NYTimes may have permanently damaged their brand - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 10-17-2007, 07:48 PM

They've been working on damaging their credibility for decades, looks like the financial markets also are coming around.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4557

Quote:

The news media’s most valued asset, as a business, is its credibility to provide news (not propaganda). Here is what I wrote back in June 2005 when the NY Times started its propaganda putsche:

Quote:

If you have money invested in stock of the NYTimes - sell it now. The only value a news organization has is its reputation for delivering the news honestly and without bias. Without that reputation it is a worthless rag.

I have come back to this and time again as the NY Times sold its soul (and ignored its fiduciary responsibilty to shareholders) by being so biased and so wrong on so many matters of import to this nation. And now the results of their declining journalistic standards are starting to become impossible to ignore:

Quote:

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

…

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

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

alexamenos · 10-19-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

The news media’s most valued asset, as a business, is its credibility to provide news (not propaganda).

if providing propaganda rather than credible news were the cause of it's demise, I wonder how it ever weathered the storm of putting the "NYT" in "Useful Idiots at NYT" as it pumped outlandish soviet union propaganda in the 30's and 40's.....

.....NYT writer Walter Duranty, for example, effectively said of the 1930's famine in the Ukraine that the people there were "a little hungry", but otherwise just fine.

In fact, the Ukranian *Holodomor* (*time of starving*), was a brutal period deliberately inflicted upon the Ukranians by Soviet policy (the death toll went well into the millions).

I recall reading one account where people in the Ukraine were reduced to feasting on the remains their dead friends and relatives, but unfortunately their dead friends and relatives had been so starved themselves that their meager flesh contained no nutrients....

....imagine that, if you will....not even dining on the flesh of their friends and family could fend off their pending deaths from starvation....and the New York Times described these people as "a little hungry."

the magnitude and inhumanity of that lie is almost infathomable, and yet.....the NY Times business wasn't hurt in the least when it's shoddy journalism was exposed.

point being.......It is quite idealistic to say that a news outlet's most valuable asset is it's credibility, but this doesn't hold up in the real world.

What's killing the Times is one part technology and one part poor internal management....it has nothing to do with it's poor credibility.

cheers

Mavdog · 10-19-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

They've been working on damaging their credibility for decades, looks like the financial markets also are coming around.

this has nothing to do with content but with the voting rights of different stock classes.

the fund manager wanted more voting rights, the current holders who had those rights said no, so the fund manager sold the non-voting shares in frustration.

so its about corporate governance and the board of directors.

dude1394 · 10-19-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexamenos

if providing propaganda rather than credible news were the cause of it's demise, I wonder how it ever weathered the storm of putting the "NYT" in "Useful Idiots at NYT" as it pumped outlandish soviet union propaganda in the 30's and 40's.....

I would expect no viable alternative outlets and very little fact-checking.