Answering Glenn Reynolds on Gold

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2010/09/answering-glenn-reynolds-on-gold

Instapundit, in picking up my post on the Weiner-Waxman gold hearing and the point that "if a Republican-majority Congress started investigating and having a regulatory crackdown on big advertisers in liberal outlets such as the New York Times, the First Amendment freedom-of-the-press crowd would be marching in the streets," commented, "The New York Times still has big advertisers?" Powerline repeats the gibe, reacting, in Instapundit's own inimitable style, "Heh."

I appreciate the humor; the Times's advertising revenues have been declining while those at places such as Instapundit and Powerline have been growing. Even so, The New York Times Media Group segment of the New York Times Company reported $370 million dollars in advertising revenue in the first six months of 2009, and those are the bad six months of a seasonal business that peaks in the fourth quarter. In fact the Times does still have some big advertisers. One of the big ones (check what advertising executives call the Tiffany spot, or the the top righthand corner of page three of the Times print edition, 365 days a year) is Tiffany & Co. And if Congressman Weiner is going to go after the gold dealers advertising on right-wing television and radio for their "average ... markup" being "above the melt value" — well, if the Times writes an editorial supporting Mr. Weiner and Mr. Waxman on the issue, maybe they can switch the usual layout around so that it runs adjacent to some of that Tiffany advertising.

by Ira Stoll  |  Sep 17, 2010 at 10:22 am Related Topics:  Politics, Press receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free futureofcapitalism.com mailing list