Times reporter Richard Perez-Pena‘s response (posted on Facebook):
Warning: I am about to indulge in a long screed. If you don’t care about media covering media (and I wouldn’t blame you), look away.
The New York Observer’s recent article on The New York Times Company and its supposed financial crisis is so slippery, so innuendo-laden, so confused and so laughably wrong on so many levels, that it is hard to tell whether there are kernels of truth buried in the dreck.
The central contention of the article, based on a single, anonymous source, is that “the Times is staring at an enormous shortfall – as much as $50 million.”
Wow, quite a claim. What kind of shortfall? The article doesn’t say – at all. It tells us absolutely nothing about what that means. Does the Observer even know? The obvious implication is that this comes out of the blue, it’s something that’s just been discovered – though, crucially, the article doesn’t say that, either. $50 million is a scary number. It’s a little less scary when you remember that the company is sitting on a $966 million cash reserve – which the article somehow doesn’t mention./CONTINUES Read More