Gannett and L.A. Times Go for BROKE! Will It Mean 'Bust'?

NEW YORK—Amidst a major, industry-wide slump in print and online advertising revenues, the Los Angeles Times and Gannett, the publisher of USA Today and 80 daily newspapers ranging from The Detroit Free Press to The Des Moines Register, plan to begin gating their content for non-print subscribers, with the exception of USA Today, behind paywalls. While the Los Angeles Times and the entire Gannett system are clearly hurting for revenues, they are delusional if they really think that they can price access to their content in the same manner as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. At The Complainer, we view this as the final death blow to America's local newspapers—and, for lower income Americans, a dramatic reduction in access to non-broadcast local and regional news.

The United States of America was founded on "freedom of the press." But, for most of our 236 years, the "press" hasn't been "free." Since the days of Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine, arguably the first titans of American media, our need for news has come with a price tag (or two). And, in the days prior to the Internet, the news of the day came through several main sources: the local newspaper, national and regional trade publications and journals, national and regional magazines, and later, radio, and television. Print media were sold at newsstands (or on the street) or delivered via US Mail by paid subscription, and further subsidized by advertising. The advent of radio and television disrupted the model by offering "free" news and information to listeners and viewers, whose access to current affairs was paid-for through constant exposure to advertising.

The advent of the Internet crushed the existing models for news dissemination, providing free news and information, with less overall advertising distraction than the broadcast media. For readers, especially those who reside outside of major, global cities, the results have been profound. Free content has driven readers online, forcing cutbacks, bankruptcies, mergers, and ultimately, closures at countless local newspapers. From hundreds of local papers to The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and even The New York Times, the growth of online news has caused layoffs, early retirements, and countless permanent job losses.

To grow revenue, and attempt to retain the strength of their print subscriber base, The New York Times established a softer version of a paywall, offering non-subscribers free direct access to 20 articles per month—and up to 25 articles per day, if accessed through a search engine (such a gift to Google). Print subscribers receive total access to The Times, including archival searches reaching as far back as 1851. For Times, the experiment has proven relatively successful. Revenues have increased, print subscriptions have stabilized. But, like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, their paywall has proven successful because they have affluent, global, subscriber bases, whose need for good, proprietary news and analysis often provides benefits beyond personal enjoyment. And, most important, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times, are global opinion leaders and shapers; they, to a large extent, set the tone for news across multiple categories ranging from politics to international relations, to business, and even the arts.


We are willing to go out on a limb when we predict that overall traffic will fall significantly when Gannett—and the LA Times—introduce paywalls. Instead of charging readers (for what many believe is less-than-exceptional content), they should have looked at ways to improve advertising revenue by increasing traffic and engaging more out-of-region readers in their online communities.

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal might be able to get away with digital subscriptions because they have become a truly global newspapers/news-sources of record, with strong, proprietary content driving traffic for global readerships. Few of Gannett’s papers (or, the LA Times) can come close to matching anything close to that level of content—or community. Expect to see growth for the NY Times and the WSJ.

We’ll be shorting Gannett.

What is He Huffing? Tom Friedman Calls for Third Party Presidential Bid

NEW YORK — In last week's Sunday Review section of the New York Times, Thomas "The Flathead" Friedman called for the Republican Party to regain some sanity, regroup, and provide a serious alternative to the Democrats. Mr. Friedman unfortunately ignored the fact that the GOP's highly successful interpretation of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" of splintering America's middle and working class voters with social, religious, and racial wedge issues ranging opposition to abortion, feminism, affirmative action, immigration, "welfare," environmentalism, gay rights, gun rights, and states' rights has effectively won countless local, state, and federal elections.

