Then there’s the somewhat separate question of the propaganda value of these press outlets to Bezos, Slim and their globalist confreres.

That’s almost independent of how much money the outlets themselves lose.

‘Somewhat’ and ‘almost’, because obviously if they lose enough money it can mean no one takes them seriously and thus they have little value even as propaganda.

Are they appoaching that point?

When I was young, I happened to sit beside Ken Taylor, the Canadian hero of the Iran Embassy crisis, for a 1.5 hour flight. It was near the height of his fame. I wanted to talk to him, but I was too shy. I do remember that he never took his eyes from his weekday NYT the whole time. He seemed to look at every item in the first section, and some more besides.

I can’t imagine a significant person, not even a diehard Lib-Dem, doing that today. But I don’t know; I’m not significant.

Thanks so much for featuring this story!

From Vox Day:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-fake-views.html

[…]

UPDATE: Busted! This is the New York Times’s Alexa rating over the last year. Apparently someone thought better of artificially inflating their traffic with fake views from China. The very same pattern can be seen with the other opposition media sites outed by Zerohedge.

– https://www.unz.com/forum/georgia-couple-get-prison-for-racial-threats-at-black-childs-party/#comment-1789005

From the comment section of Vox Day’s blog post Fake News, Fake Views; this, I believe, is the comment that made Vox Day update his blog post:

HOLY SHIT [explicit language] BUSTED! Are you seeing what I am now seeing behind these links?

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nytimes.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/washingtonpost.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/theguardian.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bbc.co.uk

That article is month old, updated two weeks ago and stuff has happened s[i]nce! Alexa ranking of all three sites mentioned (found BBC too having the same pattern) goes sky high just as the Zerohedge article shows. Now the viewership has dropped to the level SAME LEVEL AS BEFORE THE SPIKE! And views from China have disappeared! Zerohedge updated the article week after saying that viewership by country isn’t visible anymore, well now it [explicit language] is again and the Chinese views have disappeared EXACTLY during the time it wasn’t publicly available.

– http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-fake-views.html#c4459999170567740519

A couple of days ago I read an article in The Guardian and at the bottom of the page was a plea for money. Not a subscription offer, an actual plea for money like you’d expect to see at Return of Kings.

It said something like “for less than the price of a cup of coffee you can help support journalistic integrity at The Guardian….”

If I’m not mistaken, they had as much as a billion pounds in trust as recently as a year ago.

They and the rest of the MSM can’t die soon enough.

Is how much they make/lose even public? Are NYTimes financials in the amazon.com 10k or not?

September 14 2016

https://www.unz.com/article/an-obituary-of-the-new-york-times/

NYT $12.25

*************************************************

March 9 2017

NYT $14.35

+17% gain (not including dividends)

+37% annualized gain (not including dividends)

Yes, they are making lots of money, not as much as before:

http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NYT/financials?p=NYT

Perhaps, but at what price/cost, and is it sustainable in the long-run?

Whereas in the past, dramatic discoveries in evolutionary biology or physics might be broken in the pages of that newspaper, these days the coverage seems increasingly skewed toward phone apps and dieting and phone apps for dieting.

That witticism, which I have occasionally repeated, sometimes moves from the metaphorical to the literal. For example, the entire front page of that section in yesterday’s paper was devoted to stories on weight-loss techniques and Christmas gifts, following by huge stories on the benefits of jogging with donkeys and ideas for handling the health problems of an overactive bladder. With so much focus on consumerism, personal health, and pop-psychology, often accompanied by page-filling photos or drawings, there was almost no space left for actual science. Perhaps this was of necessity. With the growing financial difficulties at the Gray Lady and the departure a couple of years ago of Nicholas Wade, their renowned longtime science reporter who had remarkable expertise in evolutionary biology, perhaps their bench has grown so shallow they have few journalists left with any interest or expertise in the subject.
[…]
These are the sorts of important articles that rightfully should be covered and discussed in our most important elite media outlets, which instead increasingly cater to the ignorant, the gullible, and the politically correct—not to mention aficionados of dieting and phone apps—and such nonsense is subsequently enshrined as holy writ in Wikipedia, thereby deceiving countless millions more.

– https://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/

September 14 2016

https://www.unz.com/article/an-obituary-of-the-new-york-times/

NYT $12.25

*************************************************

March 9 2017

NYT $14.35

+17% gain (not including dividends)

+37% annualized gain (not including dividends)

Do you believe it would help The New York Times Company stock price/evaluation if this story of highly questionable and dubious NYTimes.com web traffic figures and origins were to be covered widely, instead of being buried, by the MSM?

I am still shocked how little traction and attention this potentially very significant story has gotten and received. Even here at the Unz Review I expected many more comments on this article and in this discussion, than it has received so far. But I am extremely grateful that it is featured here, even if it still has not gotten the attention it deserves, in my opinion.

This pretty decent video has received 43 views (!!!) in one (1) month, which I think is ridiculous:

Half of NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST and GUARDIAN Traffic Are CHINESE! FAKE NEWS!

Video Link

The following video received 12,000 views so far. It is from a Sandy Hook conspiracy theory Youtube channel; but even for that Youtube channel, which has over 60,000 subscribers, that is a pretty low view-count, so even the conspiracy theorists do not seem to grasp the significance of this story:

Half of NY Times Traffic is FAKE (Web Bots)! Same at WaPo + Guardian (Lying MSM Fraud, Fake News)!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oozMGTzd2X8
Video Link

This is from the NY Times in late 2014:

Study Puts a Price Tag on Fake Ad Clicks

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/business/media/study-puts-a-price-tag-on-digital-ad-click-fraud-.html

“The surprise was the ubiquity of the fraud,” said Bill Duggan, group executive vice president of the advertising association. “It is not just no-name websites but it also affects premium publishers.”

The legitimacy of clicks is crucial to publishers and the brands that advertise with them, because rates are set by the number of people who view ads. The total spending for the digital ad industry in 2014 was roughly $40 billion for display ads and $8.3 billion for video, according to the advertising association.
[…]
Still, he said, “a lot of big names” were affected. The New York Times did not specify if it was among those affected, but Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the company, said: “Although the vast majority of digital traffic to The Times is organic, we do use paid traffic acquired from third parties on occasion. We are taking a proactive approach to monitor this traffic for fraud.”