New York Times Dividend Cut Could Make Sale More Likely

Silicon Alley Insider:

The New York Times unleashed a slew of bad news earlier: ad revenue continues to plummet, the print business is in permanent decline, and the company is running on fumes. As a result, the Board is going to evaluate the company's dividend payout.

And well they should: the dividend costs the company $132 million of precious cash annually. However, that money is likely much of what is protecting the paper from being sold, as the increasingly extended (and fractured) Ochs-Sulzberger clan lives off the juicy dividend. From a recent New York magazine article:

Read the whole story: Silicon Alley Insider

Comments

[vippy]

Aren't newspapers passe now. I rather read them online. The problem is one has to read many
on the same topic in order to get the more balanced view.

[mamacat]

Here's hoping the NYT stays in business as an independent, respectable news source. The thought of it going the way of the WSJ, and becoming another right-wing faux news outlet, is very depressing.

[unscum]

Imagine Rupert Murdoch owning the New York Times.

[BostonBarbie]

I am not surprised

NY Times gave up the journalistic integrity long time ago and starting kissing the butts on the left side.

I am a lefty too.... A dem and a Obama supporter. That's my choice. The new media should not dictate that. Otherwise you are just a quasi mouth piece of the democrat or republican

NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA times are some the endangered species.

Mr. Sulzberger, I hope you will learn you lesson soon.
Just stop taking side.
Just report the news and let us take side
Dont be selective in what you report
Dont push any agenda liberal or conservative

Never mind. Its a waste of time. I have some of the old newspaper as a collector's item. It will be worth a lot on ebay when the company disappear.

[rubberneck]

I eagerly await the death of the Times.

[KoolBreez]

Murdoch can buy it..

[twofish]

As peeved as I've been at the Times over the years (since they were cheerleaders for the Vietnam War), they have been one of the counterweights to government abuses of power and I fear for their future. Who is going to fund the investigation and publishing of what's going on behind the official lies and PR bull if the newspapers go under? Or all get bought up by right wingers like Murdoch?

I don't have an answer to this problem but we as a culture had better come up with one quick. Hey Arianna, how many investigative reporters does Huffpost have in the field? About as many as other top websites, probably: that is, zero. That's the trouble with the web, the down side of its power to let anyone say anything.

[jenrose]

This is very sad as we need news sources from everywhere. But with the economy and troubles the many cut costs and buying newspapers and print magazines they must all be suffering. I read that people magazine stopped the big money recently for stories because sales are lower than ever?

[tililek]

The loss of any independent newspaper is a loss for us all. I had been hoping that the Times would be the leader in oversight for this 'recovery' plan. I don't believe the government can do an efficient job overseeing the economy, and the blogs while entertaining have a 1-2 day life.

Oversight requires time, energy and a reporter who understands the problem and the proposed solutions, and it requires an outlet. Newspapers in general, and the larger national papers in particular to spend the money, time and space that true oversight requires.

While I have read a lot about the need for oversight, I have yet to see anything at all about who will be involved in that oversight, a regular investigation of the reports, a timeline for reports, and who will be informed of the on-going results.

OVERSIGHT is needed, no matter who is elected.

[Archivist1000]

I had a sad moment for Hillary the other day when she said (paraphrasing) that nobody should
'assume' anything .... a lesson she learned the hard way, to be sure!

Hillary understands that while a candidate can be the frontrunner for a long time, at the end of the day, all that really counts, is the VOTE .... it would be a shame if Obama supporters took victory for granted, and stayed home on November 4.

GO VOTE EARLY if you can .... but VOTE ! Take NOTHING for granted, it aint over 'till it's OVER ....

GO VOTE EARLY if you can ... you or someone you love might get sick on Nov 3 or 4 and you
might be unable to go!

GO VOTE EARLY if you can .... there may be problems at the precincts .... don't be caught out !

GO VOTE EARLY if you can ... Obama has been working his butt off for 2 yrs, just for this one
DAY .... don't let him down, when he needs YOU

GO VOTE EARLY if you can .... elections are won one vote at a time, and the result lasts 4 yrs!