy at the once mighty Thomson, now owned by a hedge fund, I think. We still laugh about the Thomson days of her having to prove that her notebook was full and show her pencil stub before she could get replacements. Former newspaper chain owner Ken Thomson was a notorious skinflint, but he was not a lefty. He just destroyed the papers financially, which I hated but he kept his politics out of it as far as I can remember. I remember in 2008 having to cover the annual meeting of the Canadian Newspaper Publishers Association, which was still grappling with the effects of the Internet. It was sad and pathetic because they were men and women from another time who could not adapt to what was happening. Thanks for the memories. It was a quite
a ride.
Greed is the second of the seven deadly sins, behind only pride.
The Chilton’sngot what they deserved. Their employees did not.
Glad you had the safety net of your blog. I discovered it during the Daily Mail days with the Good vs. Evil posts.
Yes, Chiltons totally got what they deserved.
The Chiltons have plenty of fellow travelers in like minded newspapers, especially in today’s America. Great story of a self-inflicted demise.
The Sulzbergers of the NY Times is a heinous sewer of nepotism unrivalled anywhere else in the business. Given that initial evil, what they are today comes as no surprise.
Don Surber-- if you happen to see this comment, I believe more than a year ago, I read--on your blog?-- that the NY Times was now owned by a Mexican national, Carlos Slim. I understand that one or more of the Sulzbergers still hold positions on the Board, but I think they are no longer actually the owners. Is this true, or did I get it wrong?
Also is that really the name of the new Mexican owner, or is "Carlos Slim" just a pejorative nickname?
I've been wanting to point this out to my NY Times-reading family, but don't want to say something that is inaccurate.
Thanks!
02-18-23: I chip in with what I believe is the current story, although I'm certain that Don Surber would be better informed about this. His real name is Carlos Slim and he is a Mexican national. Back when "Pinch" Sulzberger was busy running the Times into it's own obituary section (he started a disastrous stock buyback program), they were in serious financial difficulty. Somehow, it ended up that Carlos Slim offered them a loan at about 16% interest (the details of this escape me, but the pointis that Sulzberger couldn't find funding from the usual legitimate sources). The loan was eventually paid off, although Slim might still hold a significant amount of NYT stock, etc. Well, Pinch parlayed this magnificent tour de force (think of him as a straight Don Lemon) by dumping his wife for some New Agey twit and then retired as publisher emeritus. His son today is the publisher of the company.
Thank you for this, Don Reed, very interesting. Hmmm, so I wonder if the Sulzberger's do actually hold the majority of the stock now. And if not, who does? I definitely recall hearing that at one time the NY Times was in such dire financial straits that they had to sell their flagship New York building (to get a big infusion of cash), and then lease it back (for a smaller monthly payment) in order to continue to occupy it.
That Carlos Slim transaction also raises alot of questions. The name just sounds like a pseudonym. Did (does) he have any connection to the Mexican drug cartels? Occasionally you hear people saying that the Democrats must be in cahoots with the cartels , which would explain why the Democrats aren't interested in tightening up our southern border. The Democrats also don't seem to be that concerned about our country being flooded with drugs; the suggestion is that they're "in on the take". So far as I know that is all pure speculation. But as we've all learned in recent years, the truth is often much stranger than fiction.
The Sulzbergers own what is called "B" stock and I do believe they still do control the company (it's been quite a while since I was conversant about these things, bear with me).
Thank you for reminding me about the original NYT building fiasco, which was almost as spectacular a f/up as the stock buy-back program. Yes, dire finances mandated that they sell the old building (mega-prime A+ real estate).
Where to go? Build a new one, in The Toilet of Times Square, 8th Avenue and 42nd street, across the street from the dank and dismal Port Authority Bus terminal (for commuters to and from NJ).
Well, they built the new one and sold the old one for a song. RE operators then flipped the old building for a huge profit, not a penny of which went to the NYT.
Meanwhile, Sulzberger's continuing grandiose plans kept exploding in his face, and to pay for even more mistakes, they had to continually reduce the number of floors in the new building for the paper and rent out an increased number of floors to outsiders.
Look up the Judith Miller story for laughs.
Sulzberger's f/ups prompted a civil war in the Sulzberger family, which had grown quite accustomed to their stock dividends. This eventually resulted in an outsider CEO position being created.
Carlos Slim to my knowledge is his real name. No idea what the cartel situation is other than being the reason for thousands of murders annually.
Yes, the truth is quite often stranger than fiction. It would not surprise me at all if the alleged NYT recent profitability is the result of sham transactions worth millions of dollars in the form of electronic "subscriptions" to the paper --- paid for by criminals in the Demo-Communist party stealing federal funds from "black budgets" to pay for it to prop the NYT up.
It's the perfect scam --- no embarrassing piles of physical newspapers to throw away to hide the evidence!
Interesting. They killed themselves by killing the coal industry. I often wonder who is going to buy all these products the woke businesses are selling if they drive us all into poverty.
No one. As it should be. Get Woke, go broke.
Great commentary about the NYT (and WaPo too):
Did you know there are at least two sides to every political story? Readers of the New York Times do not. They have no reason to believe there are. By giving coverage people would not get otherwise, the London paper is now No. 13 among News & Media Publishers — in the United States — online.
Don, great, interesting story.
It parallels the decline of America. Offshore is a giant, growing larger every day from financialization of the core of America. And inside we are having petty fights that divide, weaken and eventually destroy all that made America powerful and great.
I just bought $2,000 of industrial bearings last week. I always bought "made in USA" because the cost of removing and replacing the bearings is always more than the cost of the bearings themselves. Now, after 30 years of buying these bearings I notice they no longer say "made in USA". In fact, they don't say where they are made. This is always, with 100% certainty, the sign that they are "made in China". Industrial Suppliers know that "made in China" is a bad thing to have on the package, so they don't mark them. So under U.S. law a large crate of, say, 100 bearing comes into the country. You mark the crate "made in China" but none of the packages inside are marked "made in China". Voila !
America is now West Virginia coal country, with 2 coastal strips of land blissfully living off Financialization, skimming and churning, while the host is dying.
Some of us were and around back then and can remember some of this history.
Thanks Don.
For years now I’ve wondered why American stories are carried better in a certain British newspaper.
Now I understand.
Dean Singleton is quite the villain himself. under his aegis the Denver Post whitewashed the 1992 election night riots, despite the rioters having damaged the Denver Post's own building.
Never speak ill of the dead.
I just checked. He's alive. You're good.
If Pete Buttigieg ran the Gazette back then you would have had your 2 years severance.
Speaking of Craigslist...
The true story of the Toilet Paper . Thanks Don .