Mark Thompson has made his mark at the New York Times…..as he announced a sharp downturn in profits…net profit falling 93%.
Early days yet I’m sure….how could he fail with his vast experience of running a real world commercial media company as opposed to a privileged, spoon fed, elitist corporation that lives in its own little bubble?
Ah look there’s the problem…he’s trying to run the New York Times like the BBC…without adverts:
New York Times Moves Toward Netflix Model as Ads Tumble
Thompson has barely started his job. The drop in profits is nothing to do with him. He was good at pursuing filthy profits in digital media for the BBC, although some of it was via advertising, like the US version of the website BBC America, as well as the relentless global commercial expansion of BBC World News (I don’t know how well his scheme for starting a subscription service for an international iPlayer is going). That’s why the NY Times brought him in.
Makes one wonder if Thompson didn’t so much turn a blind eye to the Savile scandal and Newsnight as he was simply too busy counting the cash and scheming to scrape up more to pay attention.
The global expansion of the BBC as a commercial entity has perhaps been Thompson’s greatest legacy. What does that have to do with the BBC’s remit and public service purpose? Don’t ask me.
Yes David. The intellectual level of the posts here has gone downhill since DV has gone walkabout and you do not seem to post so much. While I may agree with the general gist of what Alan says, much of it is empty exaggeration and factually dubious which makes this website a bit of a joke if its purpose is to seriously analyse the bias of the BBC.
Why do you keep posting under a different name Frederick? Try changing your style a bit more if you want to pass yourself off as different people.
Frederick – don’t you usually post that you are a stranger to this site, that you don’t like the comments, and you are never going to visit this site again.
As this is not a publicly funded site, Alan is free to post what he likes, and many of us appreciate the time and effort he puts into his posts. (Of course, Alan, I am sure you can speak for yourself but be assured that except for some very small silly boys the majority of us appreciate what you write).
Seconded Deborah!
A lot of our “travelling community” in cyberspace are mere hit and run merchants…I see them as “lone wolfs” but the occasional “tag-team” pops along to give grief to the likes of Alan.
These clots don`t get the idea that we`re all quiet independent-most of us can sound off quite well without “our leader”-Alan, David etc-without getting aerated…we have the principles, the all too familiar themes of BBC bias-and don`t fuss ourselves with details, given the direction of travel we know all too well.
These clowns worry about whether the trains to Treblinka were served best by a musical interlude or well-greased points on the line there…we know the destination and just like to point it out.
Thanks Alan, David, David P etc….my family know this time spent is therapeutic for us all!
‘and don`t fuss ourselves with details’
Sums itup nicely!
Only speaking for some of us, if I`ve got it right.
Lots of experts here who certainly DO “do details”.
Just in case you`re a bit confused_- I just know the direction of travel….good luck with the micrometer Dwayne!
I am a fan of DV who keeps it short and factual and especially DP who writes very well about the US.
Nope. You must be confusing me with someone else. Yes Alan does put a lot of time into his posts. I would prefer more short posts documenting some programme with a commentary that brings some bias to our attention plus the odd longer editorial piece. With Alan we get lots of 30 second rants like this which are basically wrong.
Funny thing is, this site probably has more visits than the NY Times these days, because of the papers overly Lefty stance on everything.
Folk are getting a bit sick of being spoon fed Left Wing bullshit.
Not bad for “A bit of a joke” website, eh big fella?
And you don’t have to pay.
It’s the future.
Frederick
So you’re an intellectual are you? Glad you told me, I hadn’t noticed from previous posts of yours.
I’ll bare it in mind for the future.
Like your comment though …interesting logic for a man of your intellectual abilities…an off day?
You accuse me of empty exaggeration and factual dubiousness….and you prove that by saying ‘much of [what Alan says] is empty exaggeration and factually dubious.’
….so in effect you criticise me for exaggerating and a lack of facts…by exaggerating and not providing any facts yourself.
‘Mr Spock’ you ain’t.
Still always fun sparring with you.
I have to say that most people see right through you every time, Freddie, whatever name you choose….except your new mate Dwayne, one of your invisible friends? or is that you again under yet another name bigging yourself up? Stop it, you’ll go blind Fred.
I have looked at this site nearly every day for about 4 years. And I post about once every few months. So I would be surprised if you could recall any of my previous posts.
In my view this site has gone downhill ever since you started posting. The level of the analysis and the quality of the writing is pretty low. I am not expecting an intellectual site, just something which is more thoughtful and better reasoned. I also have an aversion to all of the ridiculous font sizes. I sense that you think that making the text bigger makes your arguments better. It does not.
I did not cite reasons to support my claim as I was replying to the comment by DP who had already made it clear that you are blaming Mark Thompson for something which he could not have had any control over. So the whole basis of this post is factually dubious and exaggerated.
