Battles won, war ain't lost... If the future is digital, then the traditional mechanisms are long overdue to be made redundant. Expect more presence online.
This is horribly misleading by the way. If the Mexican you are referring to is Carlos Slim he does not own the New York Times. He is the single highest shareholder at almost 20k in shares but it only accounts for about 20% of the company in it's entirety. He does not have the power to make unilateral decisions in fact his shares are actually owned by a holding company. He likely has no impact on decisions like this. He isn't even one of the Board of Directors for the New York Times who if it wasn't Mark Thompson (who is quoted in this article btw) who made the decision do shut down those floors it would have been the Board that decided this. Furthermore the article only states that the plan to dump on Trump didn't make them enough money not that they lost money. Since you have no access to their ledger and it is not available publicly and nothing in the article even alludes to LOST money, you are making a rather large assumption that that is the case. It is just as likely that given the fact that newspaper sales have consistently dropped since 2004 (aside from a slight uptick in 2014) that they were likely headed toward this eventuality anyway and the "propaganda" sales weren't enough to offset the decline in sales. That all being said. Your title and assumption are click bait and clear propaganda so before you go clapping yourself on the back for being anti propaganda and a better man than the rest of us I would suggest fact checking or even using simple logic before you end up in another situation where you yourself are basically creating propaganda. Slightly racist propaganda at that.
Consider this. Most newspapers in the world like most legacy media, television networks, radio shows have already moved to the Internet as as a more modern method of reaching people and gaining ad revenue from doing so. Some companies such as WaPo, The Daily mail, The Telegraph, The Express, BBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC to name a few are examples of legacy media who have already done so. To say that these organization fail because they haven't modernised which which is what some are suggesting is not entirely accurate. While people no longer buy newspapers, and many no longer watch network television, most of these legacy media have the means to compete by using using the Internet, the fact that the invention and availability of the Internet contributed to their downfall is only part of the problem. The legacy media is still legacy media. They are corporations, entities, with people who work for them probably expecting to keep that job as long as the narrative of their organization prevails. And they set the narrative. You see these legacy news corporations all tend to set the same narrative, probably due to the fact their owners, shareholders, and in some cases even governments who decide how much taxpayer money they could receive all probably have vested interests in some way or another. They could have an agenda. They have paymasters. They could be towing the line for political parties, corporations, or incredibly rich banks. Even if something seems good on paper, the people behind it could have deals with the media to make said something look great with no downsides, in return perhaps they could get favours, money or other payment. And let's not forget how Donna Brazil was getting Hillary Clinton pre planned questions in advance with CNN. Wikileaks is what I would consider a true modern competitor in today's media, they exposed the truth, something which legacy journalists have forgotten matters. If the person who took the files to Wikileaks took them to CNN or NBC how much of them do you think we would be allowed to read? Some of them? Maybe some say be none at all. But Wiki leaks did release them all 100% uncensored. The people surrounding Hillary Clinton and the DNC are not denying or discussing the content of their emails but instead are attacking the messenger, falsely accusing Russia. They talk about this as if the emails should be dismissed because they were released without their permission, especially when what they were revealed to be doing could have such a big impact on WE THE PEOPLE. Even if tomorrow it turned out that Russia hacked the DNC, Podesta, Hillary Clinton, these are still genuine concerns of the people, and I would like them to discuss their emails, the content within them, and their authenticity, and I would like them them to discuss all of this UNDER OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH. And now that the legacy MSM got so much wrong, and we know they got it wrong - we know they are ALL so biased towards the establishment and all those who they support and finance. They ARE a part of the establishment. ALL of them. Those who say there is no such thing as an unbiased media anymore are right in a way but this is only true of the legacy media. There is no such thing as an unbiased legacy media. The new media meaning organization's such as Wikileaks, Voat and others are the new media. They can be trusted. Some such as Voat are making content by the people others such as Wikileaks are working in the best interest of the people. Although some entities I have noticed are already behaving the same way the MSM and trying to turn the narrative their way. Some such as Reddit, Twitter and Facebook are censoring what they consider to be "Fake News" because it doesn't fit their narrative. All the while they are smearing those who put out an alternate narrative and spreading incorrect information about them and their narrative, again dismissing it as "Fake News." The legacy media cannot be trusted in my opinion.
