Fox News Post Election Internal Memo - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-15-2006, 10:30 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Fox News Post Election Internal Memo

lol, as if we needed any proof

The war on terror isn't over, and Fox is leading the fight!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/1...-_n_34128.html

__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-15-2006, 12:08 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:29 AM


Do they truly think anybody other than the devotees takes them seriously as a nonbiased source? Actually, I don't think they really care.
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 11-15-2006, 07:04 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
The war on terror isn't over, and Fox is leading the fight!
Let us not forget the award winning work being done over at the New York Times. Fighting the War on Terror just as doggedly and with no less zeal than FoxNews--albeit for the other side.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-15-2006, 07:22 PM   #4
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Let us not forget the award winning work being done over at the New York Times. Fighting the War on Terror just as doggedly and with no less zeal than FoxNews--albeit for the other side.






(the comparison has no merit)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-16-2006, 04:33 AM   #5
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 12:29 PM
How do we know this is a genuine memo?

After the CBS/Dan Rather/Bush national guard fiasco I don't put much trust in "official" documents.
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 02:48 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono
How do we know this is a genuine memo?

After the CBS/Dan Rather/Bush national guard fiasco I don't put much trust in "official" documents.
My thoughts exactly.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 04:13 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono
How do we know this is a genuine memo?

After the CBS/Dan Rather/Bush national guard fiasco I don't put much trust in "official" documents.

It's not like we needed the memo.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 08:30 AM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511








(the comparison has no merit)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 18, 2006
Downsizing the New York Times
By Thomas Lifson

A profitable company is to shutter a factory it built in 1992 as part of a much-hailed visionary strategy to take advantage of technology. But now it is just a cost to be cut. Eight hundred jobs, many of them well-paying blue collar positions (supposedly an endangered species) will disappear, while managerial and professional jobs are being protected.

Normally, this would be a juicy target for series of articles on the front and business pages of the New York Times. You know the drill: a parade of blue collar people victimized by the Bush administration, and now facing a bleak future. Meanwhile the insiders make out fine. There's even a fat cat CEO whose compensation package has done a whole lot better than its profits or stock. If Howell Raines still were editor, he'd get at least 40 stories out of it.

But today, the company in question is the New York Times Company. So don't expect the same rules to apply.

Nothing personal - it's just business.

The underlying story

The print edition of the New York Times in its local metropolitan market is in serious decline. Management won't openly admit it in so many words, but circulation is declining and its advertising sales force is facing more competition from new media, while traditional advertisers like department stores decline. The future is bleak, so it is time to get their money out of a loser.

Jacks Risko and I noted 5 months ago that


"The Times has seen its comparable core metropolitan circulation decline by 27% since 1993 (the first year that such figures were available online), when it had a circulation of 758,000. Its current 556,000 circulation places it a dismal number three in its home market behind the New York Daily News (689,000) and the New York Post (663,000)."

The metropolitan physical print edition of the New York Times is still the most profitable part of its business, but it is now officially what consultants call a cash-cow. The company is pulling cash out of the business, cutting expenses, and raising prices. Margins and profits can be good for awhile as cash is pulled out, but a rapidly diminishing resource is being exploited.

The funds taken out of the physical metro New York Times are being deployed elsewhere. Management is searching for more profitable means of delivering its news content electronically, and diversifying with substantial investments in existing internet websites. It is an is an open question whether or not profits from the new businesses will prove lush enough to replace the inevitable decline of the profits from the old local paper.

The ignominious end of Pinch's grand strategy

Family shareholders control the New York Times Company through a dual class shareholding system. When Arthur Ochs ("Pinch") Sulzberger became assistant publisher of the family business in 1987, and then deputy publisher in 1988, he led the investing of hundreds of millions of dollars in modern printing technology. This would mean eventually closing the historic printing presses in Manhattan, where people could pick up the latest news "hot off the press." The company would build one plant for the east metro in New Jersey and a second plant in Queens. Pinch's strategy, as he took over more responsibility for the company, anticipated growing circulation and built up the capacity to handle it. But under his leadership, local circulation has plunged.

When it opened in 1992, the new Edison, NJ printing plant featured modern color printing presses able to run color pictures, charts and graphs. More importantly, however, it could print color advertising, which sells for a sizable premium over black & white.

But the Times editorial side was not able to go with color until the company built a second modern printing plant in Queens, on the other side of Manhattan. When that plant came on-stream, the Times silenced its old Manhattan presses, and the physical newspaper was able to enter the wonderful world of color in 1996, only a decade ago.