The readers of the New York Times basically called him insane, with hundreds of comments detailing how out of touch Mr. Friedman is with the the American political process. His reaction? "ALL IN." And, thus, Mr. Friedman has now declared that our long-term federal deficit can only be addressed by having a third party candidate step in, deficit hawk, Trilateralist, and Republican/Independent former US Comptroller, David M. Walker, and debate President Obama and the eventual GOP nominee (be it Gov. Willard "Mitt" Romney, Sen. Rick Santorum, or a brokered nominee to be named later) in order to shift the debate from our present day need for economic growth to a longer range discussion of revamping Social Security, Medicare, and the various programs that comprise our ever-fraying social safety net in tandem with a discussion of tax simplification and simultaneous tax increases.

What on Earth are you huffing, Mr. Friedman?

Inquiring minds want to know. Seriously.  

Mr. Friedman, do you sincerely believe that third party candidates EVER effectively move the discussion toward their direction? Let us review. Did Ralph Nader effectively move Al Gore or John Kerry to the left? No.He did, however, help to elect George W. Bush in 2000. Did Ross Perot move George H. W. Bush toward radical deficit control in 1992? No, but he did hurt Bush enough to possibly help to elect Bill Clinton (who made deficit reduction a priority, in large part, because it was one of the few things that he and the Republican-dominated Congress could agree on). Finally, did John Anderson force the Republican Party to the center in 1980? No, but he possibly helped to elect Ronald Reagan by hurting President Carter with moderate Democrats.

Perhaps the ONLY recent instance of a third party candidate successfully changing the positioning of a major party would be George Wallace, whose campaign in 1968 successfully broke moved a large portion of conservative Southern Democrats into the welcome arms of Richard Nixon—and the Republican Party. And, there they have remained for nearly half-a-century.

Mr. Friedman, you are playing with fire here. First, deficit reduction, while important, is not going to fix an economy vying for life in our "ever-flattening world." And, radical deficit reduction would have been possible if the Republicans were simply willing to do things like raise revenues in exchange for spending cuts. Second, a third party candidate (unless it is someone like Donald Trump or Sarah Palin) is more likely  to draw more from President Obama's fragile path to electoral victory than from the GOP nominee. Is a President Santorum what you really want?

Consider this safer, more considered path, Mr. Friedman

Perhaps, Mr. Friedman, you might throw your support behind Mr. Walker's potential run for Sen. Joe Lieberman's Senate seat. A Connecticut GOP primary might be an interesting sounding board for Mr. Walker's ideas. Wait. One problem. He's a Republican who abhors the deficit enough to raise taxes. Here's a better idea. Have Mr. Walker run for the same seat as a Democrat. Connecticut does have a long history of electing fiscally conservative Democrats to the Senate. And, until the Senate abolishes the filibuster and the anonymous hold, a deficit hawk such as Walker could really make a difference. Oh, wait. He has one small problem: Mr. Walker made a max-out individual contribution to Republican presidential hopeful Willard "Mitt" Romney in December 2011. Well, Mr. Walker could certainly run for Senate in Connecticut as an independent. They always have a strong history of electing former Democrats who back Republican presidential candidates, who then turn independent.

Alas, Mr. Friedman, you really don't understand the US political system, do you?

Tom Friedman Just Doesn't Understand: We Don't Need a 'Second Party,' We Need Blue State Secession—Or, At Least, Greater Urban Representation

NEW YORK — Yikes! Tom Friedman once again proves that he just doesn't get it. In his New York Times op-ed, "We Need a Second Party," Mr. Friedman suggests Republican presidential primary voters can't agree on a candidate because they are ideologically "out of date," arguing:

"The [GOP] has let itself become the captive of conflicting ideological bases: anti-abortion advocates, anti-immigration activists, social conservatives worried about the sanctity of marriage, libertarians who want to shrink government, and anti-tax advocates who want to drown government in a bathtub.....[Y]ou can’t address the great challenges America faces today with that incoherent mix of hardened positions."