He's trying to keep the flow of that fat remittance money going to Mexico. It's going to stop when the illegals stop getting welfare and get booted back over the wall.
So what if Hillary won? They'd still be hurting for money. It's not like if Hillary won he wouldn't have had to pay for the propaganda or gets a big check in the mail or something. What am I missing?
She could have helped prop them up some way as long as they kiss her arse. Consider the censorship of alternative narratives that the government wants under the guise of "Fake news"
Thank goodness that Voat are not an American company.
Apparently you missed the last 6 months of lies and bullshit that destroyed their credibility. Perhaps the day they posted 15+ articles slandering Bernie is the proof you need to see what is apparent to everyone else.
He also isn't the owner. He only ultimately has a 20% stake in the company, and was not likely even told about any of these decisions as it probably fell to the CEO or Board of Directors.
What I don't have enough CP to downvoat inaccurate statements like OP's (not that my voat would not likely mean shite on this clearly biased site {centrist btw}) but I can at least try to provide intelligent discourse to those reading this thread. Heck the actually intelligent top level comment I left that clearly proves this is biased is at the bottom of the thread and hidden. It's like people don't actually want to learn grow think or be intelligent they are better at just spewing garbage on each other and not giving a damn about the truth.
VOAT actually has a myriad of opinions expressed on top comments and submissions. So there is something else behind your observed down voats.
Not sure how you got here but look at the number of days on your profile: 23. That is mirrored, plus or minus 2 weeks, by a LARGE number of others who have joined up just recently. We now have bot nets tweaking voat counts and postings that spam the same news over and over.
All of this, @tourn, has added up to most of us summarily down voating these new accounts no matter what they post. Is that a good policy? It remains to be seen. If it discourages this flood of phony duplicate accounts then I say, go for it.
But to judge this, you really have to see the bigger picture which is what I have just tried to help you to do. There is clearly something afoot, some decision by deep pockets to target VOAT and lessen its appeal to new users by smearing the site with anti-Jewish bullshit and ridiculous submissions.
Well if your right about a bit more of a rainbow of opinions I can stick it out till things pass. It's just that in a months time this is pretty much what I have seen. The majority of the time it seems like this place is full of stereotyped conservative extremist redneck drunken racist trolls. I honestly would love to see a balanced discussion. I do understand having a knee jerk reaction given the flood of new people but still. I mean it's not like I am providing shallow opinionated garbage. I mean I can cite several sources for information even but the top comment goes to what honestly sounds like a circlejerk comment. Which is hilarious given the post is all about anti-propaganda while it perpetuates propaganda.
Frankly your one of maybe 5 people who in the last month actually seem like an adult on this site (not that a younger crowd can't be reasoned and mature just the ones who are tend to be the exception to the rule). It's one of the reasons I wont just drop reddit entirely (well and the user base for things like game subreddits and instructional/help subbredits for programming etc.). At least over there 80-90% of the time when I read things I feel like there are actual adults and intelligent people commenting. I mean you get the obvious idiots but the majority of the time top comments tend to gravitate towards something actually worth reading. So I kinda come here for free speech and differing opinions (admittedly reddit can be liberally biased) but over there for a higher quality conversation.
I would love to find a platform with minimal trolling with people open to discussions, intelligent discussions, where neither side has to win per se but can provide content that actually makes a person think regardless of what stance you walk away with (and I'm not saying things would never get heated in this magical place but it doesn't need to devolve into juvenile acts either). I mean is that just too much to ask for on the internet? I was hoping Voat would be that place but so far after a month it just seems like a place where people got free speech and then wasted it on toilet humor and extremist slurs.
Also yes I am a little frustrated if that is not obvious in reading through my last two responses.
The remaining staff will be consolidated on the remaining, redesigned floors in a "more dynamic, modern and open workplace, one that is better suited to the moment."
Since they are just making shit up and printing what the white house / dnc etc. are telling them, what do they need reporters for? Actual research and investigation? Hahahahahah
The remaining staff will be consolidated on the remaining, redesigned floors in a "more dynamic, modern and open workplace, one that is better suited to the moment."
LOL. Oh fuck. I had a good laugh at the douchebag code speak there.
It's going to be so overcrowded they won't even have room for cubical walls.
