I agree whole-heartedly with this Op-Ed concerning the broader implications of the anti-gambling legislation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/op...0&emc=eta1

Its from the Times, so probably directly from their ass.

That article is fantastic. That is the way I have felt about my government for a long time and Charles Murray nails it perfectly. I hope I write something that well some day.

The Times is one of the most reputable papers in the country, Super, but thanks for your opinion anyway. The 23 Million number is one I've been hearing for a while, including from the PPA.

Adam, I respectfully have to disagree with your assertion that the NYT is one of the most reputable papers in the country. There have been more plagaristic episodes from that shop than any other in the country. I am a newspaperman and I try very hard to keep up with my industry. If you want reptable, read something that doesnt try to influence policy on a daily basis. Some good ones that come to mind:

Austin American Statesman
Arizona Republic
Wall Street Journal
USA Today

The Times, just like some broadcast outlets is biased. Objective reporting is hard to come by these days.

Thanks for your opinion as always, we will agree to disagree.

Psycho

One of the most reputable papers in the country? Please tell me youre not serious... If by reputable you mean they intentionally leak sensitive information in an effort to decrease our ability to protect our citizens, then yes, they are certainly reputable.

Valid point. Taken.

Buuuut, you are missing the point. I was speaking to two different things here. Reputable and bias.

Reporting the facts as they are and in your own words and not making shit up is reputable.

Reporting the facts as they are and in your own words and not making shit up, but putting the editorial boards opinions in ink is biased.

You know, this OIG Bill has done a great service to the USA. It has awakened a whole new group of young americans to the fact that they need to pay attention to what is happening in their world. If nothing else comes from it but that one thing, the country will be in great hands in the future. I commend you college age and younger poker players for voicing, for the most part, very intelligent arguments on the subject. It makes me proud to be among you and I feel secure in the knowledge that some of you will be leading us in the future. What a bright group of young people that reside within this forum.

LOL if by reputable you mean bias, than yes...it is...take a look at who owns the times...

amen, brother

wow it's amazing how dogmatic people can be...try this one on for size. ALLAH BLESS SYRIA!!!!!

think that's any more offensive than what you typed? I don't.

i look forward to reading Ann Coulter, the WSJ, NY Post, whilst listening to O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest of their ilk in about 17

See what ridiculous spin they put on the devastating loss the Republicans are about to endure.

What's the over / under on HR Seats won by the Dems ?? 20 ??

. OK Crbc, my math sucks so please do the math for me.....................
Conclusion

Since the 1990’s the local circulation of the New York Times has declined by over 200,000 copies a day, and the Times has fallen to a dismal third place behind the Daily News and the Post, though you would never know it from reading the Company’s SEC reports. Similarly, you have to dig deep to see that the Times’ massive advertising rate increases have produced no net new revenue, and that the Times has come to rely on discounting, one-time adjustments, and less effective regional distribution schemes to keep its gross circulation and revenue numbers up.
<BLOCKQUOTE>

</BLOCKQUOTE>
How long this can go on continues to be a mystery, but, in the light of these practices, it is certainly no mystery that the stock price of the Times has fallen by half during this decade.

<SPAN class=author minmax_bound="true">By SETH SUTEL AP Business Writer
</SPAN>© 2006 The Associated Press
<!-- commented out ad
-->
NEW YORK — The New York Times Co. reported sharply lower earnings for its third quarter Thursday on a 4.2 percent decline in advertising revenues and charges for job cuts and the sale of its stake in a cable network.

The company, which also owns The Boston Globe, the International Herald Tribune and 15 other newspapers in addition to the Times, earned $14 million, or 10 cents a share, in the three months ending in September, compared with $23.1 million, or 16 cents a share, in the year-ago period.

Well, I am not a math wizard either. $23.1M to $14M or you can compare .10/share yo .16/share. You do the math & get right back to me would ya???

LTL

oh, and GOD BLESS AMERICA Man, I just LOVE saying than

p.s. these come from 2 different stories, I can provide links so u dont think I invented 'em OK?

So where in any of what you posted does that refute the circulation numbers I posted? You clearly stated that NYT's circulation had been cut by 40%. I posted numbers that show that NYT's circulation had not decreased by 40%. So your statement was proven to be inaccurate and your response is to post their share price. Now I could be wrong but circulation figures and share price are different are they not? Why not just admit you were incorrect about the 40% cut in circulation figures for the NYT's and move on?

crbc55, I am a member of the Audit Bureau of Circulation and I researched this figure to settle this argument.

New York Times Publishers Statement - Period ending September 03

Total circulation paid by individual - 1,044,323

New York Times Publishers Statement - Period Ending March 06

Total circulation paid by individual - 955,096

These are for Mon-Sat averages for the 6 months ending in each year. This is not total circulation, it is the top tier circulation "paid for by an individual". There are more numbers that are calculated into the total paid circulation that I have purposely left out. These include Newspapers In Education and 3rd party sales and 3rd party paid for by barter. I left these out because these numbers are not reflective of the overall readership of the NYT per se. They are numbers that are legally counted as paid circulation. As a Circulation Director (Circpsycho, get it?) I can assure you that the numbers that we WANT are "paid for by an individual", this is Home Delivery, Mail and Single Copy sales. The NIE and 3rd Party add to the mix, but do not accuartely reflect the readership of the newspaper. We NEED those numbers to continue to post gains in the circulated number. When the ABC faces the music and realizes that the actual readership of a given newspaper is much higher than its stated circulation, things will be more accurate.

Larry, this is roughly a 9% decline in the last 3 years.

Amen.