Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New York Times Sells Boston Globe At 93% Loss

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the not-bad-for-a-newspaper dept.

The Media 178

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times announced this morning that it has sold the Boston Globe newspaper and related assets, including the Boston.com website and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette daily paper, to John Henry, the principal owner of the Boston Red Sox. The price was $70 million in cash, a small fraction of the $1.1 billion the Times paid to acquire the Globe in 1993, and does not include assumption of the Globe's pension liabilities, estimated at $110 million, which will remain with the Times. Since then the paper's weekday circulation has fallen from 507,000 to 246,000 (including digital), mirroring the declining fortunes of many other daily newspapers across the country. Henry, who also owns the Liverpool FC and various other sports- and media- related properties, made his fortune in the investment industry; however, his hedge fund company recently closed after several years of poor performance."

cancel ×

178 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Should have sold to Murdoch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468555)

Now that guy knows how to run a news paper!

Re:Should have sold to Murdoch (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#44469391)

Doesn't matter. The NEW method for running taken over papers is; pile in more local stories, purchase the most lurid news service stories, make half or more of the print ads, ride till the profits disappear, then sell off the assets and bury it 6 ft. under.
Silly rabbit, everyone gets their news off the internet now anyway.

Discount, not loss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468559)

Actual losses may be significantly different, since obviously the paper has been operating for the past decade, and the purchase price wasn't some static figure.

Re:Discount, not loss (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year ago | (#44468577)

I'm curious how much more of a loss it would be if you calculated inflation. $70 million would purchase a lot more in 1993 then it would today.

Re:Discount, not loss (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44468587)

What was $70,000,000 in 2012 was $44,337,914.10 in 1993. Going the other way, if the NYT had sold the Globe immediately after purchase and made $70M in 1993 dollars, that'd be what we think of as about $103 million today.

Re:Discount, not loss (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44468591)

...why did I type 103. It's $109,549,232.63. Source [westegg.com] .

Re:Discount, not loss (4, Informative)

_Sharp'r_ (649297) | about a year ago | (#44468621)

It gets worse... they sold it for -40 million (price minus leftover pensions), but they rejected an offer to buy it a couple of years ago for 300 million (410 million including pensions in that deal) . Apparently they're great at losing money on an investment rapidly....

Why read newspapers? (4, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#44468561)

Seriously. What information do they have that is at all useful? In the old days we had muckrakers telling us all the awful things our politicians were doing. These days since they're all owned by big corps they don't want to step on any toes. After all, you won't last long if you say bad things about the boss. It feels like all they have left is sports news I can get from the source, some 30 year old comics and classifieds full of H1-B bait :(.

Re:Why read newspapers? (4, Insightful)

wiggles (30088) | about a year ago | (#44468595)

Because nobody else pays people to do serious investigative journalism on a municipal level.

Newspapers serve a vital public function - they employ journalists to expose malfeasance and corruption in city governments.

You should subscribe to your local paper - even if you don't read it. Think of it as a voluntary tax, your civic responsibility to pay someone to make sure your elected officials aren't screwing you as a taxpayer.

Re:Why read newspapers? (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#44468689)

Haha.

Yeah, that's nice, except very few papers do investigative journalism anymore. They all use stringer stories from one of the large media companies, which you can read on *insert dozen other newspapers*. There's a reason why it's dying, and it's because it's become a monoculture.

Re:Why read newspapers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468761)

Haha.

Yeah, that's nice, except very few papers do investigative journalism anymore. They all use stringer stories from one of the large media companies, which you can read on *insert dozen other newspapers*. There's a reason why it's dying, and it's because it's become a monoculture.

Don't be a prick. This doesn't mean that the local expert journalists aren't needed. The fact is right now that newspapers went corporate, fell under Wall St. control, and then went to the Wall St model of short term profits model. The newspapers cut staff and used those stringer stories to increase their profit margin. But eventually the customers realized it was bullshit and bailed. Now the product is soiled. By listening to Wall St. the newspaper companies caused their own demise and a major safeguard to political and corporate corruption was lost.

In my opinion, there is only one solution: go non-profit or pseudo-non-profit where a LOCAL supervising company runs the newspaper for the purpose of maintaining it into perpetuity (similar to what The Guardian's parent company does on a national level in the UK). And if necessary, they can ask for donations to build up the fund (or investments of tax dollars--which is fine for stadiums but is never considered for something more vital like a newspaper). Additionally, newspapers need to collude. This means that the law needs to be changed to give them a special exemption. For example, they need to form a model where people have to pay for the news.

Re:Why read newspapers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469099)

He's not being a prick. He's pointing out that your romantic notions have no relationship to reality. Local papers are dying because they have no local news, just poorly tacked together press releases and wire stories..

Re:Why read newspapers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468929)

The Boston Globe is one of the few papers that actually does its own investigative journalism from time to time. A couple of their reporters also came out with a book on "Whitey" Bulger (the alleged gangster on trial now for 19 counts of murder).

That doesn't change the fact that just about all of their opinion page writers are as predictable as stopped clocks, whether you're talking about the liberal ones (i.e., most of them) or the token conservative (Jacoby). Or that they've downsized the space available for Sunday comics (while simultaneously adding ads into the comics section) to the point where it would absolutely butcher Calvin and Hobbes if Calvin and Hobbes was still running today.

Re:Why read newspapers? (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44469477)

Indeed. You would think the daily rag in a state capital would be digging, but the Springfield State Journal-Register [sj-r.com] is close to worthless. From looking at it you would think that every crime, fire, and accident is reported but few actually are. They want you to pay for worthless "news" as well as being subjected to popups, popunders, animated ads and all the very worse, annoying advertising? They're insane. The local TV station, wics, does more investigative reporting. There's a police scandal [wics.com] right now that they uncovered; the daily paper sort of repeats their nightly news of it in the next day's paper.

