All the News That's Fit to Buy

I saw the following comment below:

"Why would converting the NYT to non-profit status help? The company is now unable to operate on a break-even basis. Profit or non-profit doesn't really matter if the business model is unsustainable. If it was a non-profit, it would require ongoing infusions of cash -- to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Would you actually make a contribution to the New York Times (say, versus feeding hungry children)?"

That argument just shows a lack of knowledge about the non-profit system. My community newspaper is a non-profit. Here's why it would be better to operate under a not-for-profit models.

1. No shareholders, hostile or otherwise, forcing the paper to sacrifice long-term programs and policies in favor of a stock quote going up 3 cents.
2. No dividends (which drained hundreds of millions of dollars from the Times.)
3. Less taxes paid on receivables and depreciating assets.

And here's the crux of it. Even though its print model is dying, more than 20 million people read the new york times online every month. Huffingtonpost, google and others generate massive amounts of hits from their stories. So its not that people don't want to read the newspaper stories, its that they don't want to pay for a newspaper. By turning it not-for-profit, it will make it easier for the Times to transition to a paper-less model, or at least begin to plan for the inevitable.

(Supposed) non-profit will only mean less or no taxes paid ,making the nyt just another in a seemingly endless line of ultra liberal institutions (almost all universities) to get a pass on paying their fair share of course at the expense of the taxpayer, an idea that must be very in vouge now!

Why would converting the NYT to non-profit status help? The company is now unable to operate on a break-even basis. Profit or non-profit doesn't really matter if the business model is unsustainable. If it was a non-profit, it would require ongoing infusions of cash -- to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Would you actually make a contribution to the New York Times (say, versus feeding hungry children)?

i like non -profit ventures -they survive and stand the test of time -but who can decide that best but time itself -the same applies to new york times

I stopped buying the Times after the Risen/Lichtblau National Security debacle in December 2006. Sulzberger has run a famed institution into the ground.

Did Geffen's publicist write this article? Alot of adjectives have been used to describe Geffen, but altruistic is not any of them. He wants what vultures always want; easy prey.

Looks like we have some commentary from the Fox New, Limbaugh, Mallkin delusionals. They all work the same 25% market share, and it makes tehn rich. It is all that this is about.
You guys only talk to each other, No one else can listen to you. You appear to be on the verge of going postl

Can see we have some Fox News, Limbaugh, and Coulter delusionals making commentary. They all work the same 25% market share, and it makes them rich. It is all that this is about. You guys only speak to each other. Rational people no longer listen to you. It sarting to appear that you may all be going postal

NYT a non-profit? Does that mean they will give away their biased, inaccurate reporting? I had to call to cancel free trial copies as I considered them litter on my driveway.

Newspapers are losing circulation because their product is decreasing in value. Instead of in-depth, unbiased facts on current events we get get sensationalized bias with no depth and with questionable veracity. I don't want the opinion of a journalist, especially one who is less knowledgeable than I. I don't want one-sided health and science news. I definitely don't care if Obama has sex with white house journalists on Mondays! The product is the problem!

Perhaps it is their views that have caused their decline- Continue to spout lies and noone end up on your side.