True. Unfortunately, Mr. Friedman then suggests that what is really necessary is "a third party to break open our political system." Friedman realizes "that’s a long shot." But, then he proposes something altogether absurd:

"What we definitely and urgently need is a second party — a coherent Republican opposition that is offering constructive conservative proposals on the key issues and is ready for strategic compromises to advance its interests and those of the country..... We need a 'Different Kind of Republican' the way Bill Clinton gave us a “Different Kind of Democrat.'"

First, why is "coherent opposition" necessary at all? In what way would a "second party" help the social, technological, economic, and environmental advancement of these United States of America? Doesn't Mr. Friedman understand that, while intrinsic to our republican form of government, learned, rational opposition is not, generally, what creates good public policy? Rather, our most sweeping policy changes are usually the result of overwhelming political realignments, in which the Senate, the House of Representatives, the White House, and the Judiciary are controlled, albeit briefly, by one political party. 


Second, we wonder how Mr. Friedman can believe that "A Different Kind of Republican" is even possible—even if this year's GOP nominee is "crushed" in November and "the party is forced into a fundamental rethink?"

Mr. Friedman, Republican primary voters are NOT frustrated because their field of candidates isn't "moderate" and "compromising" enough. If that were the case, Jon Huntsman would have led the pack. No. GOP primary voters are frustrated because they lack a candidate who possesses "the total package"—one who combines the charisma of Mr. Herman Cain, the pro-life fervor of Sen. Rick Santorum, business savvy of Gov. Mitt Romney, the creative intensity of Speaker Gingrich, the energy of Rep. Michelle Bachmann, with the independent spirit of Rep. Ron Paul.

GOP voters want the resurrection of Ronald Reagan—but this time, they prefer he speak with a “country” drawl.

This is the crux of the problem, the GOP has become, with few exceptions, an increasingly Southern/Great Plains/rural party. Have a look at any county-by-county map of election results; and the view is striking. The rural and exurban areas vote Republican and the urban areas vote Democratic. This is no accident. The Republican alliance is simply an extension of the Nixon campaign's 1968 "Southern Strategy," which saw the potential to leverage staunch anticommunism and social/civil rights issues to shear off the socially conservative, primarily southern, wing of the Democratic Party in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As the economy stagnated in the late 1970s, candidates such as Ronald Reagan added taxes to the GOP narrative, while intensifying the their "pro-faith," anticommunist, anti-tax, anti-regulatory, and increasingly anti-government rhetoric in an effort to solidify support in rural America.

America's great divide is not between rich, poor, and middle class; it’s sectional and micro-sectional. And, herein lies the problem. The Red States (and counties) tend to have resource and extraction-based economies, where agriculture, ranching, mining, drilling—and the engineering, processing, and trading of such resources—form the local revenue stream. Conversely, the Blue States (and counties) are generally driven by knowledge production, manufacturing, design, finance, and education.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

Thus, in the rare instances that MAJOR policy is effected in a truly bipartisan manner, regional and sectional alliances most often come into play. Indeed, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bipartisan but entirely sectional, as northern Democrats and Republicans came together in support of President Johnson's efforts, while Southern Democrats and Republicans almost universally opposed it.

Note to Tom Friedman: Our regional divisions have existed since the founding of our United States of America. The problem is that our "flattening world" is aggravating our rural/urban divide—and our Constitution only amplifies the dilemma by providing the agriculture, resource, and extraction states with an over-representation in both the Senate and the Electoral College. What may be good for the fine citizens of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, might not necessarily good so for the people of Michigan, New York, California, and Massachusetts. And, yes, while Democrats are elected from Red States and Republicans are elected from Blue States, with rare exceptions, these occurrences are becoming fewer and fewer.

Mr. Friedman, please read some electoral maps, such as the one above. Ironically, when viewing the results of Election 2008 on a county-by-county basis, it appears that John McCain, and not Barack Obama, won in a landslide.

We don't need a "Second Party," Mr. Friedman. We need Blue State Secession—or, at least greater urban representation.

