A few days ago, there was a accident in Russia that killed a bunch of scientists and spiked radiation levels. Here's a video. Looks like a nuclear explosion to me. According to news reports a nuclear powered cruised missile (yes, nuclear powered) was being tested and something went awry.
Here's short video about the missile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
- gnadfly
- 08-14-2019, 04:36 AM
- oeb11
- 08-14-2019, 06:27 AM
The Russian goernment is being typically closed about the accident and radiation contamination.
The true scale is unknown.
How much of another Chernobyl does russia have this time?
It will likely cost many lives because of the socialist Lust for Secrecy at all costs.
Except for the comfort of the nomenklatura - like Bernie.
The true scale is unknown.
How much of another Chernobyl does russia have this time?
It will likely cost many lives because of the socialist Lust for Secrecy at all costs.
Except for the comfort of the nomenklatura - like Bernie.
- bambino
- 08-14-2019, 06:34 AM
They are giving iodine to the locals. This isn’t as bad as Chernobyl, but it’s pretty bad. I guess Putin’s secret weapon isn’t ready for prime time. Maybe NoKo is involved in the program.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
- matchingmole
- 08-14-2019, 12:15 PM
- oeb11
- 08-14-2019, 12:58 PM
please go visit Venezuela and take a lesson from the 'Free" state media, MM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 08-14-2019, 02:35 PM
The could use a free press...like we have sans Fox, Oann, Newsmax. Originally Posted by matchingmole
Interesting that you and the leftist ilk here are quick to dismiss news outlets like Fox, OAN and Newsmax as unreliable sources. I don't get OAN and Newsmax by the way. Not interested to add them either. i can go to their sites free. I think you'd have a hard time showing that these sites are less reliable than the bulk of the main stream media like CBS, ABC, NBC/MSNBC and CNN.
These sites have repeatedly printed knowingly false and negative coverage of anything Trump. and like the NY Times and the HuffPo, they have suffered in viewership/readership for it. You can try to show these sites are truthful and unbiased if you like. Good luck with that!
Now about this missile accident. How interesting that them Russki's used a fictional spy movie "Skyfall" as the name? seems like the missile's capability is fictional also. The use of nuclear propulsion shouldn't confuse people as overkill. traditional rocket fuel would require too much storage to give the missile it's hyped range and more importantly it's maneuverability. Problem is, Russia has a long history of bad designs and implementation of nuclear power. it goes farther than Chernobyl. Their nuclear sub fleet is notorious for accidents and lack of proper shielding. They may have made some modest improvements over time but there is a reason the bulk of the Russian sub fleet is anchored and unusable.
As this accident shows, Mother Russia is still way more theoretical hype than substance. This must be quite embarrassing for Vlady Putin. And with elections coming up too! Oops! Vlady himself is safe as he won re-election in 2018. His party and its grip on Russia is not. His approval rating is way down and the citizens are getting restless. This accident just ahead of general elections isn't going to help Vlady is it? After he hyped this missile recently in a political rally, it goes BOOM in his face! Russia has always been unable to produce hi-tech that is reliable. And when you screw with nuclear power .. it amplifies the risks of an accident. This missile, like the so-called Chinese "carrier killer" (which is a conventional rocket) is unproven and untested. i wouldn't be too worried about its capabilities to begin with, and this accident proves that. They risk repeated nuclear accidents just testing this weapon. So let them! I'm betting a few more of these catastrophes will kill their program.
- gnadfly
- 08-14-2019, 09:51 PM
Does anyone have an opinion as to whether this was or was not a "full fledged" nuclear explosion?
Interesting that you and the leftist ilk here are quick to dismiss news outlets like Fox, OAN and Newsmax as unreliable sources. I don't get OAN and Newsmax by the way. Not interested to add them either. i can go to their sites free. I think you'd have a hard time showing that these sites are less reliable than the bulk of the main stream media like CBS, ABC, NBC/MSNBC and CNN.I like OANN. The Russian sub fleet is in disrepair. I have not seen any diagram or white paper on how the "nuclear engine" works. The military strategy of having a drone with "unlimited range" along with a nuclear warhead seems to have a very poor payout. It is nearly a total liability. Long trigger subs seem to be a better idea.
These sites have repeatedly printed knowingly false and negative coverage of anything Trump. and like the NY Times and the HuffPo, they have suffered in viewership/readership for it. You can try to show these sites are truthful and unbiased if you like. Good luck with that!