Please, please, please somebody leak a photo of the eventual reality of this.
WOW the conjecture in the headline is astonishing. Newspapers are and have been in a decline. So you say it's because of their politics not because people don't buy papers. Your logic is appallingly childish.
I gave you an upvoat for being one of the only other people on this thread that actually read the article and thought about OP's statement critically and intelligently. The whole statement in this post is ironically as much propaganda (albeit likely accidental) as the OP is making fun of but no one seems to see it.
Yes. It's the politics, the blatant slander, and the lack of journalistic integrity has ruined that paper. Plus idiotic supporters like you are too dumb to understand that everyone has realized it's propaganda. (including their advertisers).
Keep posting though, it will keep us laughing while you whine in confusion as the other propaganda outlets you admire go bankrupt.
It's not about supporting the New York Times by the way. It's just the fact that this post is in itself propaganda as it is entirely inaccurate and reaching. The article says nothing about profit loss just not enough profit gain and furthermore the owner isn't Carlos Slim (who I imagine he is referring to) he is only the single largest shareholder which only accounts for about 20% of the company. He likely had nothing to do with the decisions made to put the propaganda in the paper nor the decision to shut down 8 floors. Especially since the shares are actually owned by a holding company that Carlos Slim owns. Also for over a decade now ALL newspaper sales have been in decline so they were likely headed to this anyway. Everything about the OP's statement is entirely false. So who here is really the idiotic supporter?
He is the largest individual shareholder of voting class shares? Meaning, he get the most votes on who gets to run the company, be on the board of directors, etc.
He may get the most votes to cast but it is still paltry compared to the rest of the votes available and literally the top two corporate shareholders (The Vanguard Group and Fairpointe Capitol) by themselves can overturn him. That's not including all the other people he has to convince to vote with him that could easily overturn his vote. They also don't usually vote for the CEO (who runs the company). Usually that position is an appointment made by the board of directors who are voted in by shareholders. As far as running the "propaganda" articles and the decision to drop floors that would not be likely even spoken about to the shareholders unless some major issue doing it comes along or bad press fall out happens and the stock tanks. Most day to day decisions like that are done by the CEO and on occasion but rarely the board of directors. Point is Carlos Slim likely has absolutely nothing to do with any of this other than owning stock in the company. For that matter since Nov 3 the company's stock has actually been continuously going up. In fact Dec 09 it was at the highest it has been all year at 14.10 / share.
Most Mexican officials are corrupt, judging from the news about them, and they've given up on their own country's problems, because then THEY would have to be partly responsible, and you know, they'd have to actually DO STUFF. Much easier to wag your corrupt finger up north...
So we are gunna pretend when didnt shove bananna republics, NAFTA, and the drug war down central and south americas throats?
I mean yah the current crop of mexican and latin american officials are corruot. Because we funded those that were.
Now you wanna say tough shit thats the way the cookie crumbles thats one thing. Mind you there are some points to be made against that thinking as well.
But mexico has hardly been the master of its own fate since they lost texas.
Jesus, REALLY? Mexican corruption, squarely the US's fault???
That's some lefty, pathetic bullshit right there. Mexico lost a HELL of a lot more than Texas, son. Mexico lost its SOUL way before whites came. Look up their history, starting with the Spanish, on up to the fucking cartels of today. Yeah, USA's no spotless angel, for sure, but the blame goes ALL around the world where corruption's concerned.
Well we certainly didn't help by letting the CIA dick around in the drug cartel game.
I'd say we have a bit more than a fair share of blame when it comes to Mexico's current situation, our government has a long history of getting involved there. By the way, three days ago was the six year anniversary of the killing of a USBP agent by drug runners using guns sold to cartels by the BATFE. During the ensuing scandal, Obama used his executive privilege to cover everything up, and to this day nobody responsible for that entire clusterfuck has been held responsible.
Friendly fucking reminder the US government is not your friend, that's not "lefty bullshit" that's a fact of fucking life.
I did say we didn't help the situation and we haven't, in fact our government has made it worse. Tell me, how does the CIA/FBI/DEA/BATFE botching investigations and (in the case of the CIA) actively destabilizing a nationon our border help us, the American people, in any way? I'm drawing a blank here. All it's seem to do is spike illegal immigration, put violent criminal gangs on our streets, and then on top of that prosecute American citizens for recreational drug use (or "probable cause" abuse out the ass) like we're the ones with the problem.
