HAHAHAHAHhohohohahaha! I lack knowledge for thinking a small decline is still a decline? I lack knowledge because I see that the switch to digital subscripts obscures a decline (by reducing distribution costs). I lack knowledge in knowing that one-time write-offs don't happen just one time? If I lacked knowledge, you would show me now, rather than making me laugh.
I said you lack knowledge when it comes to reading financial statements. Spin it how ever you want.
Before 2005, the New Your Times always had an operating profit of over over a half billion dollars, every year. There already is a trend, down the drain. In 2016, their profit was less than 20% of what it was in 2005. Even without the one-time write-off, it would still be a shadow of what it once regularly was.
Yes, it's called competition. It's called an explosion of news outlets on the internet. But their revenues haven't declined that much, and they are still showing a profit, now aren't they?
Trump engages in constant hyperbole. It's not false statements when it's his known style.
Trump's style is to give false statements. Therefore, it's not a false statement when he does it.
Best doublespeak I've heard in a long time!
Even your post shows the Times still declining. And, in the big picture, it's a shadow of what it once was just a decade ago.
Every print newspaper has been challenged by the changing market brought on by the internet and cable TV news competition. Holding revenue steady (oh, sorry, down by a whopping 1.1% last year) and showing a profit every year is not failing.
Interesting that people that defend Trump losing $916 million in ONE YEAR are loathe to call that failing, but a 150+ year old company that shows a profit every year of late is "failing".
Again, I don't care about the NY Times one way or the other, except that it's incorrect to say they are failing.