Now about this missile accident. How interesting that them Russki's used a fictional spy movie "Skyfall" as the name? seems like the missile's capability is fictional also. The use of nuclear propulsion shouldn't confuse people as overkill. traditional rocket fuel would require too much storage to give the missile it's hyped range and more importantly it's maneuverability. Problem is, Russia has a long history of bad designs and implementation of nuclear power. it goes farther than Chernobyl. Their nuclear sub fleet is notorious for accidents and lack of proper shielding. They may have made some modest improvements over time but there is a reason the bulk of the Russian sub fleet is anchored and unusable.
As this accident shows, Mother Russia is still way more theoretical hype than substance. This must be quite embarrassing for Vlady Putin. And with elections coming up too! Oops! Vlady himself is safe as he won re-election in 2018. His party and its grip on Russia is not. His approval rating is way down and the citizens are getting restless. This accident just ahead of general elections isn't going to help Vlady is it? After he hyped this missile recently in a political rally, it goes BOOM in his face! Russia has always been unable to produce hi-tech that is reliable. And when you screw with nuclear power .. it amplifies the risks of an accident. This missile, like the so-called Chinese "carrier killer" (which is a conventional rocket) is unproven and untested. i wouldn't be too worried about its capabilities to begin with, and this accident proves that. They risk repeated nuclear accidents just testing this weapon. So let them! I'm betting a few more of these catastrophes will kill their program. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
- The_Waco_Kid
- 08-15-2019, 12:14 AM
Does anyone have an opinion as to whether this was or was not a "full fledged" nuclear explosion?
I like OANN. The Russian sub fleet is in disrepair. I have not seen any diagram or white paper on how the "nuclear engine" works. The military strategy of having a drone with "unlimited range" along with a nuclear warhead seems to have a very poor payout. It is nearly a total liability. Long trigger subs seem to be a better idea. Originally Posted by gnadfly
according to the video .. it doesn't! unless it is designed to go .. BOOM??
- Yssup Rider
- 08-15-2019, 07:52 AM
please go visit Venezuela and take a lesson from the 'Free" state media, MM Originally Posted by oeb11811 posts mentioning Venezuela in this forum. Sure is a go-to for you, oeb11.
Please try and post something cogent, Constructive and RELEVANT.
https://thinkprogress.org/right-obse...-861a959eb8f3/
The world doesn’t need another nuclear meltdown, which likely is what Putin is hiding now. We should have inspectors on the ground there now. Maybe the American firefighters Trump offered Putin for Arctic Siberia could be diverted there...
- gnadfly
- 08-15-2019, 02:15 PM
according to the video .. it doesn't! unless it is designed to go .. BOOM?? Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidOK, here's an explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...ssure%20vessel.
According to some versions it still needs liquid hydrogen so I don't see how it's virtually limitless range. Even if it used the atmosphere at the propellant wouldn't there be a radioactivity issue?
- Munchmasterman
- 08-15-2019, 10:09 PM
Stories stand or fall based on the ability to confirm them. If a story is biased, you should be able to point out the bias. Bias doesn't make a true story false.
And saying talking points pretending they are common knowledge is the biggest joke of all.
Like your take on the NYT.
What false coverage have they printed that they haven't printed a retraction? What false coverage have they printed they did print a retraction? You keep claiming this bullshit but you never give examples. What about the rightwing bias?
The main point I'm making is you are completely wrong about one of trump's biggest sacks of horse shit. And instead of taking 2 minutes to check, you knowingly spread false and negative trumpy disinformation.
Christ you guys are lazy.
Oh, and eat your heart out.
"The New York Times Co. Reports $709 Million in Digital Revenue for 2018
By Jaclyn Peiser
Feb. 6, 2019
The New York Times Company generated more than $709 million in digital revenue last year, growing at a pace that suggests it will meet its stated goal of $800 million in digital sales by the end of 2020.
The results prompted the company to set another lofty target: “To grow our subscription business to more than 10 million subscriptions by 2025,” Mark Thompson, the chief executive, said in a statement announcing the company’s fourth-quarter financial results.
More than 3.3 million people pay for the company’s digital products, including its news, crossword and food apps, a 27 percent jump from 2017. The total number of paid subscriptions for digital and print reached 4.3 million, a high.
Online subscription revenue gained nearly 18 percent to reach $400 million in 2018, while digital advertising rose 8.6 percent, to $259 million. In the last three months of the year, digital subscription sales grew at a slower pace, about 9 percent, to $105 million. That slowdown was partly the result of an extra week in the fourth quarter of 2017 and partly the result of marketing efforts such as introductory discounts for online access. Those offers attract new readers who bring in less revenue — but the company expects many of them to become full subscribers over time.