That said, FUCK the CIA AND the FBI for what they've done to the USA, for what they're TRYING to do right now! They need to be torn down from the ground up.
Just one example of the rot down south - US has NOTHING to do with this, but BECAUSE the US takes too much interest in appearing to clean their image up for them, it never saw much press:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/17/mexican-mayor-arrested-hundreds-massacred-cooked-network-ovens-breitbart-expose/
As long as the US keeps allowing Democrats and neocon-like conservatives to meddle and feel guilty for their disasters, this shit will just go on.
But did you notice how the migrating people never got around to ritual sacrifice until they reached the fucking Yucatan? ALL the Native Americans, imperfect as they were, were still angels compared to THOSE SAME PEOPLE once they hit that heat...God, even the brilliant Mayans were as bloodthirsty as any Conquistador, to say nothing of the Olmecs, Toltecs, Inca (to a lesser extent), Aztecs, etc.
Yes, no doubt - I favor a more hands-off approach to foreign affairs, almost Libertarian. And yes Obama fucked EVERYTHING up, especially with that guns fiasco. Still, Mexico, the whole of South & Central America, and Africa LOVE to blame anyone else but themselves. Their ENTIRE histories have been wracked with corruption and calamity - and that's the US's fault to them. Doesn't hold up as an explanation complete...
Africa can go fuck itself because the only thing we've done is help them. Over and over we've dumped more money (taxpayer and private funds) into that continent than anyone else, and you see that fat Santa Claus motherfucker still holding little Mbeke begging for money because life is just hard for him! Yeah, I feel for the little guy, but literally two days ago I saw a kid digging through a dumpster. We should be helping our own first, because whatever the fuck we're doing in Africa sure as hell ain't working.
That goes for South America too. Pull out the government meddling and let them figure it out on their own.
postfascion ago
+1 for recognising Ashkenazim
postfascion ago
Battles won, war ain't lost... If the future is digital, then the traditional mechanisms are long overdue to be made redundant. Expect more presence online.
HeavyBeefCurtain ago
LOL they grabbed themselves by the pussy
tourn ago
This is horribly misleading by the way. If the Mexican you are referring to is Carlos Slim he does not own the New York Times. He is the single highest shareholder at almost 20k in shares but it only accounts for about 20% of the company in it's entirety. He does not have the power to make unilateral decisions in fact his shares are actually owned by a holding company. He likely has no impact on decisions like this. He isn't even one of the Board of Directors for the New York Times who if it wasn't Mark Thompson (who is quoted in this article btw) who made the decision do shut down those floors it would have been the Board that decided this. Furthermore the article only states that the plan to dump on Trump didn't make them enough money not that they lost money. Since you have no access to their ledger and it is not available publicly and nothing in the article even alludes to LOST money, you are making a rather large assumption that that is the case. It is just as likely that given the fact that newspaper sales have consistently dropped since 2004 (aside from a slight uptick in 2014) that they were likely headed toward this eventuality anyway and the "propaganda" sales weren't enough to offset the decline in sales. That all being said. Your title and assumption are click bait and clear propaganda so before you go clapping yourself on the back for being anti propaganda and a better man than the rest of us I would suggest fact checking or even using simple logic before you end up in another situation where you yourself are basically creating propaganda. Slightly racist propaganda at that.