And if you had bothered to read my criticism you would have seen that I am sympathetic to the general gist of B-BBC. I am politically on the right and dislike intensely the political bias of the BBC. And I would like this website to document the bias.
Anyway, the fact that you used the phrase “bare in mind” rather than “bear in mind” tells me all I need to know about your intellectual level. I could be wrong though. Maybe you are trying to “bare me” in your mind. In that case do be careful, you might go blind first.
“Mr. Buster… call for Mr. G. Buster! Saddo-masochistic projectile logic, fact and irony meltdown in aisle whine!”
If a flounce is on the cards (Deborah appears to have noted a trend), this site’s loss will be BBC various HYS or Facebook pages’ intelekual gain. That’s where the quality is, no doubt.
Ooops. Didn’t mean to post before finishing….
On the recent posts page Alan has actually pre-empted a bias. That is beyond parody. Interesting and insightful piece here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10018659/Sketch-BBC-biased-to-the-Left…-and-Right.html
You really don’t have to be a raging lefty to hate the BBC, but you need to be a raging righty to fit in here.
Strangely the first part of my post didn’t stick. Probably for the best.
In summary. Frederick is making a valid point articulately and politely. Perhaps it should be filed under ‘robust comment’ so cherished by DV until it offends his sensibilities and bans your IP.
Off piste I know, but some of the vile homophobic abuse directed at Scott M was quite frankly disgusting and I can well understand why he may be pissed off. Where were the hall monitors then? Probably off ‘liking Mr. Brims outrageous Boston / Ira comment, right?
David….
‘Thompson has barely started his job. The drop in profits is nothing to do with him’
Who’d have thought eh?
Deliberate placing of ‘Early days yet I’m sure’ just so that people would realise post was tongue in cheek.
Make it more obvious next time.
As for ‘He was good at pursuing filthy profits ‘ that’s very easy for a corporation that has an archive stretching back decades, new material that it doesn’t have to fund from commercially sourced funding, a worldwide reputation inherited from a ‘golden age’, and it doesn’t have to pay for advertising as its own programmes advertise themselves.
When you have all that, making ‘filthy profits’ is guaranteed on the back of its special status. Any other organisation would kill for those advantages.
Indeed…it’s unique!
Now, now, that’s not very fair…. you’ve forgotten about the immunity from competition laws that allows them to drive competitors out of business by selling below cost.
Non BBC.
‘Deliberate placing of ‘Early days yet I’m sure’ just so that people would realise post was tongue in cheek.’
This suggest a) you don’t understand the meaning of the phrase ‘tongue in cheek’ and b) this undermins your whole post!
Dwayne….Torn between you and Frederick
Should I up my game to match his intellectual pretensions or dumb it down for you?
Any thoughts Dwayne?
Oh, you’re doing just fine as its is.
David is correct to point out that the drop in profits has nothing to do with Thompson.
If we were to blame him for the drop in revenue then he would have to be applauded for the 7% rise in sales of the paper over the last year.
Careful now. We can’t have relevant facts getting in the way.
Facts are social construct
yep! … cosseting, vastly overpaid, vastly underskilled, “legends in their own minds”, who couldn t run a bath, doesn t seem to ensure success then?
ow queer!
won t be long before he screams for the bottomless moneypot, to cover his failure, only to realise there isn t one.
Possibly. But he can’t be any worse than the previous management. They still own 58% of their building but had to sell the floor space they occupy for $225 million just to pay off some debt, and now have to lease it back (sounds familiar somehow). A good chunk of which is the $600 million they spent to build the damn thing.
I don’t think even Thompson can do that poorly. As long as he has no editorial influence….
It`s pretty clear that the BBC really would like us all to go into Syria, so that Al Queda can get cracking on that wunner`ful Arab Spring stuff…but the will of the BBC is not yet being enacted, hence all the mouldings and manipulations to get yet another enemy of Israel set loose in the Middle East.
Does the Guardian advertise yet for “Free Syrian Army Director of Vision”….or does al-Patten wish to shoehorn in a few nuLabour/Opera House chums that might wish to move the Free Syrian Army Command from Homs to Damascus to ensure more “authentic working class experiences”?
By us all turning a blind eye to the nepotism, the venality and sheer liberal brassnecked , copperbottomed crookery…we could let the BBC get its monkeys into post, and therefore keep Assad in power..and Israel that bit safer for a while.
Poor Assad-wouldn`t you have thought that his chinwags with Sting and Bono, his Carla Bruni type of English rose of a wife would have spared him all the BBCs eggy , sniffy coverage.
He liked Sting you creeps-that`s usually all you need to be one of the Beebs beautiful people.
Oh, it`s so complex this Middle East stuff is it not?…no wonder we only get Fisk or Bowen to inform us these days…got to keep it simple you see.