Meanwhile, we have a weekly paper [illinoistimes.com] that even the paper edition is absolutely free, its advertising is non-intrusive, and it does do investigative reporting. It also has movie reviews, a "pub crawl" section highlighting live music, recipes, etc. The SJ-R no longer has an editorial cartoonist; he was let go in their last round of layoffs. The Illinois Times hired him after the SJ-R layed him off. There are also a couple of syndicated [thismodernworld.com] cartoons.

Traditional newspapers are dead. There's way too much good free news to pay for it, especially when the free is better than the paid.

Re:Why read newspapers? (2)

siride (974284) | about a year ago | (#44469665)

Same situation here in NC. We have a free local paper called the Independent Weekly. It's definitely liberal (perhaps leftist), but they do investigative journalism and are always happy to expose problems in local and state governments. They also have a lot of information about local events and music, including useful reviews by real people with real opinions. There are ads, of course, but it's actually better than the for-pay papers.

Re:Why read newspapers? (0)

giorgist (1208992) | about a year ago | (#44468727)

If you don't read it, the metrics will show it, so paying will do nothing for you. Its game over for papers but the internet has the millions of eyes theory that hopefully will make up for it. The papers in the end got mostly bought out and simply served their masters.

Re:Why read newspapers? (1)

Koby77 (992785) | about a year ago | (#44468857)

My local newspaper is doing no such thing. Instead they are most certainly in-bed with the politicians. Us taxpayers are most definitely getting screwed, which is why I dropped the local paper years ago.

Re:Why read newspapers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468633)

because quality journalism isn't free.....

and no, blogs don't count as journalism.

Blogs news (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year ago | (#44468695)

because quality journalism isn't free.....

and no, blogs don't count as journalism.

I am not going to argue the word journalism(or the word quality), but blogs not only are news they are more informative news. I stopped buying magazines, because their content unlike blogs...are old, second hand, opinion pieces.

Re:Blogs news (4, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year ago | (#44468711)

Most blogs are opinions about news, not news in and of itself. A few insider blogs might drum out some news, but the vast majority of them do no such thing.

Re:Why read newspapers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468777)

Serious answer.

Subscribing to the New York Times sunday paper is actually cheaper than their All Digital Tablet Gold Escalade plan, and has all the same benefits. So that's what I did.

One you start getting the paper, you realize it is chock full of shit that never makes it their website. Want to read reports from the Syrian civil war fronts? Want to read about DC inside baseball? It's in the newspaper and is not online.

Obviously, you have to filter this stuff through the MSM prism. But NYT has created a two-tier information system. "Headlines" = Internet. "Read this article between the lines" = on you doorstep.

New York Times is poorly managed? I think so. (2)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about a year ago | (#44469107)

You are, basically, saying that the New York Times is poorly managed.

It seems to me that newspapers are losing money because of poor management, not only because of loss of advertising to the internet.

To me, the New York Times seems like it is managed by people who don't have much understanding of the technical or sociological issues.

Fiduciary Fail (1)

sycodon (149926) | about a year ago | (#44470357)

If I'm a NYTs stockholder and I learned they turned down $300 million only to take $100 million and a shitty deal, I'd be thinking lawsuit.

They knew the value was declining both through the falling subscriptions and the fact that a billion dollar investment could only garner a $300 million offer back then. From there it could only get worse.

They should have sold to the highest bidder, politics be damned.

Re:Why read newspapers? (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | about a year ago | (#44469849)

That's actually a marketing trick of a kind of "false choice". I can't remember where I read this but they have done studies involving this and the example was given with newspapers. Basically the idea goes, if they offer 2-3 choices and 1 is very expensive, another very cheap but the third makes it seem like you are getting the expensive plan for less, you think it's a deal in your mind. No one is immune to this, so I'm not singling out you, we've all felt victim to this as it's the natural way our brain makes order.

Ah here it is, it was someone from the Economist:
http://danariely.com/the-books/excerpted-from-chapter-1-%E2%80%93-the-truth-about-relativity-2/ [danariely.com]

TED video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOhb4LwAaJk [youtube.com]

Re:Why read newspapers? (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | about a year ago | (#44469873)

Edit: the guy was not from the Economist, but it was used as an example.

Re:Why read newspapers? (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#44469121)

Seriously. What information do they have that is at all useful? In the old days we had muckrakers telling us all the awful things our politicians were doing. These days since they're all owned by big corps they don't want to step on any toes. After all, you won't last long if you say bad things about the boss. It feels like all they have left is sports news I can get from the source, some 30 year old comics and classifieds full of H1-B bait :(.

The Guardian [theguardian.com] has recently expanded (online) to the USA and Australia. I haven't read the US edition until just now, and it looks more international than other US newspaper websites I've seen, but look roughly as international as the normal British edition.

It is independent, you can see the details of the organisation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited [wikipedia.org]

(I read it online, and buy a paper copy about every six months.)

Re: Why read newspapers? (2)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44469455)

Most of th blogs I read simply link to an original news source like a newspaper and add a few comments

No original news, no blogs for the kiddies

Re:Why read newspapers? (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44469689)

The NY Times does some pretty good journalism. Yes, in aggregate they have a liberal view of the world, and their stories are written with a narrative that reflects this. But most of the time they get their facts right, and they have things like an internal investigation team to "prosecute" their own reporters. Read another liberal-leaning (more like propaganda) site like the Huff Post and you will see how far down journalism can go. The scary part is that many people get their news from the Huffington Post and think they just read something educational. I don't mean to pick on the Huff Post - it is just one example. There are conservative propaganda sites, natural food propaganda sites, etc - but none as polished and well disguised as a news site IMHO.

