The man in the picture above has called yesterday for banning ‘Alternative media’ and starving it of ad money so they all go bankrupt and the NYT and WP and other crooks can then take all the money while lying nonstop about everything on earth. They are already working hard to strangle money going to alternative news You Tube and now, all over the planet as they try to enforce Pravda-like censorship on the news as well as nonstop lying about nearly everything.
I actually would go to Manhattan regularly to read foreign news at the Russian Tea Room! I read Pravda there back when I could still read Russian which is now quite rusty though I can still read German pretty well. The NYT is now on full attack of rival news operations that are not arms of the CIA propaganda machine in DC. Just like the news that I got from Europe about who really leaked the Podesta junk, the NYT isn’t bothering with this breaking news, it is still spreading ‘The Russians did it’ propaganda as if nothing has happened.
Speaking to the Detroit Economic Club, Mark Thompson, President & CEO of The New York Times Company, has called for ad networks to cut off advertising to websites they deem to be spreading “fake news“.
I HOPE THEY DO THIS. Cut off the NYT, that is. The NYT has a long history of outright lies especially lies about wars like the Iraq invasion which they boosted knowing full well, Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Over the last month we (the website publishing Mr. Thompson’s speech) have seen disinformation piece after disinformation piece attempt to label legitimate alternative news outlets such as Intellihub and Infowars as fake news. Both CBS and Salon have routinely and directly called Infowars fake news while lumping them in with sites that are openly satire.
Now, in the next wave of attacks against the alternative media, we have Mark Thompson essentially calling for this website and others like it to have ALL funding cut off.
I have no ads. This is deliberate. I want full control of my site, I don’t want to peddle stuff I don’t use, I dislike ads so I depend on readers who are very generous indeed, to fund this operation here. But others do need the ads so interfering with this is criminal. By demanding a boycott of a list of RIVAL news operations, the NYT and WP and others are working as a collective monopoly. How dare they do this!
The official New York Times CEO, Mark Thompson, has his own web site and I hooked into it to make fun of him. He is a bonafide full time liar which is normal for the NYT these days. These people are insane. At least, they have little to do with reality.
Indeed almost as soon as he’d (Trump!) won the election, this extremely assiduous reader began to tweet about his hometown newspaper. (Trump lives in NY like I do and accesses the NYT to make fun of them) Here’s a sample from 6.16 am on the 13th of November: “Wow, the nytimes is losing thousands of subscribers because of their very poor and highly inaccurate coverage of the ‘Trump Phenomenon’.”
And here’s another, again sent at 6.16 am, this time on the 22nd November: “I cancelled today’s meeting with the failing nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice.”
Now I can’t tell you why or how Donald Trump came to send these two tweets – or even what spooky significance we should attach to the tweeting hour of 6.16 in the morning in the Trump household. What I do know, not to make a political point but simply as a matter of personal observation and knowledge, is that both of these statements were and are untrue.
I write stuff at 6am. The house is quiet. Readers here will note that most of the time, I post stories before 7am. So of course, the NYT makes fun of Trump for doing what I do every day! As for the ‘Truth’: this guy running the NYT wouldn’t know the Truth if she poked him in the eye with a sharp stick!
Trump did cancel the meeting with the NYT because the NYT was very arrogant with him, LIED TO HIM and told him, he could ‘fix’ things knowing full well, they were going there to attack him and then cooperate with Hillary and her gangster buddies in dumping the election and cancelling our votes.
By the way, this gang including the NYT co-conspirators were raging at Trump in October to not demand a recount or examination of the voting systems! Their naked, aggressive double standard lying is astonishing and this clown thinks we don’t notice this???
The “failing” New York Times has not lost “thousands of subscribers” since the election. On the contrary, there has been a spectacular surge in subscriptions, with weeks during which we have seen ten times as many new subscribers as the same period last year.
They were going downhill rapidly last year and then decided to lie about everything especially sex stuff and had a surge in Hillary bots who are desperate for information that confirms their reality which is very unreal.
As for changing the “terms and conditions” of Mr Trump’s planned lunch at The Times, I know because I was there that this claim was also quite false. Arthur Sulzberger, the chairman and publisher of The Times, set out clear terms when the Trump team first suggested he visit us: a brief off-the-record meeting followed by a full on-the-record session with Times editors and reporters. Those terms never changed.
HAHAHA…note the arrogance. Our new President was supposed to obey their dictates. HAHAHA. Maybe they should meet with me and I will explain to them all how news really works and how to avoid deliberate lying or lazy reporting that screws up reality badly. But then, they lied about me for years and years and years…hahaha.
A few hours after his tweet cancelling the meeting, Mr Trump decided to turn up after all and took part in a 75-minute on-the-record meeting, as well as a brief private conversation with Arthur. To our knowledge, it’s the first time that a President-Elect has offered such an extensive opportunity for journalistic scrutiny to The New York Times or any news organization. I know that Dean Baquet our Executive Editor, and James Bennet our Editorial Page Editor, and all of their colleagues, were very grateful for the chance to put so many questions to the president elect. So no complaints on that score.
So…Trump was nice to them! In return, they immediately attacked him about the election claiming falsely, with ZERO proof that Putin hacked the election and revealed Hillary’s dirty laundry.
