Over the last few years I’ve posted numerous times about the death of media dinosaurs—here, here, and here. The Boston Globe is one such. It was up for sale some years ago and there were no takers. It’s owned by the parent company of the New York Times who is also on shaky ground. The NYT is putting the Boston Globe up for sale, again.
By Jennifer Saba, NEW YORK | Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:06pm EST
(Reuters) – The New York Times Co is putting The Boston Globe on the auction block for a second time as it seeks to focuses solely on growing its flagship newspaper.
The company said in a statement that it had hired Evercore Partners to advise on the sale, which also includes the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.
The sale is expected to come at a big loss. Ken Doctor, an analyst with Outsell Research, estimated that the Globe could fetch about $150 million. The New York Times paid $1.1 billion for the newspaper in 1993.
The New York Times is putting all its effort into being a global information source and “the Globe is a distraction,” Doctor said.
Morningstar analyst Joscelyn MacKay said in recent years revenue at the Boston Globe had declined much more than at the New York Times.
The New York Times first put the paper up for sale in 2009 as it struggled with losses. But it halted the sale process and decided to hang onto the paper after winning concessions from Globe’s unions and implementing cost cuts.
Most print media organizations in the US, and in Europe, have umbilical cord ties to unions. The unions block modernization that would reduce production expense while demanding higher wages and benefits. The unions have been sucking the economic blood from their partners until, one by one, major metro newspapers are dying.
Given the fact that newspapers have devolved into liberal propaganda tools, their passing is a good thing. The internet—and bloggers, are replacing them. And that, too, is a good thing.
Illinois tyrants are trying to kill free speech in the state. Illinois state Senator Ira Silverstein wants to prohibit the use of “anonymous” comments on websites. Now on one hand, I can sympathize. Ninety percent or more anonymous postings are spam of one form or another. Another six or seven percent are vitriol by opponents of the post or of the author and use “anonymous” to hide their identities. I’ve had a few of those on my website as well. The remaining percentages are those who don’t have an internet identity they wish to publicize.
It is the last two catagories above that involve free speech. As much as I hate the rants spewed by liberals directed to my site by the Democrat Underground or the Daily Koz, they do have a right to say their message—just as I, as a website owner, have to right to remove their posts when they exceed the bounds of propriety.
Silverstein wants the state to enforce those prohibitions. Why? The site owner may approve of the statements and if/when those same statements offend Silverstein or his liberal buds, he has no recourse to force the removal of those statements.
His bill would grant him that authority regardless whether the website owners agree or disagree with Silverstein’s demands. It’s nothing more than another liberal attempt to stifle free speech.
3:42 AM 02/21/2013
A recently introduced bill in the Illinois state Senate would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online.
The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein. It states that a “web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”
The bill, which does not ask for or clarify requirements from entities requesting the comment removal, would take effect 90 days after becoming law.
Pseudonymous and anonymous comments have long been a critical part of U.S. public discourse, though, and the bill may be on shaky legal ground.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) noted on its website that the “right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page.”
“Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the mayor’s office before going door-to-door,” wrote EFF, noting that the Supreme Court protects Internet commentary as it does pamphleteering.
The bill is part of a larger trend of lawmakers seeking to censor anonymous online speech.
Of course we must realize this is Illinois. New York tried to pass a similar bill last year by establishment ‘Pubs. They failed.
This last item needs no added comments. It speaks for itself. New Yorkers, the British are coming. Where is your militia?
Report: Prosecutors to pursue felony charges against ex-soldier for possessing high-capacity magazine
New York prosecutors will pursue felony criminal charges against retired special forces soldier Nathan Haddad, who was arrested in LeRay, New York in January for allegedly possessing five 30-round AR-15 magazines, according to conservative law blog Legal Insurrection.
Prosecutors had reportedly offered Haddad a plea bargain that would spare him jail time if he admitted to five misdemeanors, according to Legal Insurrection. But Haddad’s attorney told the blog that Haddad, who currently works at the Department of Defense, will not accept the deal.
It is unclear how Haddad was arrested or discovered with the magazines.
Haddad was deployed four times during his ten-year Army career, and was once injured during special forces training in South Korea. He was discharged in October 2010.
A website established to pay Haddad’s legal expenses has collected more than $35,000.