It was a bold bet on the future of the print medium, just as the internet was getting going. That bet is now being liquidated.

The new print edition

The physical Times that New Yorkers hold in their hands will get a new look. The Times is taking an inch and a half off its width, cutting page size by 11%. The company will add more pages of advertising and news, so the actual decline in space for news will be 5%. That is still "retrenchment" as editor Bill Keller admitted.

More importantly, advertisers who buy display ads for a full page or a fraction thereof will get 11% less space. The Times may cut prices for full page ads, but they will try to cut them much less than 11% for as long as possible. And they will have more of them to sell, too. This is a classic way to maximize revenues while milking a business. Market share will decline, but so what? It is declining anyway. Take the money and run.

The unkindest cut of all

The Times is well known for its elitism and its unconscious condescension toward those occupying less lofty stations in life. Editor Bill Keller let slip a telling remark in remarks reported* by the AP:

"...this is a much less painful way to go about assuring our economic survival than cutting staff."
The blue collar denizens of Jersey never quite made it being considered staff, after all. Not in the eyes of Bill Keller his colleagues in Manhattan. Not even close.

Ed Lasky helped with the research for this article.

*[editor's note: the Houston Cronicle has pulled the posting of the page containing this quotation, which was based on an AP report. ]

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 09:58 AM   #9
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 03:29 PM
How is this even relevant to what INDY said about NY Times fighting for the other side on the 'War on Terror'? That is what Irvine responded to, and I don't see the line of reasoning that connects a strategic business decision with the earlier, and rather preposterous, statement.

Just to clear the air, though. You have to separate the company and the editorial staff. When talking about media companies, a strong business will allow the editorial to project a stronger influence, and a strong editorial will bring in more business. However, these two sides have different, but not contradicting, goals. Goal of the business is to maximize returns for the shareholders, while keeping in mind the interests of the stakeholders. The goal of the editorial is to produce objective and well-researched news to inform the public.

NY Times might have liberal leanings, but that doesn't mean that as a company, they do not need to adhere to basic business principles. From what I've read, they have decided to lean more on new media, which renders the printing facilities less useful. It is understandable that they would get rid of that part of their business if it doesn't suit their business goals anymore.

The article you've posted is hardly anything earth-shaking. In the end I'd go for the NY times anytime than, say, 'The American Thinker'. Considering what this writer has come up with for the article, I'd hope he'd change the name of his publication. Otherwise.. I mean, if this is the kind of guy that writes for the 'American Thinker', that title sounds a little like an oxymoron.

Quote:
Originally posted by diamond




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 18, 2006
Downsizing the New York Times
By Thomas Lifson

A profitable company is to shutter a factory it built in 1992 as part of a much-hailed visionary strategy to take advantage of technology. But now it is just a cost to be cut. Eight hundred jobs, many of them well-paying blue collar positions (supposedly an endangered species) will disappear, while managerial and professional jobs are being protected.

Normally, this would be a juicy target for series of articles on the front and business pages of the New York Times. You know the drill: a parade of blue collar people victimized by the Bush administration, and now facing a bleak future. Meanwhile the insiders make out fine. There's even a fat cat CEO whose compensation package has done a whole lot better than its profits or stock. If Howell Raines still were editor, he'd get at least 40 stories out of it.

But today, the company in question is the New York Times Company. So don't expect the same rules to apply.

Nothing personal - it's just business.

The underlying story

The print edition of the New York Times in its local metropolitan market is in serious decline. Management won't openly admit it in so many words, but circulation is declining and its advertising sales force is facing more competition from new media, while traditional advertisers like department stores decline. The future is bleak, so it is time to get their money out of a loser.

Jacks Risko and I noted 5 months ago that


"The Times has seen its comparable core metropolitan circulation decline by 27% since 1993 (the first year that such figures were available online), when it had a circulation of 758,000. Its current 556,000 circulation places it a dismal number three in its home market behind the New York Daily News (689,000) and the New York Post (663,000)."

The metropolitan physical print edition of the New York Times is still the most profitable part of its business, but it is now officially what consultants call a cash-cow. The company is pulling cash out of the business, cutting expenses, and raising prices. Margins and profits can be good for awhile as cash is pulled out, but a rapidly diminishing resource is being exploited.

The funds taken out of the physical metro New York Times are being deployed elsewhere. Management is searching for more profitable means of delivering its news content electronically, and diversifying with substantial investments in existing internet websites. It is an is an open question whether or not profits from the new businesses will prove lush enough to replace the inevitable decline of the profits from the old local paper.

