How could this bastion of mainstream liberal think tanks loose so much money and only be worth $1? I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with declaring that the USA is now a socialist country or equating Obama to God. It has to be that evil Fox news poisoning minds.
|NEW YORK - AUDIO equipment magnate Sidney Harman (photo) has agreed to buy loss-making Newsweek from the Washington Post Co in a deal announced on Monday.
He promised to retain most of the United States weekly's 350 employees and give it a couple of years to reverse losses.
Founded in 1933, Newsweek chalked up losses of nearly US$30 million (S$40.5 million) last year and another US$11 million in the first quarter of this year.
The Washington Post Co, which bought Newsweek almost 50 years ago, had been looking for a buyer since May.
Mr Harman, who turns 92 today, started a business selling FM radios in the 1950s and built it into one of the largest audio equipment companies in the world. He stepped down as the chief executive of Harman International Industries, which makes JBL and Infinity audio equipment, four years ago.
Taking on Newsweek, which has been far less successful than its rival Time, is a gamble. But it is a chance that Mr Harman said he is eager to take.
REUTERS, NEW YORK TIMES, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thanks for sharing, that is very very interesting.
This is a silly argument. Most newspapers are loss-making considered properly. Newspapers only source of revenue is advertising. About 60% of a newspaper is adverts - even the venerable broadsheets like the New York Times, and any newspaper that takes anything other than a populist editorial position reduces the potential advertising revenue. Normally this is supported by the owner who pumps a bit more money in to sustain the editorial position. Obviously Newsweek didn't have an owner capable of. or willing to do that, since the Washington Post has enough financial worries itself.
Should I therefore say that the right-wing Washington Times is loosing money for supporting Bush?
Newspapers are in touble generally - whatever policial position they espouse. Advertising revenue is shrinking year on year as the advertisers shift to internet and more tightly focussed outlets. The larger papers are even moving their on-line presence to a subscription model. The Times is the latest to try this - the New York Times tried and failed. They are all desperate to find a new financing model, but I suspect that the decline may be terminal in many cases.
Well, at least newsweek will have a topic on itself this week.
I liked newsweek, it had interesting articles in it.
It i true Bikerman, newspapers and magazines are not as profitable as before, and depend on Advertisements revenue, but they get ads depending on their popularity among the consumers.
Hopefully newsweek will change with the new management... probably become newsweekradio
|newspapers are in touble generally - whatever policial position they espouse |
Ya, well journalism has gone downhill pretty quickly. Used to be, journalists were NOT supposed
to really espouse political positions. Nowdays, it is quite a bit different. And the public's trust
and regard for journalists seems to be right about equal to the publics trust and regard for members
of our US congress.....
Ahh I think that is a bit rose-tinted. Papers have always had a political position (certainly here in the UK, and we do have quite a long history of newspapers for me to compare ).
I do agree that journalists have become devalued but I think for different reasons. There have always been hacks, willing to churn out prose for pounds (or dollars) without the proper research and with no pretence at impartiality. Over here they write for the tabloids - I don't know what the US equivalent of the Sun would be, but there must be some.
The difference is now that the better journalists are also devalued because of their complicity with authority. Investigative journalism seems to me to be reduced to revealing the sexual preferences of politicians and foreign war correspondance was effectively killed off for me once 'embedded reporting' became the norm in the first gulf war. To this day I cannot understand how journalists I once regarded as people of integrity - on both left and right wing - allowed themselves to sign-up to that betrayal of their basic principles. Perhaps they thought that they could see through any attempt at propoganda by their hosts, but if so then that betrays a stupidity that makes me question how I could have ever thought them good journalists to start with. I think the truth is probably more banal - they thought that it was either sign-up or no story, and no paycheck. I thought that a true journalist would die rather then either reveal their sources or submit knowingly untrue copy, but it seems the threat of death was never needed - just the threat of a paycut.
Newsweek gave us two surprise,one is refusing much money from Chinese media company,two is only sell $1.perhaps having inside story?
It would be wonderful if someone could start a publication that investigates all the major news articles that are out, and rate them on their accuracy and bias. I would definitely subscribe to a publication like that.
Why? Many organisations produce their analysis of the media - but why should you believe them?
You have exactly the same problem, just put back one step. You can either decide which media, if any, to trust or you can decide which media commentator to trust.
Here's a little Chomskyan anaylsis for you to ponder:
Manufacturing Consent 1
Manufacturing Consent 2
I think it just has to do with the fact that the print industry is in trouble. They will try to make a $1 any way they can.