hopeforall ago
Consider this. Most newspapers in the world like most legacy media, television networks, radio shows have already moved to the Internet as as a more modern method of reaching people and gaining ad revenue from doing so. Some companies such as WaPo, The Daily mail, The Telegraph, The Express, BBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC to name a few are examples of legacy media who have already done so. To say that these organization fail because they haven't modernised which which is what some are suggesting is not entirely accurate. While people no longer buy newspapers, and many no longer watch network television, most of these legacy media have the means to compete by using using the Internet, the fact that the invention and availability of the Internet contributed to their downfall is only part of the problem. The legacy media is still legacy media. They are corporations, entities, with people who work for them probably expecting to keep that job as long as the narrative of their organization prevails. And they set the narrative. You see these legacy news corporations all tend to set the same narrative, probably due to the fact their owners, shareholders, and in some cases even governments who decide how much taxpayer money they could receive all probably have vested interests in some way or another. They could have an agenda. They have paymasters. They could be towing the line for political parties, corporations, or incredibly rich banks. Even if something seems good on paper, the people behind it could have deals with the media to make said something look great with no downsides, in return perhaps they could get favours, money or other payment. And let's not forget how Donna Brazil was getting Hillary Clinton pre planned questions in advance with CNN. Wikileaks is what I would consider a true modern competitor in today's media, they exposed the truth, something which legacy journalists have forgotten matters. If the person who took the files to Wikileaks took them to CNN or NBC how much of them do you think we would be allowed to read? Some of them? Maybe some say be none at all. But Wiki leaks did release them all 100% uncensored. The people surrounding Hillary Clinton and the DNC are not denying or discussing the content of their emails but instead are attacking the messenger, falsely accusing Russia. They talk about this as if the emails should be dismissed because they were released without their permission, especially when what they were revealed to be doing could have such a big impact on WE THE PEOPLE. Even if tomorrow it turned out that Russia hacked the DNC, Podesta, Hillary Clinton, these are still genuine concerns of the people, and I would like them to discuss their emails, the content within them, and their authenticity, and I would like them them to discuss all of this UNDER OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH. And now that the legacy MSM got so much wrong, and we know they got it wrong - we know they are ALL so biased towards the establishment and all those who they support and finance. They ARE a part of the establishment. ALL of them. Those who say there is no such thing as an unbiased media anymore are right in a way but this is only true of the legacy media. There is no such thing as an unbiased legacy media. The new media meaning organization's such as Wikileaks, Voat and others are the new media. They can be trusted. Some such as Voat are making content by the people others such as Wikileaks are working in the best interest of the people. Although some entities I have noticed are already behaving the same way the MSM and trying to turn the narrative their way. Some such as Reddit, Twitter and Facebook are censoring what they consider to be "Fake News" because it doesn't fit their narrative. All the while they are smearing those who put out an alternate narrative and spreading incorrect information about them and their narrative, again dismissing it as "Fake News." The legacy media cannot be trusted in my opinion.
GIF-lLL-S0NG ago
a little easier to read
if you take your long form comments
and separate them
hopeforall ago
Thought about it couldn't be bothered this time lol
FolCyot ago
:D Karma is a bitch.
I am cautious about Trump, but I like that he won.
epsilona01 ago
He's trying to keep the flow of that fat remittance money going to Mexico. It's going to stop when the illegals stop getting welfare and get booted back over the wall.
stillinit ago
I wanted to read the article but the ads on the site wouldnt let me.
ElectroGypsy ago
So what if Hillary won? They'd still be hurting for money. It's not like if Hillary won he wouldn't have had to pay for the propaganda or gets a big check in the mail or something. What am I missing?
hopeforall ago
She could have helped prop them up some way as long as they kiss her arse. Consider the censorship of alternative narratives that the government wants under the guise of "Fake news"
Thank goodness that Voat are not an American company.
arrggg ago
Apparently you missed the last 6 months of lies and bullshit that destroyed their credibility. Perhaps the day they posted 15+ articles slandering Bernie is the proof you need to see what is apparent to everyone else.
GhostPoop ago
10 feet8 FLOORS HIGHER!novictim ago
And Isn't Carlos Slim a Arab as well?
tourn ago
He also isn't the owner. He only ultimately has a 20% stake in the company, and was not likely even told about any of these decisions as it probably fell to the CEO or Board of Directors.
novictim ago
Total agreement, you party pooper!
tourn ago
What I don't have enough CP to downvoat inaccurate statements like OP's (not that my voat would not likely mean shite on this clearly biased site {centrist btw}) but I can at least try to provide intelligent discourse to those reading this thread. Heck the actually intelligent top level comment I left that clearly proves this is biased is at the bottom of the thread and hidden. It's like people don't actually want to learn grow think or be intelligent they are better at just spewing garbage on each other and not giving a damn about the truth.
novictim ago
VOAT actually has a myriad of opinions expressed on top comments and submissions. So there is something else behind your observed down voats.
