The Cellar - Goodbye, daily newspapers in Detroit

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Goodbye, daily newspapers in Detroit (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18983)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 546086)

It makes me very sad. Obama is worried about the auto industry going away, but has he said anything about this? Why aren't we trying to save newspapers? :(

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 549314)

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers

It's an interesting idea. But if the papers have no profit, will a tax break help them?

Sadly, many of the papers do make profits, but not enough to cover the debt of the companies that bought them up.

No. We still need cars. We don't necessarily need newspapers (playing devil's advocate; I like newspapers too.)

It's progress and technology. I want to revive the failed papyrus industry: would it help anyone to do so? I hear the plants that produce gas-powered street lamps are in trouble, would rescuing them help our economy?

Like it or not, it's the future.

from the link -

Quote:

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

As Sheikh Yamani, the former OPEC oil minister, said, "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones."

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 549321)

from the link -
Quote:
Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

I don't know why that would be applicable. Just look at how some churches endorse certain candidates while threatening fire and brimstone if you vote for others.

Why "they would be prohibited from making political endorsments" would be applicable to newspapers simply because they were nonprofit. So are churches and religious organizations that are nonprofit, yet they do it.

Did you read the article? At all?

Washington Post, New York Times seek new cost cuts

Quote:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Two of the most respected U.S. newspaper publishers, The Washington Post Co and The New York Times Co, are embarking on new cost cuts in the face of dramatic declines in advertising revenue.

The Times said it laid off 100 workers and is cutting non-union salaries. It is also asking unionized employees to accept similar concessions to avoid layoffs in the newsroom.

The Post is offering a new round of buyouts to newsroom, production and circulation employees, and said it could not rule out laying off staff.

"This was a very difficult decision to make," said a memo signed by Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Chief Executive Janet Robinson. "The environment we are in is the toughest we have seen in our years in business."

The moves come as a host of other U.S. newspaper publishers have reduced staff, declared bankruptcy or shuttered once-vaunted newspapers, as readers seek news online and elsewhere and as the recession crimps advertising spending.

Non-union employees at the New York Times and the Boston Globe would get a 5 percent pay cut for nine months, along with 10 days off. At other units, including the company's Worcester, Massachusetts, newspaper, the amounts would be a 2.5 percent pay cut and five days off.

The Times has laid off workers before, including 500 at a newspaper and magazine distribution unit that it closed. It also held buyouts in its newsroom last year and laid off a small number of employees there.

No one is safe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 549806)

there are many different types of non-profit orgs. Religious groups are just one type. Most types are not allowed to make political endorsements to receive the tax breaks they do. Churches are already brainwashing, so a little extra is neither here nor there.... besides, they own the govt anyway....

::lights blue touch paper and retires::

Churches aren't legally supposed to endorse candidates. Of course, few politicians would take the PR hit of enforcing that law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 549833)

Did you read the article? At all?

No, I didn't. I was responding to what was posted. I did, however, see a segment about this on Hardball or somewhere several days ago.

Just so I know the rules, do I have to click on every single link that is posted in order to reply, or can I simply reply to what is in front of me, in the thread? Because if I have to read every link, I will kill myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Hutz

Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I watched Matlock in a bar last night. The sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it.