'What Were They Huffing?' Karl Rove and His GOP Shock Troops Must Have Been Inhaling Too Much Exhaust in Dissing Clint's Brilliant Super Bowl Spot

DETROIT—"Huffing," the inhaling of noxious fumes ranging from glue to paint to nitrous oxide appears to be on the rise with former Brat-Packer Demi Moore apparently hospitalized from an overdose of nitrous. But, The Complainer is wondering if Karl Rove and his GOP shock troops have been inhaling a bit of NOS themselves in attempting to portray life-long Republican Clint Eastwood's brilliant Super Bowl ad for Chrysler as "Democrat" propaganda.

In his Monday morning quarterbacking for Fox News, Rove made a HUGE tactical error (and gave his opponents a real boost) by igniting a large-scale right-wing furor over an ad that simply celebrates the indomitable, can-do side of the American spirit.

Clearly, Rove was off his game, as he turned what might have been a nonchalant water cooler conversation into viral, internet sensation, providing Chrysler (and, in his eyes, President Obama) with millions in free advertising, which, in turn:

• Drew attention to the fact that, three years ago, Willard "Mitt" Romney—and many other Republicans—would "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," in one of America's darker hours
• Gave the Democrats—and the Obama campaign—an opportunity to let a conservative icon make the Democrats' case that "Together, we saved not only Detroit, but also America from an economic apocalypse"
• Framed the GOP as the "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism," at a time when America really is clamoring for a way out of its economic (and societal) doldrums
• Stirred the Republican chattering classes (both the professionals and the folks who post to the comments sections of high profile articles and blogs) into a virulently renewed (and extraordinarily misinformed) anti-auto bailout frenzy at a time when such comments as "Let Detroit DIE!!!" will most assuredly frame the GOP "brand" as "heartless" and "out-of-touch" in the exact states which will (most likely) decide not only the presidential election, but also control of both houses of Congress: Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, and Pennsylvania
• Created a powerful, positive, association between Clint Eastwood, a conservative icon for almost five decades, and President Barack Obama—even though Eastwood was against the bailout and had no intention of being perceived as an Obama supporter

To Karl Rove, Richard Selby, and the rest of our friends on the radical right: WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU HUFFING? Seriously. 

BUSH APPROVED THE BAILOUTS, KARL!

According to your former boss, President George W. Bush: "The immediate bankruptcy of (Chrysler and GM) could cost more than a million jobs, decrease tax revenues by $150 billion and set back America’s Gross Domestic Product by hundreds of billions of dollars." 

Indeed, President Bush remarked at the National Association of Automobile Dealers convention: "Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy... and that I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment..... I didn't want my successor to be saddled with an additional economic crisis."

Kudos to you, President Bush! It's nice to know that unlike Mitt Romney and Karl Rove, you didn't want America to suffer through Great Depression II, with many more millions out of work, thousands of small businesses eviscerated, and soup-lines extending from Tennessee to Wisconsin.

Karl? Is that what you really wanted? Karl, are you angry that The Big Three are profitable and hiring, and Chrysler paid back its loans ahead of schedule? Seriously? Did you actually want the economy to become even worse because, as Senator Mitch McConnell declared, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.?" Is power more important than good governance? 

NOTE TO KARL ROVE AND THE GOP: Save for 9-11, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, a ballooning deficit, and a few pesky little problems with No Child Left Behind, and a few scandals (including the leaking of an active CIA officer's name), President Bush enjoyed some pretty good years in office. Again, KARL. What on earth are you HUFFING? Is it the NOS from a modified 2012 Dodge Challenger? If President Bush had a hand in saving Chrysler and General Motors from oblivion, it would have been smarter to take credit for the win.

NOTE TO TEAM OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS: Don't gloat.  When the Fox News correspondent badgers you at the next press conference, just say: "It's a beautiful Chrysler ad. The President has always been a fan of Mr. Eastwood's. It perfect captures the spirit of America—and we agree: 'This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines. Yeah, it’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.'"

PERSONAL NOTE TO ROVE: Retire, already.