Another thing that I've noticed is that the motivation for propaganda sites has changed. It used to be that you would see obvious propaganda, and you would know that some interest was behind it. A site sponsored by some trade association, or with some corporate, political, or religious backing, for instance. But now, these sites are just playing on our propensity to seek out self-affirming worldviews to sell ads. If you think that kale can cure cancer, some enterprising soul has set up a site with a cut-and-paste of every positive article about kale they can find. And of course, Fox News figured this out years ago on cable :)

There goes all the retirement plans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468589)

It's pretty easy to understand why a company would retain the retirement/pension plans. The holder will simply declare bankruptcy and fight to owe nothing on them. It's the "American Way" these days. There needs to be an immediate lawsuit to take all money from the primary sale and put it to the debt, and the primary debt is the workers/pensions.

I'm definitely a right-to-work person in high tech, but, if you let somebody work for 30+ years and tell them that they are promised $$ at the end, you better back it up. Letting somebody buy you and take all the assets and then just raising your hands like "There's nothing left", that's theft.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#44468609)

If you trust something a company promises to do for you decades in the future, you're a fool.

Pensions have been a collosal ponzi scheme, and are about to collapse.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (4, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year ago | (#44468753)

I don't envy fools, but I do wish we'd move beyond victim blaming and focus on predator jailing. Companies get away with far too much shit.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468779)

but I do wish we'd move beyond victim blaming

But that's what Slashdot is based on.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (0)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#44468973)

I don't envy fools, but I do wish we'd move beyond victim blaming

Making stupid decisions doesnt make you a victim, even if you are a member of an entire class represented by a poor decision making entity.

The Boston Newspaper Guild represented most of the workers of the Boston Globe.

I also do not consider the Detroit public workers who will not be getting a big chunk of their pensions as victims. The victims were clearly the citizens of Detroit that weren't even of voting age when those pension deals were struck, yet are now on the hook for them even though they weren't represented.

People have to start taking some responsibility for their own shit. The entire idea of "blaming the victim" is flawed here because it assumes that there is one. There isn't one. Bad outcomes don't always create victims. Sometimes a bad outcome is just a bad outcome.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44469599)

Making stupid decisions doesnt make you a victim, even if you are a member of an entire class represented by a poor decision making entity.

It does in fact make you a victim if you were encouraged into those poor decisions by fraud.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44469757)

The Detroit pensions (though not the health care), were supposedly funded. But one of the ways they did that was by borrowing money from bondholders. So they were taking on debt to pay current liabilities... a very nasty habit that will always land you in trouble. If you owned stock in a company doing that, you'd be selling. Now the pensioners and the bond holders will have to fight it out in court. The situation is not being helped by the conflicting assessments of pension health from the two different accounting firms involved. The pension auditor says that everything is (from memory) something like 87% funded. Another accounting firm using different assumptions and accounting is saying, no, it's more like 60%. In no event will the retirees get any of their health benefits, which were completely unfunded.

Personally, I think that governments should have to present unfunded pension obligations on a balance sheet, just like private companies do. That would make it easier to judge your risk as a bond holder - who might rightly feel mislead in the case of Detroit. That city was in more debt than it seemed when you include the health care promises to retirees.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (1)

ImdatS (958642) | about a year ago | (#44470373)

The reason for the the two different valuations is based on what discount you use to value the future obligations and potential gains.

As I understand, Detroit was using something around 8% (or 9%), which would show that the Defined Benefit Pension Plans they offered way back would be 80% funded. When, according to an external accountant, you'd use a more realistic 5%, the funding would be less than 50%.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44469709)

They haven't exactly been getting away with anything, though. They've been paying federal insurance on pensions, and companies with unfunded pension liabilities have to list them on their balance sheet (which is why 1/4 of companies simply fund their pensions to avoid the bad balance sheet). If we had been demanding the same for our federal employees, we wouldn't have quite the same house of cards. In other words, the companies have been getting away with a lot less than the public sector, so glass houses and all that.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469613)

Pensions have been a collosal ponzi scheme

Along with social security, medicare, and obamacare - but that doesn't keep us from pouring billions in.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (4, Informative)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44468617)

Well, the retirement plans stayed with the New York Times so those assets can still be applied.

There needs to be an immediate lawsuit to take all money from the primary sale and put it to the debt, and the primary debt is the workers/pensions.

Nope. The primary debt is lenders with collateral. There's a queue of creditors who have claim on the debt of a failed business which enters bankruptcy. Pensioners are towards the front, but there are parties ahead of them.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about a year ago | (#44469287)

Depends a bit on the value of the collateral, if the collateral only covers a small part of the debt then the secured lenders can still be off far worse than the senior ones.

Re:There goes all the retirement plans! (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about a year ago | (#44469275)

Huh? The Times owns the pension obligations and is less likely to go bankrupt than the new business ... it would have been far more shifty if the Globe had been sold to some shell company including the pension obligations.

The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (3, Insightful)

VinylRecords (1292374) | about a year ago | (#44468597)

When your entire news slant is to the extreme left you tend to alienate anyone who is on the right, anyone who is centrist or moderate, and anyone who is center-left. You end up with an audience that is composed of one single viewpoint politically. An extreme viewpoint at that. The NYTimes, another extreme left paper, had control over the Globe and ran it into the ground. Everyone saw this coming.

Of course you're looking at a 93% loss of value. You're only talking to less than 10% of the population. What was once a newspaper that examined all of society with a fair eye it now only caters to a small minority of zealots. There was no investigative journalism at all. No honesty or insight to anyone with a (D) next to their name. Just nonstop bias and pandering to a single narrow viewpoint. Of course you're dooming your paper to obscurity.

