Donald Trump often calls the New York Times the “failing New York Times.”
Is he right?
The latest bombshell announcement about the Times has many wondering just how bad things are for the nation’s leading left-wing paper.
Recently, the Times announced they planned to vacate eight floors of its Manhattan headquarters in a cost cutting move.
“The New York Times is planning “at least eight floors” in its Manhattan headquarters as part of a plan to cut costs, generate rental income, and redesign office space, according to an internal memo.
In a message to company employees, CEO Mark Thompson said that the company had “made the decision to consolidate our footprint across the building to create a more dynamic, modern and open workplace, one that is better suited to the moment.”
“We’re planning significant investments in a redesign of our existing space in order to facilitate more cross-departmental collaboration. We expect a substantial financial benefit as well. All told, we will vacate at least eight floors, allowing us to generate significant rental income,” he continued.
The memo also confirmed that the near 400 employees currently stationed in the floors soon to be vacated will be moved to a temporary location until the end of 2017, when the redesign will be completed.”
This comes on the heels of the Times announcing a 94.7% drop in quarterly profits.
Breitbart also reports:
“The New York Times Co (NYT.N) reported a 95.7 fall in quarterly profit, hit by restructuring charges related to headcount reductions.
Net profit attributable to the newspaper publisher fell to $406,000, or break-even per share, in the third quarter, from $9.4 million, or 6 cents per share, a year earlier.”
The Times’ horrendous coverage of the Presidential campaigns could be driving this need to trim expenses.
Of all the so-called “fake” news that circulated during the election, none was faker than the Times’ coverage of the race.
Americans whose only source of news during the campaign was the New York Times lived in an alternate reality bubble where a Trump victory was about as likely as a gigantic asteroid striking the earth.
Their Upshot data vertical consistently showed Hillary Clinton as the overwhelming favorite to win the election.
And the Public Editor for the Times, Liz Spayd, criticized the paper’s coverage in a post-election column.
“Readers complain heatedly and repeatedly about the forecasting odometer from The Upshot that was anchored on the home page and predicted that Hillary Clinton had an 80 percent chance or better of winning. They complain that The Times’s attempt to tap the sentiments of Trump supporters was lacking. And they complain about the liberal tint The Times applies to its coverage, without awareness that it does.
Few could deny that if Trump’s more moderate supporters are feeling bruised right now, the blame lies partly with their candidate and his penchant for inflammatory rhetoric. But the media is at fault too, for turning his remarks into a grim caricature that it applied to those who backed him. What struck me is how many liberal voters I spoke with felt so, too. They were Clinton backers, but, they want a news source that fairly covers people across the spectrum.”
The Times’ poor coverage during the campaign – which resulted in them moving from merely a liberal paper to an opposition party – alienated many Americans.
American’s feel their values aren’t respected and their views aren’t given a fair hearing.
And the New York Times appears to be paying a financial price for it.