| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| S&P slashes New York Times rating to junk |
| 2008-10-24 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #24 If I throw in 50 bucks to 49Pan's venture can I be the Food Editor? |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-10-24 19:35 |
| #23 Payback? "New York Times Endorses Obama for President"--headline, Reuters, Oct. 24 "S&P Lowers NYT Rating to 'Junk' "--headline, Crain's New York Business, Oct. 24 |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-10-24 18:00 |
| #22 It will be fun/good for a hearty laugh to hear their spin on why this is really a GOOD thing for the NYT. Funny thing is, I suspect all of their blinkered liberal reporters will eat up whatever explanation is dished out to them, until they get their pink slip. |
| Posted by: Betty 2008-10-24 17:53 |
| #21 I guess you can now use their bonds to wrap fish and line the kitty pan/bird cage, not just their "product". |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2008-10-24 17:33 |
| #20 OK TW, we move the old ax off the back page. Would hate to spoil someones day! |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2008-10-24 17:33 |
| #19 Manolo! Notify my crack whores!! Bring the limo around and make sure the minibar is stocked! It'll be an early weekend at the Hamptons... |
| Posted by: Pinchy 2008-10-24 14:54 |
| #18 Ha ha! |
| Posted by: newc 2008-10-24 14:27 |
| #17 Their pension plan was underfunded even before this year and likely much more so now. They're probably going to need to go back to their unions and get concessions to survive. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2008-10-24 14:02 |
| #16 Penultimate page, 49 Pan. If it's on the last page, the people across the table or sitting next to the reader on the subway will have nothing to look at but Ms Dowd's words, which is unfair. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-10-24 13:47 |
| #15 We can keep Maureen and start a last page editorial, five her three inches. But then we could aquire the Foxxy news girls and start a whole new section in the paper! Just look at the add below! |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2008-10-24 12:47 |
| #14 Good idea, 49 Pan. But then Obama would expand the Fairness Doctrine to include newspapers and they'd make you keep Maureen Dowd as a columnist. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-10-24 12:27 |
| #13 Hey, why not? TV Guide got bought up for $1.00 last week. I got dibs on the GLOBE. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-10-24 11:49 |
| #12 I'd help, 49 Pan, but I'm broke. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-10-24 11:30 |
| #11 It's nice to see their financial rating finally catch up with their journalism. Regarding their goodwill: They've kept their profits up artificially by buying lots of regional and local papers (the local Sarasota paper is owned by the NYT). These papers still make money off local advertizing. These local papers wind up subsidizing that horrible trainwreck that is the New York Times. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2008-10-24 11:30 |
| #10 Let's pool all our money and buy the joint! I got 50 cents. We can fire all the reporters and make Fred the editor of the new Rantburg press! The Mods are all contributing editors and we're off! |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2008-10-24 11:26 |
| #9 Jeez, I'm surprised this didn't make FRONT PAGE, above the fold. After all, Palin's $150K wardrobe did... |
| Posted by: Tom- Pa 2008-10-24 11:02 |
| #8 Cause... meet effect. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-10-24 10:01 |
| #7 The NYTimes actually carries about $ 650 million on their books as "goodwill" assets. Probably from asset purchases (i.e., Boston Globe, etc.) that they've been writing down in recent quarters. I'll try to look at the 10-Q filings at some point (Q3 2008 won't be out for a few more weeks). |
| Posted by: Raj 2008-10-24 08:34 |
| #6 The NYTimes actually carries about $ 650 million on their books as "goodwill" assets. On the other hand they have been gradually reducing their long term debt the past few years. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-10-24 08:13 |
| #5 Yeah, and the ratings institutions were more than a day late and a dollar short on their evaluations of the now defunct trading houses too. Anyone hear about investigations into their behavior in this financial melt down with them rating the Ponzi houses above junk for so long? I thought the purpose of ratings was to predict future behavior, not verify after the fact. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-10-24 07:53 |
| #4 Why shouldn't their bonds be junk? Their main product has been for decades now. |
| Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-10-24 07:19 |
| #3 Heard on the radio this morning: NYT endorses The One. McCain's pick of Palin overshadows 36 years of service in the Senate. Fits with comment #2. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-10-24 05:47 |
| #2 Just you wait. We'll be Obama's bitch in the new administration. We are now only we don't get rewarded for it. Yet. |
| Posted by: NYT 2008-10-24 05:01 |
| #1 Schadenfreude. Punch, it couldn't happen to anyone more deserving. |
| Posted by: GK 2008-10-24 01:16 |