As for Donald Trump and his view of The New York Times, by the time he swept out of the building he was describing the “failing nytimes” as a “jewel”, not just for America but for the whole world. In eight hours, we’d gone from “not nice” to, well, really quite nice.
Which the NYT blew up immediately by attacking Trump with false stories that didn’t wait until there was any real information.
How long will this new warm glow last? I don’t think it’s disrespectful either to Mr Trump or the office of the presidency to say: your guess is as good as ours.
Good lord, this man is insane. Or has Alzheimer’s disease. As I point out daily, not a hour goes by but there is a whiny or outright lying story attacking Trump and anyone cooperating with him. I NEVER see anything kind about Trump at all at the NYT.
But please keep those two tweets – and the many others like them – in mind as we turn to what has been the most prominent media discussion of the post-election period, the question of fake news. There’s clearly a lot of it, but should we worry about it? And, if the answer is yes, what if anything can we do?
I’ll tell you what to do: STOP LYING ALL THE TIME. Thanks in advance, you creeps.
Ironically, almost all of the Times’ top leadership that put the metered paywall into place — save its owners — are gone. The next generation of Times execs faces this question: What do we build on top of the paywall? The paywall didn’t “save the Times,” but it’s come damn near close. This year, digital-only reader revenue will reach close to $200 million. And though print circulation continues to shrink, there’s little doubt it would have dropped more quickly if print subscribers had continued to be confronted with what now seems like a crazy paradox: Pay hundreds of dollars for a print Times — or get all the content free not only online, but on that smartphone and tablet that have become third and fourth arms of our lives.
The first article from the NYT today clashes with this one from last year. So, it is true, Trump was right to say that the NYT was losing readership compared to the past. And was struggling to stay above water. The NYT CEO never mentions selling the NYT to Mexico’s richest man who hates Trump and demands open borders.
If we figure an average all-in cost per full-time Times journalist at $150,000 and throw in extensive travel and related costs, we can estimate a budget of $200 million a year. That’s assuming that, with the rehiring the Times has done post-2014 buyout, it now houses close to 1,300 journalists. Digital-only readers will add about $185 million to the coffers this year. Of course, the digital subscription system costs money, to build and to operate. But the rough equivalency offers a tantalizing questions: Could readers directly pay for voluminous, high-quality journalism?
4. The Times can count about the same number of paying daily readers today as it could in 1995.
In those pre-digital days, the Times’ daily circulation stood at 1.5 million. Today, it counts 625,000 daily print payers (home delivery and single copy) and those 1 million digital payers. That’s a little over 1.6 million. That’s another mind-boggling equivalency. With all that has changed, in the news business particularly, roughly the same number of people pay for The New York Times. One takeaway: Even at the peak of financial success — and the ’90s were good for the industry — the Times still relied on only a tiny percentage of Americans. At one point, a million and a half paying readers meant sustaining prosperity. Now, it seems like a shaky lifeline. There’s truth and there’s perception, and a lot to think about.
So, the boast that the NYT was rising and rising was a lie. In 2015, they admitted daily readers were fewer than in 1995.
The Times generates about 60 million unique visitors (U.S.) a month. One million of them pay; 59 million don’t. That’s less than two percent. The rest of the digital audience supplies attention which the Times monetizes through advertising, but then again it’s those one million paying readers who consume a greater slice of the pageviews, doubling their value. It’s the more 1.15 million print payers who are responsible for all the print reader revenue — and all the print ad revenue. So we can safely say that the business — today’s and tomorrow’s — is built on a narrow slice of people who consume Times content in any given month. That’s not a problem — it’s just a realization for all digital news companies. Loyal core readers build the foundation of the new business.
Here, the NYT admits nearly no one pays a dime. I never pay a dime because I don’t believe in funding Pravda just like I read it for free at the Russian Tea Room in Manhattan many years ago.
NYT Now, launched in April of last year and made free in May of this year, failed at its original goal: to find a new younger, paying audience with niche under-$10-a-month products. There’s no doubt NYT Now has influenced current mobile presentation and story choice. But the question still hangs in the air, for the Times and the wider industry: Other than full-priced subscriptions to around-the-clock firehose of NYT content, what will anyone pay for?
NYT Now found 20,000 new subscribers before it went free. Can the Times turn its popular Cooking app into a reader revenue source? What else might generate new reader payment — sports, health, travel? Expect new experimentation in 2016. Paywalls 1.0 — even with the 1 million number — can only take the Times so far; it needs to find additional spigots of reader revenue to get past flat revenue and into growth.
So the revenues were flat, too? HAHAHA. Delusional people run the NYT. They are rapidly destroying what was once upon time, a sometimes useful newspaper. I have despised the NYT since at least the last 20 years but then, when I was camped in front of the UN with the Chinese students many years ago, for over a month, the NYT had exactly ZERO stories of this even as it rocked international politics, was discussed in the UN itself, both Bush Sr. and the Chinese communist dictators were all yelling at me and threatening me…not one NYT reporter visited the African embassy where we were camped! Not once. I even had a phone for them to reach me and their building was only a few blocks away…and no one showed up to chat with us.
Not one time. This isn’t a ‘news’ operation, it is Pravda to keep the powerful in power, not to help anyone who is being stomped on by the super rich and super powerful, aka, the Bilderberg gang which reminds me, since before I was born, the NYT has been represented at every single Bilderberg meeting, they helped organize the first one even and…no reporting. Ever. Not once. The bastards.