Not sure how you got here but look at the number of days on your profile: 23. That is mirrored, plus or minus 2 weeks, by a LARGE number of others who have joined up just recently. We now have bot nets tweaking voat counts and postings that spam the same news over and over.
All of this, @tourn, has added up to most of us summarily down voating these new accounts no matter what they post. Is that a good policy? It remains to be seen. If it discourages this flood of phony duplicate accounts then I say, go for it.
But to judge this, you really have to see the bigger picture which is what I have just tried to help you to do. There is clearly something afoot, some decision by deep pockets to target VOAT and lessen its appeal to new users by smearing the site with anti-Jewish bullshit and ridiculous submissions.
tourn ago
Well if your right about a bit more of a rainbow of opinions I can stick it out till things pass. It's just that in a months time this is pretty much what I have seen. The majority of the time it seems like this place is full of stereotyped conservative extremist redneck drunken racist trolls. I honestly would love to see a balanced discussion. I do understand having a knee jerk reaction given the flood of new people but still. I mean it's not like I am providing shallow opinionated garbage. I mean I can cite several sources for information even but the top comment goes to what honestly sounds like a circlejerk comment. Which is hilarious given the post is all about anti-propaganda while it perpetuates propaganda.
Frankly your one of maybe 5 people who in the last month actually seem like an adult on this site (not that a younger crowd can't be reasoned and mature just the ones who are tend to be the exception to the rule). It's one of the reasons I wont just drop reddit entirely (well and the user base for things like game subreddits and instructional/help subbredits for programming etc.). At least over there 80-90% of the time when I read things I feel like there are actual adults and intelligent people commenting. I mean you get the obvious idiots but the majority of the time top comments tend to gravitate towards something actually worth reading. So I kinda come here for free speech and differing opinions (admittedly reddit can be liberally biased) but over there for a higher quality conversation.
I would love to find a platform with minimal trolling with people open to discussions, intelligent discussions, where neither side has to win per se but can provide content that actually makes a person think regardless of what stance you walk away with (and I'm not saying things would never get heated in this magical place but it doesn't need to devolve into juvenile acts either). I mean is that just too much to ask for on the internet? I was hoping Voat would be that place but so far after a month it just seems like a place where people got free speech and then wasted it on toilet humor and extremist slurs.
Also yes I am a little frustrated if that is not obvious in reading through my last two responses.
IslamicStatePatriot ago
Is there a kool aid they won't drink.
Pawn ago
basically he came to mexico and started his jewry on full blast, gotcha.
ObscureReference ago
Blaming the decline of print media on Trump is a little silly.
arrggg ago
Ignoring the most obvious cause of their impending bankruptcy is even sillier.
jbnunez ago
Oh I hate this newspaper and the half baked pseudo intellectuals that regurgitate its viewpoints kneejerk.
TigoleBitties ago
Since they are just making shit up and printing what the white house / dnc etc. are telling them, what do they need reporters for? Actual research and investigation? Hahahahahah
ShinyVoater ago
Soembody's got to pad out the paper.
SeanBox ago
THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!!!!! Trump needs to MAGA so bad right now.
arrggg ago
That used to be common sense, and the law of the land. Once this traitorous pack of political sluts is ousted, it may be again.
trumpolicious ago
Slim was born on January 28, 1940, in Mexico City, to Khalil Salim Haddad Aglamaz
Nothing like khalil salim haddad screams a traditional mexican name..
edistojim ago
Liberal self destruction one word at a time. Quite fitting. Maybe they'll do better at being a landlord that fielding objective news.
WhiteSoIMustBeRacist ago
Get used to it. When Trump ushers in another great recession like Bush did, there will be a lot more Americans being put out of work.
edistojim ago
After 8 years of the Obama economic failure I'm surprised we aren't in one this very moment……..oh, wait……….
aria_taint ago
Merry Christmas NYT employees!
hopeforall ago
The employees are pawns. We should blame the MSM establishment and those high up in it for its failures. We should also blame those who corrupted it.
Gorillion ago
LOL. Oh fuck. I had a good laugh at the douchebag code speak there.
It's going to be so overcrowded they won't even have room for cubical walls.
Please, please, please somebody leak a photo of the eventual reality of this.