I know that bashing Fox News is a popular opinion. But of the mainstream papers, websites, and news TV stations, it's actually rather moderate. The panels and editorials are filled with a strong selection of liberals, conservatives, and moderates. And the ratings reflect that because Fox News national brings in the viewers. You're just as likely to find a liberal view on a panel segment as you are a conservative one. And the conservative commentators don't hide their bias. Whereas the Boston Globe would pretend that it was 'progressive' and refuse to at all accept the reality that it was practically a propaganda newspaper for liberal Democratic operatives. Fox News gets its ratings because there are enough liberals and moderates to attract a broad audience.

They can blame it on the internet. On the economy. On low advertising revenue. But a newspaper is supposed to objectively report the news. And stand as the Fourth Estate against political corruption. They are not supposed to maintain the political status quo and effectively serve as a PR firm for politicians. The Globe was failure all over.

Ultimately this is a win for John Henry. He'll spend $75 million on a busted arm for a pitcher that gives him no return for the Red Sox. But $70 million is almost worth it alone for some of the Boston Globe's web domains that it owns. Now John Henry (who is a major Democratic Party donator, in the millions) has a liberal PR institution to output his views. He has the ability to shut down all negative conversation about the Red Sox from current Globe employees. And he can use the Globe and Boston.com to heavily market Red Sox tickets and jerseys. This will pay for itself within a few years with the boost to Red Sox branding.

Look at who is buying newspapers now. Extreme right and left wing political donators. As if newspapers aren't PR machines for the politicians enough. Now they are literally being run by GOP and DNC donors.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (4, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44468663)

The [Foxnews] panels and editorials are filled with a strong selection of liberals, conservatives, and moderates.

Fox just gives the appearance of objectivity. The host picks the topics, not the liberal counter-point guy, and the topics tend to be those that make Democrats look bad such that the counter point person is always on the defensive.

Benghazi is an example: there's still no evidence of specific wrong-doing, yet they keep talking about it with speculation up the whazoo and word-play to make it sound like something sneaky is going on.

And the hosts often do a "rehearsal" with the guests such that they know the questions in advance and prepare answers, but the guests don't have the same privilege.

Fox has relatively high ratings because they cater to the older white rural families who are paranoid of minorities and exaggerated "government intrusion" with regard to guns and religion. I hate to say, but yes, old "rednecks" who don't know how to use the Internet. They are essentially milking the last vestiges of the TV age. Many of their ads are for elder-care stuff, as evidence. Rural is about the only place that such an audience exists, and rural leans right.

The rest of the US is moving to Internet news and the traditional news outlets cannot compete with the more nimble Internet sources because they didn't have to be nimble for many decades and forgot how.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (3, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year ago | (#44468769)

Benghazi is an example: there's still no evidence of specific wrong-doing, yet they keep talking about it with speculation up the whazoo and word-play to make it sound like something sneaky is going on.

Something sneaky is going on there. Whether it is a cover up to hide incompetence (which it was all over), a cover up for political purposes, or something even more insidious, something has happened with it.

Even the liberal CNN or the Clinton News Network as it was/is known because of how much it favored President Clinton in it's reporting, is reporting that there was dozens of CIA operatives in Libya when the attacks happened and that several of their reporters were flooded with operatives wanting to tell what happened then all the sudden they clammed up. CNN is reporting that people who were in the country the night Benghazi happened keep getting reassigned and shuffled around to new geographical locations, alias names are being issued to them making it harder for even representatives to find them, they had to re-sign nondisclosure agreements that they have already signed, and many of them are being given lie detector tests every month or two which other CIA operatives claim is very unusual to have them that frequently.

I'm sorry, but you picked the wrong issue to gripe about there as partisan.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44468805)

The CIA does secret stuff and wants to remain secret. Them acting secretive is not suspicious because it's their job to be secretive. Part of the "mess" of Benghazi is that the CIA had to end up being involved.

Still, that's not evidence of a presidential cover-up. Sure, CNN would love to get into the CIA's knickers, but that's usually just wishful thinking.

Certain members of Congress can look into some of these details and probably have. I suspect they asked, and eventually understood what was going on and left it as is. Maybe the CIA is up to something unpleasant, such as tinkering with local governments to keep Al Quida suspects out of office, but not necessarily related to a presidential scandal over the attacks.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year ago | (#44468871)

Still, that's not evidence of a presidential cover-up. Sure, CNN would love to get into the CIA's knickers, but that's usually just wishful thinking.

No one says it has to be a presidential cover up. The only reason the president is involved is because he is out there calling it a phony investigation and refuses to detail the events he participated in the night of the attacks. Now it appears that he is participating in the cover up by either intentional acts through the CIA or by incompetence in administrating the offices he is charged with administrating.

The leader of the group they claim is most likely responsible for the attacks says no government official (Libyan or US) has attempted to contact him and he is living right in the open in Libya talking to reporters. Four Americans are dead and one who was injured is still in the hospital ten months later and for some reason, there is a refusal to go after those who are responsible for this and a refusal to figure out exactly what happened to determine who dropped the ball so it is never repeated again.

The attack that killed 4 people in Benghazi was the third attack in that area (there was two previous bombing attempts) and we didn't have any security for them or any workable contingency plan in case something happened. We were warned by officials in the local and Libyan governments 3 days before the attack that there was a threat in the area. We then concocted some story about it being a spontaneous act concerning an unfinished movie about the illiterate pedophile known as mohomed who is the prophet of islam.