The ignominious end of Pinch's grand strategy

Family shareholders control the New York Times Company through a dual class shareholding system. When Arthur Ochs ("Pinch") Sulzberger became assistant publisher of the family business in 1987, and then deputy publisher in 1988, he led the investing of hundreds of millions of dollars in modern printing technology. This would mean eventually closing the historic printing presses in Manhattan, where people could pick up the latest news "hot off the press." The company would build one plant for the east metro in New Jersey and a second plant in Queens. Pinch's strategy, as he took over more responsibility for the company, anticipated growing circulation and built up the capacity to handle it. But under his leadership, local circulation has plunged.

When it opened in 1992, the new Edison, NJ printing plant featured modern color printing presses able to run color pictures, charts and graphs. More importantly, however, it could print color advertising, which sells for a sizable premium over black & white.

But the Times editorial side was not able to go with color until the company built a second modern printing plant in Queens, on the other side of Manhattan. When that plant came on-stream, the Times silenced its old Manhattan presses, and the physical newspaper was able to enter the wonderful world of color in 1996, only a decade ago.

It was a bold bet on the future of the print medium, just as the internet was getting going. That bet is now being liquidated.

The new print edition

The physical Times that New Yorkers hold in their hands will get a new look. The Times is taking an inch and a half off its width, cutting page size by 11%. The company will add more pages of advertising and news, so the actual decline in space for news will be 5%. That is still "retrenchment" as editor Bill Keller admitted.

More importantly, advertisers who buy display ads for a full page or a fraction thereof will get 11% less space. The Times may cut prices for full page ads, but they will try to cut them much less than 11% for as long as possible. And they will have more of them to sell, too. This is a classic way to maximize revenues while milking a business. Market share will decline, but so what? It is declining anyway. Take the money and run.

The unkindest cut of all

The Times is well known for its elitism and its unconscious condescension toward those occupying less lofty stations in life. Editor Bill Keller let slip a telling remark in remarks reported* by the AP:

"...this is a much less painful way to go about assuring our economic survival than cutting staff."
The blue collar denizens of Jersey never quite made it being considered staff, after all. Not in the eyes of Bill Keller his colleagues in Manhattan. Not even close.

Ed Lasky helped with the research for this article.

*[editor's note: the Houston Cronicle has pulled the posting of the page containing this quotation, which was based on an AP report. ]

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker.
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 10:46 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
How is this even relevant to what INDY said about NY Times fighting for the other side on the 'War on Terror'? That is what Irvine responded to, and I don't see the line of reasoning that connects a strategic business decision with the earlier, and rather preposterous, statement.

Just to clear the air, though. You have to separate the company and the editorial staff. When talking about media companies, a strong business will allow the editorial to project a stronger influence, and a strong editorial will bring in more business. However, these two sides have different, but not contradicting, goals. Goal of the business is to maximize returns for the shareholders, while keeping in mind the interests of the stakeholders. The goal of the editorial is to produce objective and well-researched news to inform the public.

NY Times might have liberal leanings, but that doesn't mean that as a company, they do not need to adhere to basic business principles.

That last part of your quote is a knee slaper if there ever was one.


The NYT has gone limp lately for several reasons.
Circulation is down due credibility issues, the memo that Ms S posted is standard protocol at the NYT.

That said as far as credibility and the rag you salute please remember this fellow:




All hail Jayson

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 12:06 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:29 AM
As fate would have it...
Quote:
Al Jazeera, Meet the Times' Editorial Page

A bit of Al Jazeera propaganda ("alleged war on terror") sounds strangely familiar.

... Alessandra Stanley's review of the Arab-language channel's American debut notes: "A promo for an upcoming program described American policy in Iraq as George Bush's 'alleged war on terror.'"

Sound familiar?

From Wednesday's lead Times editorial: "The nation's image is at stake, as well as the safety of every man and woman who is fighting Mr. Bush's so-called war on terror."
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 12:25 PM   #12
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Haha, really? War on Terror. Wasn't that against global Islamic extremism? Don't you think that concept was a bit diluted when Dubya decided to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the War on Terror? Bush and his people tend to brand all their actions within the framework of 'War on Terror' so it seems more legit, and that discredits the framework itself. That is why War on Terror, deserves to be called 'so called War on Terror' these days. For the exact reason that it has become a baloney concept.

Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
As fate would have it...
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 04:09 PM   #13
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:29 AM
good gosh.

can't we understand that while an editorial board might have leanings one way or the next -- take the WSJ as an example of an explicitly conservative editorial staff -- that DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE REPORTING ITSELF IS INTENTIONALLY SLANTED!

as opposed to Fox News.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com