Good Times and Bad

It's no big secret that the New York Times is hurting. Besides having had to lay people off over the years, the paper just recently sold off part of it's 52-story skyscraper, the New York Times Building, to try and keep itself running. Other assets are also on the chopping block (See Full Story), and, it isn't just the New York Times. Several other papers across the country are finding themselves with a seemingly endless loss of readers. But, the majority of those who are in the most trouble are those who are considered to be the most "left" of the news groups.

I think the above stock chart of the New York Times from BigCharts.com tells the story. The stock price of the New York Times hit its all-time high in 2002. Ever since then, the stock has collapsed; moving from near $55/share in 2002 to today's price of $7 and change. While some will point to the influence of the free news on the Internet as the rationale behind the "Times" loss of subscribers, I think differently. Some losses might have been due to the Internet but, that doesn't explain why some papers, like those owned by News Corp., have grown during this same time frame.

I think that the New York Times has lost readers do to it's left-wing political stance. Certainly, they've lost a lot of politically-right subscribers. But, my guess is they have lost some in the political middle who understand and don't like the bias of this newspaper. As a consequence and out of disgust, many of them went elsewhere to papers like the New York Post, USA Today, or to the Internet. Since 2002, the New York Times has literally campaigned with it's news content to make George Bush look bad. Often, in doing so, they have made this entire country look bad. They have literally exposed secret operations that have affected this nation's security in their zeal to take down Bush. Clearly, from the chart above, this tactic has hurt in their pocketbook and, as a consequence, in their stock price.

My guess is that as soon as Mr. Obama takes office, the New York Times will switch into their pre-Bush, happiness and love-with-the-Democrats mode; as in their boom days with Clinton (see the chart). The news will shift from the negativity of the last 8 years to the all's-well under Obama; even if it actually isn't. This will probably save the "Times" and stop the bleeding that they've had been suffering over the years. Believe me, no matter what Obama does, he will be unable to do any wrong in the eyes of the "Gray Lady". However, the eyes of that "Lady" have long since been suffering from "Repulicanus Glaucomatous". A term that aptly explains their blindness to anything Republican. The term Glaucomatous or Glaucoma (relative to sight) is derived from the ancient Greek "glaukos" that means "gray". Now, you really know why the "Times" should be referred to as the "Gray Lady".