Whoever screwed that one up should never be in a position where they can do it again and whatever failure that allowed it to happen needs to be known and fixed so it will never happen again. Whoever failed to communicate the full story to the lapdogs sent out to give the false narrative needs to explain themselves and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469943)

They was a gunship in the air that could have been sent in to defend the compound but Obama needed his beauty sleep.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44468911)

Running a weapons warehouse and shipping Libyan weapons to 'freedom fighters' is Syria is a bit more than a "mess"....
Who is getting the flow of arms in Syria? The best friends the USA ever had: Al-CIA-da.
The black flags, battlefield bbq, one faith only types.
"CIA moved missiles out of Libya to Syria's rebels"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4413289,00.html [ynetnews.com]
"CIA 'clamping down on Benghazi operatives'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10219347/CIA-clamping-down-on-Benghazi-operatives.html [telegraph.co.uk]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383654/Congressman-cries-cover-claims-Obama-administration-hiding-Benghazi-witnesses-relocating-giving-new-identities.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://world.time.com/2013/05/14/we-will-slaughter-all-of-them-an-interview-with-the-man-behind-the-syrian-atrocity-video/ [time.com]

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44470041)

Conservatives are now alarmed and disgusted that America is using spies, wiretapping, and clandestine operations. They are demanding public hearings in Congress so those responsible can be named and shamed! Because the Bill O'Reilly.Sean Hannity way of running the US government would be totally transparent and would not rely on spies or wiretaps.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (2, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | about a year ago | (#44468787)

It's funny, in order to support your claim that Fox News and it's viewers are dumb racists who only want their prejudices confirmed, your entire post is nothing but prejudiced and racist comments towards anyone who disagrees with you.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44468831)

I never used the word "dumb racists". I do think Fox is biased and can present evidence of such, but it's mostly off-topic and would turn into a drawn-out political fight.

Further, "confirming preconceived" viewpoints is indeed a strategy to profits, and FoxNews has mastered the technique perhaps better than anyone. They use similar techniques that ad agencies do to give you a biased story (usually) without blatantly lying.

The wealthy are often good at Madison Avenue-style spinning and the wealthy back FoxNews via sponsorships etc. to influence voters to keep their taxes low, and help instill such spinning skills into the Fox culture.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469373)

The problem with calling out racism and ignorance is that one easily appears racist and ignorant toward the very people they are calling out.

We've all done something racist that can be pointed to that discredits us, we've all done something ignorant that can be used to discredit us, but FOX literally panders to a specific subsets of large groups: people that were alive before desegrigation (elder care comercials), people that think gold is a good investment (goldline), and neo-liberals that fancy themselves watchdogs (the reason there's a token liberal to trounce on every panel).

Fox does present a very heavy media bias, so much so that it skews any news cast that fails to bash democrats as being leftist.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44468863)

> Fox just gives the appearance of objectivity. The host picks the topics

This is an excellent observation. Now listen to NPR.

Bias creeps in when people determine the subjects to harp on all day long, even if, by some miracle, the harping is 100% objective.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44468981)

100% objectivity is perhaps an elusive goal. What is "important" to cover is determined by human emotion, not some universal equation of fairness.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44468905)

It what sells. Murdoch believes in quite a few things some Fox shows would label as communism (eg. old fashioned Christian charity) so long as somebody else's taxes pay for them.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#44469017)

Fox just gives the appearance of objectivity. The host picks the topics, not the liberal counter-point guy, and the topics tend to be those that make Democrats look bad such that the counter point person is always on the defensive.

Oh come on...

FOX, CNN, and MSNBC all cover the exact same topics.

This idea that FOX cherry picks topics that make liberals look bad is ludicrous given that fact. The only difference between the big 3 cable news stations is the panel selections and thusly the opinions expressed.

You really dont seem to get that this is theater that we are looking at. The exact same topics covered by all three.

It's not about the topic. It's about the bias. (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#44469801)

FOX, CNN, and MSNBC all cover the exact same topics.

True but not actually the important point. The viewpoint about those topics matters.

You really dont seem to get that this is theater that we are looking at. The exact same topics covered by all three.

What you don't seem to get is that you can cover the same topics with different biases and that the biases matter. Fox News demonstrably has a conservative bias and they "interpret" facts (when they aren't just making shit up) accordingly. Just because they cover the same topic doesn't mean they are presenting the same position or that they have any intention of presenting an unbiased viewpoint. Of course it is theater but unfortunately some people don't realize that and actually are dumb enough to think Fox is not presenting a biased viewpoint. Something north of 90% of Fox News' audience self identifies as republican or republican leaning. Do you seriously think that would be possible if they were presenting an unbiased viewpoint and were just reporting the facts?

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468725)

Don't forget the part where Congress is trying to define what a "Journalist" is.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44468833)

They have to; it's written into old laws. The definition usually wasn't a problem in the "old days", but things have changed, taxing the limits of existing definitions.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468729)

For someone to think of Fox News as moderate and having a "strong selection of liberals and moderates", simply goes to show how terribly biased taht person is. Fox News is unbiased like reality TV shows are objective documentation of real, unscripted events. It's pretty amazing and sad that you're modded up so much, but I guess there are a lot of people with terribly low standards on slashdot.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44470351)

And the right-wing moderation continues. So sad.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468747)

Extreme Left? You don't have the faintest idea about politics.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

betterprimate (2679747) | about a year ago | (#44468801)

You are comparing a Boston newspaper with a cable television entertainment conglomerate?

That doesn't compute.

I won't even begin to approach how off your analysis of Fox News is.

Something to point out (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44468893)

While I don't read the NYT (wrong side of the world) I have to point out that anyone calling a mainstream media outlook "extreme" is better off looking at where their own views lie instead of putting labels on something else.

I've heard a newspaper described as commie and fascist in the space of two minutes depending on who was doing the name calling. Your post reminds me of the utter losers doing the name calling and detracts from whatever worth you may have yourself so I just cannot take you seriously.