Even NYT acknowledged that hiring Thompson in the light of Saville coverup was a mistake who didn’t improve things.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/is-new-york-times-hiding-its-ceo’s-role-in-sex-abuse-cover-up/
New York Times Devolves Into Luxury Product for Elite Few
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/27/NYT-Trades-Impact-For-Subscription-Dollars
So New York Times,is devolving into the Manchester Guardian?
No wonder they hired some one from the BBC to oversee its transformation
“Manchester Guardian”? I always thought it was “Manchurian”.
Lets hope that Thompson fails miserably just to show the world how inept the cream of the BBC management system actually is. Of course if he does then he will be welcomed back to the UK by the liberal left establishment and given some well paid sinecure. They look after their own and he did great work for them at the BBC when he increased its coverage world wide so they can spread their liberal views across any continent daft enough to listen to it. Anytime now the BBC will be seeking a WORLD WIDE LICENSE FEE from every one on the planet.
hows this bias?
‘hows this bias?’
Careful, there’s a danger of telling Frederick all he needs to know there.
But you’re right, it’s nothing to do with BBC bias.
Other than a guy who used to run the world’s most trusted market rate talent pool, and perfected the art of forgetful corridor conversations doing so, remains interesting to some (if not all), as he still appears to have left a unique legacy as he creates a whole new one.
Challenging the facts would suffice, as a few have successfully done, or posing a question, as have you, and are necessary checks and balances that can serve and be appreciated.
The petty personal critiques however are no more than attempts to drive wedges.
Alan posts a great deal, and some I don’t agree with or think is off ‘remit’, but he’s often on the money and does offer support in terms of URLs, etc. And its DV’s ballpark, with DavidP & Alan clearly trusted to drive the schedule.
The coordinated drive-by snarks if he strays on occasion say more about those who are worried about his scores, as they are notable by a sudden retreat to the bunker for a sulk and regroup.
I’d love to see what happened to any post to a BBC Editor with a fraction of the personal bile and presumption some multiple standard-bearers apply here.
These trolls are fun aren`t they?
They hold us to a standard that they would never expect of the BBC…but treat us as if we indeed WERE the voice of the nation.
AS somebody says elsewhere-I get the feeling that we`re the future.
Go back to your beermug, keep the computer on-and prepare for the fun( to paraphrase David Steel…or is that parody…who`s to say with the wee man?)
“A two-tier BBC licence fee? I wonder who thought up that innovative idea.
“Former BBC director general Mark Thompson has some interesting ideas for future subscriptions at the New York Times. Ideas that could be applied elsewhere. Plus the vexed problem of BBC payoffs.”
By Peter Preston.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/28/two-tier-bbc-licence-fee?
‘Telegraph’ (£) has:
“BBC boss* secures £800,000 payout”
* John Smith, former chief of BBC Worldwide.
The NYT is probably full of left wing rubbish now.
Now? It has been for years. They’re as bad as the BBC on a number of levels.
Imagine a NYT with a mandatory subscription of $6Bn/year. It is the only entity Thompson could possibly manage. Real life however is different than forced-upon Fascism. Glad to see NYT getting the short end of the stick. They so hard worked for it.
Ex-BBC D.G, THOMPSON (now ‘NYT’ CEO) applies his INBBC politics to endorse this ‘NYT’ denial of the jihad truth on Boston massacre:-
“THE NEW YORK TIMES WAGES JIHAD ON THE TRUTH: BOSTON BOMBER WENT JIHAD BECAUSE THE GOLDEN GLOVES CHANGED THEIR RULES”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/04/the-new-york-times-wages-jihad-on-the-truth-boston-bomber-went-jihad-because-the-golden-gloves-chang.html
[Opening excerpt from above article]:-
“As the enemedia continues to search for any ‘root cause’ that doesn’t involve a Koran, it keeps getting sillier and sillier.
“According to the New York Times, poor Tamerlan Tsarnaev turned into a Muslim terrorist and murdered children because he couldn’t withstand losing the ability to compete in the Golden Gloves boxing matches.
“The Golden Gloves changed the rules, you see, and that set him off.
“I am sure that it is true of most folks, that life’s disappointments has them blowing up women and children at a Patriot’s Day event in the cause of Islam.”
That and a crazy mother convincing him to jihad.
Apparently she fled the US because of a shoplifting charge stealing several designer dresses worth $1600. She clearly wanted the higher life, but feeling it was now closed to her, chose the mindset that wants to destroy it.
I think Mark Thompson is perfect for the NYT. It is full of lefty rubbish so now people don’t read it anymore, hence advertising has declined. Of course, they could start to print the truth, rather than propaganda, that could bring readers back, but leftys don’t get that, just watch the Guardian swirling down the plughole, ranting anti-British rubbish as they go.
Bottom line, my satisfaction at seeing the NYT go bust will be improved by seeing Mark Thompson’s name forever attached to the monumental failure of that iconic brand.