New York Times supports deficit spending. And to prove it, they’re losing $900 million on sale of Boston Globe.

by editor on May 3, 2011

The New York Times, that stalwart defender of all things liberal, put its money where its mouth is this week by demonstrating its own commitment to deficit spending.

AFP reports on the particulars of the Times’ investment prowess:

new york times building

In a weird sort of way you have to admire the New York Times' commitment to deficit spending

The Boston Globe reported Friday that a businessman is preparing to offer more than $200 million to buy the struggling newspaper from its owner, The New York Times Co.

The Boston Globe said Aaron Kushner will make a formal offer within the next few weeks for the Times Co.’s New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe,, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette of central Massachusetts and

… The Times Co., whose holdings include The New York Times and International Herald Tribune in addition to The Boston Globe, sought a buyer for the Globe in 2009 but failed to receive bids attractive enough to merit a sale.

The Times Co. bought the Boston Globe for $1.1 billion in 1993 but the value of the newspaper has plummeted since then, along with the fortunes of the US newspaper industry.

To review: The Times paid $1.1 billion and is selling for $200 million. In other words, they lost $900 million on this nifty little transaction. In other other words, they lost 82% of their original investment.

These geniuses have a big future in the Obama administration.

Source: AFP

{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }

Elrond Hubbard May 3, 2011 at 11:52 am

As the Grey Lady slowly sinks in a sea of red ink. But wait, how could this happen? Isn’t Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman on the staff of the New York Times? He must have lots of good ideas to recoup the Times’ losses.

perlcat May 3, 2011 at 12:09 pm

A economist that *knows* about money? I don’t think that Krugman studied about money. Not sure what he did study — fellating Nobel prize committees comes to mind.

Now, if they had Sowell or Williams on staff, they might have been able to get good advice.

Jim Stewart May 3, 2011 at 12:35 pm

Whoo hooo…. fellating Nobel prize committees!!

Priceless. I damn near wet my Depends.

perlcat May 3, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Hey, everybody has to have a skill.

CO2Insanity May 3, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Could that be an explanation for Obama’s Nobel Prize (not to mention Al Gore’s)??????

perlcat May 3, 2011 at 4:46 pm

I’m thinking that Monica must have given them all lessons.

danybhoy May 4, 2011 at 2:15 pm

I see Gore’s Nobel as a fraud, & Obama’s as a participation prize.

Gregory Tart May 3, 2011 at 10:23 am

Hmm, the Times also busted their pressman’s union, and reduced healthcare coverage for employees, and reduced headcount at the Post—- and then Mr. Sulzburger put his cousin on the Board of the Times! I guess liberalism is a lot different in practice

danybhoy May 3, 2011 at 6:10 pm

Socialism is for the people, NOT the socialist. Pinch is not going to live by the rules he wants others to live by.

Jim Stewart May 3, 2011 at 9:21 am

Of course the NY Times will not deduct this loss on their next tax return. I mean if the Times did that they may not pay any taxes next year and we all know how eager liberals are to pay taxes. Right? RIGHT??

perlcat May 3, 2011 at 9:40 am
Gregory Tart May 3, 2011 at 10:19 am
ray May 3, 2011 at 6:14 am

Sounds a bit like GM doesn’t it?

Buck O'Fama May 3, 2011 at 12:27 pm

Heh. They probably would have been better off investing that money with Madoff.

{ 1 trackback }