Re:Something to point out (2)

Totenglocke (1291680) | about a year ago | (#44468939)

As you said, you're on the wrong side of the world. Thus, you do not realize how out of touch the NY Times is with most of the US. It's the reason why their subscribers keep dropping and the newspaper that used to be known for their sharp reporting is now known for being a shill for certain political views.

Re:Something to point out (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44468975)

It's a pity I have to spell things out to you, but unless it's circulation is tiny and restricted to extremists then it's not extreme.
Maybe it's time to airdrop dictionaries or something :(

Re:Something to point out (0)

Totenglocke (1291680) | about a year ago | (#44469011)

When its circulation is only about 1.5 million in a nation of 315 million, yes, it is extremist. It focuses on the view of a small portion of inner city liberals and ignores the rest of the nation. I'm sorry that I have to say it again, but you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about because as you pointed out in your first comment you don't live here and thus do not know the culture.

Re:Something to point out (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44469119)

When its circulation is only about 1.5 million in a nation of 315 million, yes, it is extremist

Umm ... no ... thank you for playing but you seem to have got lost on the way to somewhere else.

you don't live here and thus do not know the culture.

From your posts I'm getting the very strong feeling that I've known your culture for about twice as long as you've been alive. Besides, all you've got to go on is my current location so that's a big leap into an "epic fail" on your part. Just because I've never been to New York and only seen the NYT a few times doesn't mean I "don't know the culture", which is irrelevant to the discussion anyway!
It's funny to see a guy with his sig as a quote that is often used to excuse calls for a bloody overthrow of democracy (or a republic if you want to split hairs) calling a mainstream newspaper "extremist". Would Jefferson want to spill your blood for opposing his dream turned into reality? Apart from a few minor blemishes the USA today is his dream and more.

Re:Something to point out (0)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#44469163)

Surely it has that low circulation because it's about Boston? (I've not heard of it before -- I've just looked at the website: http://www.bostonglobe.com/ [bostonglobe.com] -- and almost all of it's about Boston or Massachusetts). 1.5M out of 6.6M (Massachusetts) isn't so bad.

An example of a newspaper with an "extreme left" viewpoint is The News Line [wikipedia.org] (wiki link so you can see the scanned front page, the website probably isn't very interesting if you're not British). I picked up a copy on a train a while back, and was surprised to read about "Leningrad" in one of the main articles. If supporting immigration as a source of cheap labour (as the Boston Globe seems to) is "extreme left", what do you call a newspaper that calls St Petersburg "Leningrad"?

It focuses on the view of a small portion of inner city liberals and ignores the rest of the nation

Then maybe it's liberal, which is not the same as "extreme left".

Here's an extreme left American newspaper: http://www.revcom.us/revolution/current-en.html [revcom.us]

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469039)

I disagree with your political assessment and conclusion of media outlets, but I commend you for stating your opinion in a constructive manner without name calling or disparaging remarks which is rare for any political discussion.

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469379)

"extreme left" of what? Podunk Oklahoma?

Extreme left, in most definitions, would be violently advocating workers taking control of the means of production. Or stringing up the "rich and/or bourgeois" by lampposts. While I'm not there, I haven't seen or heard any evidence of such things coming from the Globe. Hell, in most western countries, "left" a al US would be "right-center"...

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a year ago | (#44470277)

But we are talking about the US, here. It is not center right by US standards (well, maybe by Boston standards.)

Re:The Boston Globe was insanely left-wing.... (3, Insightful)

cjsm (804001) | about a year ago | (#44469691)

The New York Times isn't extreme left wing, in fact on many issues it's center right. It supported the war in Iraq, it overall supports the war on terror, it falls in line with the government propaganda 98% of the time. I guess you think their extreme left wing because they have a liberal columnist like Paul Krugman, but they also have right wing columnists like David Brooks. Or maybe its because they had an article exposing the labor abuse at the Foxcomm factory in China making Apple products, I guess stories like that really upset you right wingers, it might hurt the stock price. But for the most part, they supports the capitalist system, they just point out some of the more pernicious abuses. I guess if they stopped doing that you right wingers would like it more.

The New York Times also supports the bulk of American Foreign policy. I know you right wingers don't give a fuck about the millions of innocent people killed by the U.S. government over the years, and have never shed a tear over innocents killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, etc, so if anyone like the NYT voices the mildest criticism of the massive crimes committed by the U.S. government, they are extreme left wing in your view. In my view, they are center right for supporting the bulk of it.

Fox News not conservative? (3, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#44469721)

I know that bashing Fox News is a popular opinion. But of the mainstream papers, websites, and news TV stations, it's actually rather moderate.

"Moderate"? Compared to what? There is almost endless evidence [newsmax.com] that Fox News intentionally presents a staunchly conservative viewpoint and they have an audience to match. It's not even a meaningful debate at this point.

You're just as likely to find a liberal view on a panel segment as you are a conservative one.

Just because they invite some token liberals on to some of the shows doesn't mean their coverage is remotely balanced. Fox News is basically a mouthpiece for the republican party. Name one talking head (ala Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow) on Fox News who is a clear liberal. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Fox News gets its ratings because there are enough liberals and moderates to attract a broad audience.

The audience of Fox News contains a minority of moderates and VERY few liberals. 94% of Fox News viewers [politicususa.com] self identify as republican or republican leaning. In what universe is that a "broad audience"?

Look at who is buying newspapers now. Extreme right and left wing political donators.

Really? [businessinsider.com] Warren Buffet is an "extreme" political donator?

Re:Fox News not conservative? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about a year ago | (#44470269)

Just because they invite some token liberals on to some of the shows doesn't mean their coverage is remotely balanced. Fox News is basically a mouthpiece for the republican party. Name one talking head (ala Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow) on Fox News who is a clear liberal. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Alan Colmes.

