RS> RS>>>> Today, even the so-called "liberal"
MSNBC has many
RS> RS>>>> conservatives as commentators, who are rarely if ever
RS> RS>>>> challenged.

RS> JB>>> They hired a couple to try and stay afloat.  They will
RS> JB>>> eventually go under along with the Washington Post, NY
RS> JB>>> Times and others.

RS> RS>> The Post and NY Times are not going under.

RS> BA> The Post *is*, however, trying to dump Newsweek Magazine on some
RS> BA> - any - unsuspecting buyer.

RS>So I've read.
RS>Well, if they do, they do.
RS>No skin off my nose.

RS> RS>> The Moonie Times is.

RS> BA> I won't miss it.

RS>The mere fact that throughout the years the Moonie Church had to
RS>subsidize the Washington Times with literally BILLIONS of $$$, speaks
RS>volumes about it's content and management.

RS>This isn't the only time I saw a conservative media outlet go under
RS>like this.
RS>Our local cable company used to carry during the 1990s, a commercial
RS>network called "National Empowerment Television."

The losses at the Washington Times and this television station pale in 
comparison to the loses at Air America, the NY Times and the Washington 
Post.  Also, the NY Times and Washington Post are publicly held 
companies.  They are costing their owners, the shareholders, real money.  

Over the past 10 years the price of NYT stock has gone from over $45 to 
$9 per share.  It earned $400M in 2000 and earned $20M in 2009, a 20 
fold drop.  The only thing keeping it afloat is that it has $250M in 
cashflow in 2009, half of which was due to depreciation and amortization 
(i.e. it is writing down assets).  I don't expect you to understand any 
of this but the NY Time shareholders certainly do, hence the stock 
price.  We'll keep the death watch on the Gray Lady.


Jeff    

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Patriotism is not who can leak the most Secret documents to the NY Times ...

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10