Alfred E. Neuman for Editer

What? Me worry?, asks Pinch Sulzberger. No Brand Damage? Profits? Times reports REVENUE instead. There may be more to this than we are being told.

When this many people blab to this many outlets that there has been "no brand damage" you know there is some. The entire organization oozes elite disdain for everyone but themselves. There may be much more to the "problems" at that organization than we suspect. This is a company that has expanded in an almost reckless manner acquiring newspapers, TV stations, digital cable ventures, a TV production company and other stuff. Makes one think of Global Crossing and some of the other "aquisitionists" of the 90s.

Their profit thumbnails are anything but forthcoming. They declare that 91 percent of their advertising REVENUE came from newspapers (nothing about profits there) while Times circulation fell 3% plus, and that REVENUE for the broadcast group was flat but PROFITS were down 23% from a year ago. What the hell does that mean? Revenue ain't profits. Profits falling doesn't tell us anything at all. Curiouser and curiouser as somebody named Alice once observed. Details

There may be much more to this than meets the Enron like disclosures.