FolCyot ago
Sure. They will have to make room when someone wants to get to the toilet.
puggy ago
something dynamic and open like this
acesneights ago
Looks like the Huffpo facilities
RulerOfSlides ago
Perfect.
lipids ago
That is the kind of environment that screams, "please quit. Layoffs are expensive."
arrggg ago
Hahahahah, that sums it up perfectly.
vacvape ago
Sounds like the kind of thing that'll soon be known as a 'death pit'. After all, they've got to make the news somehow.
arrggg ago
Oh shit, you're probably right. Hahaha.
ForTheTruth ago
WOW the conjecture in the headline is astonishing. Newspapers are and have been in a decline. So you say it's because of their politics not because people don't buy papers. Your logic is appallingly childish.
tourn ago
I gave you an upvoat for being one of the only other people on this thread that actually read the article and thought about OP's statement critically and intelligently. The whole statement in this post is ironically as much propaganda (albeit likely accidental) as the OP is making fun of but no one seems to see it.
arrggg ago
Yes. It's the politics, the blatant slander, and the lack of journalistic integrity has ruined that paper. Plus idiotic supporters like you are too dumb to understand that everyone has realized it's propaganda. (including their advertisers).
Keep posting though, it will keep us laughing while you whine in confusion as the other propaganda outlets you admire go bankrupt.
tourn ago
It's not about supporting the New York Times by the way. It's just the fact that this post is in itself propaganda as it is entirely inaccurate and reaching. The article says nothing about profit loss just not enough profit gain and furthermore the owner isn't Carlos Slim (who I imagine he is referring to) he is only the single largest shareholder which only accounts for about 20% of the company. He likely had nothing to do with the decisions made to put the propaganda in the paper nor the decision to shut down 8 floors. Especially since the shares are actually owned by a holding company that Carlos Slim owns. Also for over a decade now ALL newspaper sales have been in decline so they were likely headed to this anyway. Everything about the OP's statement is entirely false. So who here is really the idiotic supporter?
GIF-lLL-S0NG ago
He is the largest individual shareholder of voting class shares? Meaning, he get the most votes on who gets to run the company, be on the board of directors, etc.
tourn ago
He may get the most votes to cast but it is still paltry compared to the rest of the votes available and literally the top two corporate shareholders (The Vanguard Group and Fairpointe Capitol) by themselves can overturn him. That's not including all the other people he has to convince to vote with him that could easily overturn his vote. They also don't usually vote for the CEO (who runs the company). Usually that position is an appointment made by the board of directors who are voted in by shareholders. As far as running the "propaganda" articles and the decision to drop floors that would not be likely even spoken about to the shareholders unless some major issue doing it comes along or bad press fall out happens and the stock tanks. Most day to day decisions like that are done by the CEO and on occasion but rarely the board of directors. Point is Carlos Slim likely has absolutely nothing to do with any of this other than owning stock in the company. For that matter since Nov 3 the company's stock has actually been continuously going up. In fact Dec 09 it was at the highest it has been all year at 14.10 / share.
ForTheTruth ago
I admire the NYT? I had no idea!
arrggg ago
Backpedal faster!
golgotham ago
Most Mexican officials are corrupt, judging from the news about them, and they've given up on their own country's problems, because then THEY would have to be partly responsible, and you know, they'd have to actually DO STUFF. Much easier to wag your corrupt finger up north...
0fsgivin ago
So we are gunna pretend when didnt shove bananna republics, NAFTA, and the drug war down central and south americas throats?
I mean yah the current crop of mexican and latin american officials are corruot. Because we funded those that were.
Now you wanna say tough shit thats the way the cookie crumbles thats one thing. Mind you there are some points to be made against that thinking as well.
But mexico has hardly been the master of its own fate since they lost texas.
One-Way_Bus ago
Mexico and the banana republics were corrupt long before NAFTA and the drug war.
golgotham ago
Jesus, REALLY? Mexican corruption, squarely the US's fault??? That's some lefty, pathetic bullshit right there. Mexico lost a HELL of a lot more than Texas, son. Mexico lost its SOUL way before whites came. Look up their history, starting with the Spanish, on up to the fucking cartels of today. Yeah, USA's no spotless angel, for sure, but the blame goes ALL around the world where corruption's concerned.
Jixijenga ago
Well we certainly didn't help by letting the CIA dick around in the drug cartel game.