Of course, he has a face that's perfect for radio, which is why he's mostly on their radio network and only occasionally shows up on TV these days.

Re:Fox News not conservative? (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a year ago | (#44470305)

The audience of Fox News contains a minority of moderates and VERY few liberals. 94% of Fox News viewers [politicususa.com] self identify as republican or republican leaning. In what universe is that a "broad audience"?

Since Fox has the highest ratings of the news networks, it sounds like you are acknowledging that they are moderate by US standards.

Also, Warren Buffet is a leftist. Most of the wealthy elite are.

Imposter! (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year ago | (#44468619)

I don't know who that man is, but he can't possibly be John Henry! Everybody knows that John Henry [wikipedia.org] was a steel-driving man!

The Big Picture (4, Informative)

mvar (1386987) | about a year ago | (#44468707)

their site is home to the Big Picture [boston.com] , a blog with photographs from around the world regarding various events, celebrations etc..it gets updated with a new entry every couple of days, totally worth the time if you have an interest in photography

what makes this special? (0)

tloh (451585) | about a year ago | (#44468751)

I have not RTFA because with slashdot summary as written, I'm wondering why this is "news for nerds". Is there something about the Boston Globe that is of inherent interest to science, technology, or other things that have been the usual fare here? I don't mind reading about stuff that belongs in the business/economy section of a news portal. But I didn't expect that Slashdot would be morphing into one.

that's because /. wants to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469027)

the Huffington Post of the Geek set

Re:what makes this special? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44470101)

Right, I logged in hoping to catch up on hardcore techie stories like the one a few weeks ago on CCSF losing its accreditation.

Re:what makes this special? (1)

tloh (451585) | about a year ago | (#44470245)

Education. Quit a common topic actually. are you new here?

Re:what makes this special? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44470209)

ongoing tech driven decline of paper newspaper empire is interesting to many geeks.

but of course, horseshoe smiths and buggy whip companies and lamplighters took a beating during 20th century too

my grandfather was a lamp lighter. work started in morning extinguishing lamps for a couple hours, then during day repair and cleaning, then at night lighting them up again. but don't worry, after city went to electric auto timer street lamps he found jobs made possible by advances in technology.

Re:what makes this special? (1)

tloh (451585) | about a year ago | (#44470349)

In that case, a headline along something like "Technology continues to squeeze the survival of traditional news outlets" would have been a lot less misleading. Having now read the linked articles, however, that happens not to be the case. With headlines like "Red Sox owner in deal to purchase Globe" and prominent mentions of pension liabilities, I saw scant mentioning of technology's role in the constant march of progress. Your grandfather's story is cool and I'm glade this post provided an opportunity for you to share it. But Soulskill has been around a while and I wouldn't have expected such a veteran author to get sloppy and begin posting stories without any effort to make it relevant.

General advice for businesses (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468825)

If your business model is anything other than "align with a particular political group and only sell to them", then keep your business (and your investor's money) FAR away from politics.

It simply makes no business sense to intentionally piss-off half of your potential customer base by shouting in their face "I HATE YOU, YOU HATERS!" and "YOU BIGOTS ALL LOOK THE SAME TO ME! DIE ALL YOU MIDDLE CLASS WHITE PEOPLE!". It's not just that having a vile attitude toward your potential customers makes them shop elsewhere, it's also that they begin to see, via your own words, that you lack any ability for self-examination, self-criticism, and self-correction.... in short they begin to see you as not just an obnoxious jerk but also as supremely stupid. The biggest and most-successful companies know this which is why they generally avoid public dives into partisan politics. It's a good line for all businesses to toe

Most of America's big media companies, however, are run by left-wing people who live in the bubbles of big left-leaning cities and therefore have a very warped view of the country to such an extreme that they do not even know how biased they are (i.e. there is no media conspiracy... there's just group-think) so they seem incapable of understanding why they are failing. When Murdoch started Fox News and put Roger Ailes in charge, they had a simple business model: Be the only media company in the US that would embrace the half of the country to which the rest of the media companies were growing actively hostile (leaving all the other companies fighting each other for the half they liked). Fox News is NOT "Right Wing" so much as it is simply the only outlet that is not "Left Wing"... Fox provides benefits to gay partners of employees, healthcare benefits that cover various "family planning" options favored by the left, etc. Many Fox contributors are Democrats or "Establishment Republicans" and indeed a number of their media personalities and regular journalists have been hired from other, liberal, outlets. Fox's most-high-profile opinion guy, Bill O'Reilly is NOT a conservative... he often disagrees with conservatives on issues and is more like a 1970 Democrat. Hannity is certainly on the Right, but this one character is hardly sufficient to offset all the Left-Wingers on all the other media outlets. The real key to the success of Fox is simply that the other media companies became hostile to half of their customers.... and many of those customers were hungry for a vendor (in this case of news) who respects them and does not heap scorn and hatred onto them.

There's a good "Business 101" lesson in there...

Re:General advice for businesses (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44468849)

keep your business (and your investor's money) FAR away from politics.

Has the Koch brothers' political stances hurt their bottom line?

Re:General advice for businesses (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#44469169)

The Koch brothers do not use their businesses to promote their political agenda. They have set up other organizations through which to spend their money promoting their political agenda. As such they have done exactly as the OP recommended.

Re:General advice for businesses (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#44469421)

He doesn't care. He just had to throw that name into the picture because he had no legitimate response that wasn't leftist hatred for Fox News.

Re:General advice for businesses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44470385)

keep your business (and your investor's money) FAR away from politics.

Investors? How does one invest in the Koch brothers or their privately owned companies?

Worth less than its debt... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year ago | (#44468885)

That means if the newspaper had been sold at that price including its liabilities, the buyer should have received $40 million. Woah.

