Blogs Are Kickin The MSM Ass...

[Mistermj]

New York Times posts loss, eyes debt reduction

NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - The New York Times Co (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) posted a quarterly loss from continuing operations on Thursday, hurt by charges for job cuts and said it is looking for ways to reduce its debt.

The company, which reported a 16 percent drop in advertising revenue at its news media group, also said it might write down as much as $150 million at its New England operations, underscoring the dismal state of newspaper advertising.

"We plan to continue to explore opportunities to reduce our debt levels," said Chief Executive Janet Robinson in a statement.
Benchmark Co analyst Edward Atorino interpreted her remarks as a sign that the Times would consider selling properties.

:nohead:

 

[Willie99]

I actually hope they fail, and I never say that about any business.

 

[Preussen]

Did I miss the part where it is explained why these losses are because of Blogs?

 

[Mistermj]

Did I miss the part where it is explained why these losses are because of Blogs?

There is this thing called the "internets" Preussen...

it really seems to be catching on. :howdy: :lol:

 

[Preussen]

There is this thing called the "internets" Preussen...

it really seems to be catching on. :howdy: :lol:

Yes, I have heard of that. But I hadn't heard before that when people use the internet to get information they always use blogs for that. Where I live, blogs don't have exactly a reputation of providing reliable information. As you prove daily.

 

[Mistermj]

Yes, I have heard of that. But I hadn't heard before that when people use the internet to get information they always use blogs for that. Where I live, blogs don't have exactly a reputation of providing reliable information. As you prove daily.

Of course all blogs aren't reliable...but many have proven to be.

Same as newspapers...but the newspapers are day old fishwrap by the time you read them.

At least with a blog you have massive fact checking and instantaneous updates and corrections.

It's the future...no doubt about it...whether the libs like it or not.

 

[Preussen]

Of course all blogs aren't reliable...but many have proven to be.

Same as newspapers...but the newspapers are day old fishwrap by the time you read them.

At least with a blog you have massive fact checking and instantaneous updates and corrections.

It's the future...no doubt about it...whether the libs like it or not.

There are reliable blogs? Then why do you always copy and paste from those that write nonsense?

I agree, internet is the future, although I sincerely hope that blogs are not, at least not as a main source for information, seeing that most blogs are simply the subjective opinion of one person, formed usually by unproven "facts" or even intentionally misleading to support an agenda. Not that I am naive enough to believe that the MSM are entirely objective, but I still prefer to get my information from a serious paper instead of some obscure blog.

But my point actually was that your headline claimed blogs are the reason for the loss of the NYT while the article you posted says nothing about it. We may agree that a main reason will be the internet, but seeing that there are other, better sources of information on the web I challenge you to back up your catchy headline a little more.

 

[Mistermj]

There are reliable blogs? Then why do you always copy and paste from those that write nonsense?

I agree, internet is the future, although I sincerely hope that blogs are not, at least not as a main source for information, seeing that most blogs are simply the subjective opinion of one person, formed usually by unproven "facts" or even intentionally misleading to support an agenda. Not that I am naive enough to believe that the MSM are entirely objective, but I still prefer to get my information from a serious paper instead of some obscure blog.

But my point actually was that your headline claimed blogs are the reason for the loss of the NYT while the article you posted says nothing about it. We may agree that a main reason will be the internet, but seeing that there are other, better sources of information on the web I challenge you to back up your catchy headline a little more.

Thats like saying the local ad shopper is representative of all newspapers.

I find your gross exaggerations funny...but they don't make your points at all.

Some people just don't get the blog thing...like some people just didn't get the internet.

 

[Preussen]

Thats like saying the local ad shopper is representative of all newspapers.

I find your gross exaggerations funny...but they don't make your points at all.

Some people just don't get the blog thing...like some people just didn't get the internet.

That's a non-answer to my post and you know it. Well, as we all know, non-answers are your thing...

 

[Mistermj]

That's a non-answer to my post and you know it. Well, as we all know, non-answers are your thing...

No...I just called you on your penchant for sweeping generalizations...which doesn't make your point.

You just don't like that.

 

[Preussen]

As I said, my point was that you cannot write a headline "Blogs are kicking the MSM Ass" and then provide nothing but an article in which blogs are not even mentioned. I'm still waiting for you to bring something more substantial, otherwise I'd have to assume that you (as usual) have a catchy headline but nothing else.

As to the rest - would you be so kind to tell me which "generalisations" you mean and why exactly you believe them to be incorrect?

 

[eek.]

It's not a non-answer, it's a BLOG answer. d1g1t

 

[Mistermj]

It's not a non-answer, it's a BLOG answer. d1g1t

It's a BLOG answer to MSM innuendo. :lol:

 

[Mistermj]

As I said, my point was that you cannot write a headline "Blogs are kicking the MSM Ass" and then provide nothing but an article in which blogs are not even mentioned. I'm still waiting for you to bring something more substantial, otherwise I'd have to assume that you (as usual) have a catchy headline but nothing else.

As to the rest - would you be so kind to tell me which "generalisations" you mean and why exactly you believe them to be incorrect?

It's widely accepted fact that people are getting their news from the internet in ever increasing numbers.

Blogs are obviously a part of that.

Ad revenues have been plummeting.

Newspapers are cutting back...laying off...and folding up shop...all over.

Same with radio...except "talk radio"

Like I said...you either "get it"...or you don't.

 

[Preussen]

It's widely accepted fact that people are getting their news from the internet in ever increasing numbers.

Undoubtedly. So your headline should have read "Internet is kicking the MSM ass", shouldn't it?

Blogs are obviously a part of that.

It's not obvious to me. I'd assume that most of those who don't buy the NYT (and this is what your article was about) anymore because of the internet are not the type to see Blogs as sufficient substitute for a paper.

MJ, can I expect a response to my question a sto which generalisations I made, why they are wrong and which point they fail to make?