I'd say we have a bit more than a fair share of blame when it comes to Mexico's current situation, our government has a long history of getting involved there. By the way, three days ago was the six year anniversary of the killing of a USBP agent by drug runners using guns sold to cartels by the BATFE. During the ensuing scandal, Obama used his executive privilege to cover everything up, and to this day nobody responsible for that entire clusterfuck has been held responsible.
Friendly fucking reminder the US government is not your friend, that's not "lefty bullshit" that's a fact of fucking life.
golgotham ago
Once you get past the TWENTY or so top results all calling the US basically at fault for all Mexico's ills, you get some deeper truth:
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21642246-crackdown-president-targets-himself-first-right-place-start
http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/country-profiles/mexico
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/how-mexico-became-so-corrupt/277219/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2014/12/11/mexico-among-the-worlds-most-corrupt-nations-in-2014-new-report-says/#28b6d5a43258
http://cis.org/mortensen/corruption
This information, thank God, is still available, about every country in the Americas and Africa who want to place it all at the US' feet.
Jixijenga ago
I never said Mexico wasn't corrupt all by itself.
I did say we didn't help the situation and we haven't, in fact our government has made it worse. Tell me, how does the CIA/FBI/DEA/BATFE botching investigations and (in the case of the CIA) actively destabilizing a nation on our border help us, the American people, in any way? I'm drawing a blank here. All it's seem to do is spike illegal immigration, put violent criminal gangs on our streets, and then on top of that prosecute American citizens for recreational drug use (or "probable cause" abuse out the ass) like we're the ones with the problem.
golgotham ago
Well, all good points. I am at a loss to answer that question intelligently. Fuck those guys, man! :-)
Jixijenga ago
Nobody can, nobody honest at least. It's just insane how bad things have gotten, you know?
golgotham ago
That said, FUCK the CIA AND the FBI for what they've done to the USA, for what they're TRYING to do right now! They need to be torn down from the ground up.
golgotham ago
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/dont-blame-american-guns-mexicos-drug-war-8884
Just one example of the rot down south - US has NOTHING to do with this, but BECAUSE the US takes too much interest in appearing to clean their image up for them, it never saw much press: http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/17/mexican-mayor-arrested-hundreds-massacred-cooked-network-ovens-breitbart-expose/ As long as the US keeps allowing Democrats and neocon-like conservatives to meddle and feel guilty for their disasters, this shit will just go on. But did you notice how the migrating people never got around to ritual sacrifice until they reached the fucking Yucatan? ALL the Native Americans, imperfect as they were, were still angels compared to THOSE SAME PEOPLE once they hit that heat...God, even the brilliant Mayans were as bloodthirsty as any Conquistador, to say nothing of the Olmecs, Toltecs, Inca (to a lesser extent), Aztecs, etc.
Jixijenga ago
I don't disagree with anything that you've said, but we certainly didn't help matters and pretending we have no blame in any of this is naive.
golgotham ago
Yes, no doubt - I favor a more hands-off approach to foreign affairs, almost Libertarian. And yes Obama fucked EVERYTHING up, especially with that guns fiasco. Still, Mexico, the whole of South & Central America, and Africa LOVE to blame anyone else but themselves. Their ENTIRE histories have been wracked with corruption and calamity - and that's the US's fault to them. Doesn't hold up as an explanation complete...
Jixijenga ago
Africa can go fuck itself because the only thing we've done is help them. Over and over we've dumped more money (taxpayer and private funds) into that continent than anyone else, and you see that fat Santa Claus motherfucker still holding little Mbeke begging for money because life is just hard for him! Yeah, I feel for the little guy, but literally two days ago I saw a kid digging through a dumpster. We should be helping our own first, because whatever the fuck we're doing in Africa sure as hell ain't working.
That goes for South America too. Pull out the government meddling and let them figure it out on their own.
ScreaminMime ago
I suggest he rent the space to fish markets so someone will buy his paper.
GuyRomaine ago
Front page advertising: "EXTRA! EXTRA! Red Snapper is a very tasty fish!"
edistojim ago
The world needs a good mullet wrapper, the NYT fits the bill perfectly.
arrggg ago
Obligatory http://nelson-haha.api-meal.eu/