Re:Worth less than its debt... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469453)

(I am a pension actuary)

As far as I can tell, they have one pension plan that covers all of their employees and based on its Form 5500 filing (publicly available online) the plan is pretty well funded actually. As of 1/1/2011 they have total Funding Target liabilities of 173,403,797 and assets at market value of 158,880,383. Most plans are in a much worse position because these liabilities (which are used to determine minimum contribution requirements) are now required to be valued using a market interest rate determined by average corporate bond yields, and corporate bond yields are at a 60-year low, which makes the liability go up. After the Pension Protection Act of '07 they have to pay down shortfalls between the Funding Target and the market value of assets over 7 years.

Investment returns were pretty good for 2011 and 2012, so they should be in s similar position for a more recent valuation. Also, since then congress passed a measure to stabilize the interest rates used for valuing funding target liabilities (they now aren't allowed to be more than X% of a 25-year average of the interest rate, where X starts at 85% and then widens over the next few years). Most plans I've seen haven't gotten much better or much worse over the past 2 years.

The Citigroup pension yield curve, a published set of interest rates which many plans use to calculate pension liability numbers for financial statements is in the neighborhood of 5% right now. That means that things will look worse on that basis, although not that much worse.

Interest rates used to calculate annuity prices are at historic lows (around 3%), so the price of buying an annuity to cover each participant's pension benefit would be outrageous though. This may be how they're calculating the pension liability number mentioned there. It's worth noting that these interest rates are especially low due to necessities imposed by insurance company business models which don't really apply to pensions (unless the companies sponsoring those pensions settle the liabilities by annuity purchases).

Re:Worth less than its debt... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469547)

I forgot to mention the effective interest rate for the funding target liabilities is 6.33%.

Poor Jews... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468923)

...people aren't buying their lies any more...

They might have to actually do some manual labour!

maybe if (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44468989)

the Globe and other urban papers would actually practice the canons of journalism and be un-biased and objective, readers might return? (i know, there has never been such practice in the entire history of journalism in the U.S. - *all* papers have an editorial slant, despite what journ students are taught in college)

on the other hand, i always felt there was a niche for a metro daily that contained nothing but King Features Syndicate comic strips; i'd call the paper "The Toon Daily"

One thing I would like to see on paper web sites.. (4, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | about a year ago | (#44469007)

One thing I would like to see on paper web sites which would make me more likely to subscribe to their physical counterparts is a "suppress syndicated content" checkbox that would let me see how much actual journalism they themselves are engaged in, before I invite their paper in to clutter up my living room. I'll warn you right now, though, if that gets rid of 95% of your content, you aren't going to darken my door.

I also already get enough coupons and advertising from the direct marketing association, so it'd be nice if they didn't put ads everywhere in the paper copy of the newspaper, since the postman already brings me all the coupons and local advertising I could ever want to recycle. One of the most annoying things the San Mateo Times does periodically is "give you" a "free" copy of their Wednesday or Sunday "supertacular advertising issue" so they can claim high circulation numbers, right before the end of the circulation reporting cycle. 600 pages of crap and 20 pages of content, and 80% of those are Reuters, UPI, or AP stories.

Finally, I think color is vastly overrated; save it for "fashion week" or other special purpose spreads that get delivered in special sections, and the Sunday comics. I don't get where everyone believes the way to sell physical papers is to look as much like "USA Today" as it's possible to look, without actually putting "USA Today" on the banner. Maybe they get a higher per unit marginal profit or something, like when you go to a restaurant, and they serve you 3X the food you should be eating so they can jack up the price, and the marginal profit per hour, to maximize their profit relative to their flooring costs...

Re:One thing I would like to see on paper web site (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44469585)

They can't make a profit delivering the paper to you without advertising, so what you're really saying is "I don't want a physical paper". Which is cool, neither do I. But it doesn't take three paragraphs to say it.

New York Times mismanaged the Globe (4, Insightful)

dpbsmith (263124) | about a year ago | (#44469273)

After saying how much they respected and admired the Globe, the New York Times made it clear that they regarded Boston as the sticks and just wanted to milk the cash cow.

I was a subscriber for decades and might still be if they had basically not driven me away.

They gradually cut out all my favorite columnists and started to use wire services for national stories they would once have covered themselves.

Royal Ford, their auto writer, always talked about things like how the tested car did during a snowy ski trip to New Hampshire. So one day I open the paper to find that he's been replaced by a syndicated column written by someone in California.

The last straw was billing. They screwed up the billing. We were on quarterly billing, and when the New York Times took over, we continued to receive quarterly bills--but EVERY bill we got was accompanied with a 90-day late notice and threats to send it to collection.

We got that straightened out--went to automatic monthly payments by credit card--and THEN someone at the Globe decided it would be cool to wrap all of their newspaper bundles in computer printouts of customer credit card information.

My wife says to me, "Well, I hate the work of mailing a check every month, but should we do that?" And I say "Honey, didn't you read the rest of the story? They wrapped the Globe in credit card printouts, but they were wrapping the Worcester Telegram in customer checking account information printouts!

What can you say to a company that does a thing like that? Except "goodbye."

sunken cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469557)

The statement that they sold it at a 93% loss is misleading. What they did do is sell it for 100% of what is was marketable at the time, and for 7% more (absolute w.r.t. original purchase price) than nothing. The "loss" is only relevant for learning for the next purchase decision as it's sunken cost [wikipedia.org] .

just $70m to bury the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469583)

I really don't get the summary bias. The real story here is how little it cost someone to bury a story. And they don't even have to pay pension costs.

propaganda outlet revenue unaccounted for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44469833)

large well known media outlets are useful to corporations as propaganda outlets. This revenue is not reported, I believe

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>