If the recession lasts another year, the New York Times will probably survive. If it lasts two more years, analysts aren't sure. That's one way of reading the latest reporting about the paper's future from the New York Times itself. By borrowing $250 million in January from a Mexican billionaire at what it calls "punishing terms," the paper, according to analysts, "has positioned itself well to ride out another year of recession, maybe two." The trouble is that the analysts also say that the Times accepted the punishing terms because they expect they will only be able to get even worse loan offers as the recession progresses. "Maybe two" years isn't a comfortingly distant horizon.
Another official revelation in the article: Somewhat morbidly, the longterm health of the New York Times is now understood by those who guide it to be conditional on the death of other newspapers across America. "There is a feeling among analysts that there is merit to the last-man-standing strategy," the Times reports. In 2010 or 2011, one analyst suggests, "there could be dramatically fewer newspapers," and absent those competitors, the Times should be able to prosper. To me this sounds a little bit like saying that in the event of a plague, there will be proportionally speaking a lot of canned food left over for survivors.
Steamboats aren't ruining everything... blogs are.
http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2009/02/06/fella-said-cheer-up-things-could-be-wors?blog=14
This is a good article of thoughts of how tradtional print media must shapeshift to survive. The old models don't work. The article on Newsweek in the Sunday Times was good as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/business/media/09newsweek.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Posted by: John Farley | Tuesday, 10 February 2009 at 06:47 PM