The NY Times Tanks (and we aint talking Army tanks folks...)

The New York Times is going down, down down. How wonderful! Taqiya, America hating, sedition, and propagandizing is getting the kick in the groin it so richly deserves. And this is not some blip, this downward spiral has been going on for sometime.

Looking forward to the funeral. I'll bring the bubbly!

My delicious friend Carolyn wrote, "Well, well, well.  Poor old Pinch is starting to realize that probably it wasn't the best move to run an ad calling one of our best generals a traitor.  And endangering the lives of CIA undercover agents by exposing their identities just so he can get a headline.  (While of course calling for Bush's head because Bush was accused of doing the exact same thing - though of course Bush didn't, etc.)  And cheering for the deaths of our soldiers while calling such a cheer 'patriotic', etc.  Well, it just seems not to have been the smartest career move.  Result?  The readers have fled the Times and now the stock has tanked.  I mean, tanked!  It's now 77% less than it was a decade ago.  (BTW, folks, the Post got it wrong - the stock 'high' was NOT $24.  It was $55.00.  Which is why the new price - $14.01 - is now 1/4 of its former high price.)  Love it, love it, love it.  (Oh, and it appears that one of the analysts is now putting that $14 price at $8?  Oh, it gets even better.)"

NEW YORK TIMES HITS TEN YEAR LOW ON THE DOWNGRADE NY Post hat tip Carolyn

Hours after The New York Times Co. suffered the embarrassment of a third person scaling its Eighth Avenue headquarters in recent weeks, the company got pounded by Wall Street, which sent its shares tumbling when an analyst said its stock was pricey relative to its peers.

hooha! This aint schadenfreude. It's good old fashioned patriotism. :)

The stock sank 7 percent, or $1.05, to $14.01 yesterday, near its lowest point in 10 years and 77 percent off its 52-week high of $24.76.

The drubbing came after Lehman Brothers analyst Craig Huber slammed the Times' shares for being too expensive, compared with Gannett and McClatchy.

Huber also ratcheted down his previous price target to $8 a share from $12 a share, due to the industry having deteriorated faster than he earlier predicted, adding, "We think the shares have significant further downside risk over the next year as the stock is the most expensive in the [newspaper] group, plus Street estimates remain way too high in our opinion."

He urges the company, which is run by CEO Arthur "Pinch" Sulz berger Jr., to cut its dividend, claiming it should utilize the money to pare down the company's $1.05 billion debt.

"The prudent thing to do would be to pay down debt and continue to evaluate the landscape for Internet acquisitions," said Huber in a memo to customers.

  However, not everyone agrees.

  Ed Atorino, an analyst at Benchmark Co., thinks a dividend cut is not likely "in the short term."

  "I think the company will do what it can to maintain the dividend as long as it can," he said.

  A Times spokeswoman declined to comment.