The Times added 265,000 new digital subscribers in the fourth quarter, the biggest jump since the so-called Trump bump after the 2016 election. About 172,000 of those subscribers signed on for the core news product, while the rest were drawn by digital-only products like Crossword and Cooking.
The company hit another revenue milestone: Digital advertising surpassed print advertising for the first time in the fourth quarter, jumping 23 percent to $103 million. Print advertising fell 10 percent, to $88 million.
The revenue gains will allow the company to spend more on its newsroom operations.
“Our appeal to subscribers — and to the world’s leading advertisers — depends more than anything on the quality of our journalism,” Mr. Thompson said in the statement. “That is why we have increased, rather than cut back, our investment in our newsroom and opinion departments. We want to accelerate our digital growth further, so in 2019, we will direct fresh investment into journalism, product and marketing.”
Last year the company added 120 newsroom employees, bringing the total number of journalists at The Times to 1,600, the largest count in its history
The company reported the positive financial results at a time when newspapers nationwide have experienced a hollowing out. Gannett has laid off reporters across the country and recently fended off a hostile takeover bid. McClatchy offered buyouts to 10 percent of its staff, about 450 employees.
Digital news organizations have also struggled lately. Last month BuzzFeed laid off 15 percent of its work force, roughly 220 employees; Verizon Media Group announced a 7 percent cut in its media divisions, which equals about 800 positions; and a 10 percent cut is underway at Vice Media.
At The Times, the total revenue in the fourth quarter was $503 million, a nearly 4 percent increase from a year earlier. Operating profit decreased by 17.5 percent, to $75 million. (The drop was due partly to the extra week in the fourth quarter of 2017.)
The company also announced on Wednesday that it would increase the dividend it pays shareholders by 25 percent. Investors who own Times Company stock will receive 5 cents per share every quarter, costing the company about $33 million a year. That will also benefit the Ochs-Sulzberger family that controls The Times. As of last February, the family reported it owned about 9 percent of the equity in the company.
In the earnings conference call on Wednesday, Mr. Thompson said the company had plans to test a price increase for digital subscribers in the early part of the year. This would be the first price increase in seven and a half years, Meredith Kopit Levien, the company’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, said.
“We’re confident that our digital subscribers will also understand why the price paid for high-quality journalism sometimes has to increase if the journalism itself is to flourish,” Mr. Thompson said.
Noting that 16 percent of Times subscribers live outside the United States, Ms. Levien said she sees room for international growth. “We believe there is a very big opportunity for The New York Times to be one of the handful of dominant global news producers,” she said.
The company’s cash position continues to grow, and it now has $826 million on hand. In addition to the increase in the dividend and added investments in the newsroom, the company said it would exercise its option to buy back the New York Times Building before the end of this year at a cost of $250 million.
The company entered into the sale-leaseback agreement with W. P. Carey & Company, an investment firm, 10 years ago in order to raise $225 million. At the time, the company was looking to pay down its debts, which stood at more than $1 billion, during a severe slump in the newspaper industry.
The earnings news prompted a 10.3 percent rise in the company’s stock; it closed at $29.69.
Correction: Feb. 6, 2019
An earlier version of this article misstated the scope of the buyouts the publishing company McClatchy offered its staff. It offered buyouts to about 450 employees, not 450 reporters."
Did you notice they corrected their story?
These are numbers from the financial statements for their shareholders, etc.
In other words, they are true.
In even more words, your trumpy talking point is a complete lie, you are passing it on, and you enable trump (12000+ lies and counting).
Thank God someone has the balls, that trump pretends to have, to print the truth. Bias doesn't make truth false.
And the words of a trump shill mean nothing without proof.
On a side note, confirmation that I am correct about something means nothing coming from a biased guy who made up his own boogeyman.
How about you pointing out when I'm wrong and showing some proof.
Stop using trump as an excuse to lie.
And saying talking points pretending they are common knowledge is the biggest joke of all.
Like your take on the NYT.
What false coverage have they printed that they haven't printed a retraction? What false coverage have they printed they did print a retraction? You keep claiming this bullshit but you never give examples. What about the rightwing bias?
The main point I'm making is you are completely wrong about one of trump's biggest sacks of horse shit. And instead of taking 2 minutes to check, you knowingly spread false and negative trumpy disinformation.
Christ you guys are lazy.
Oh, and eat your heart out.
"The New York Times Co. Reports $709 Million in Digital Revenue for 2018
By Jaclyn Peiser
Feb. 6, 2019
The New York Times Company generated more than $709 million in digital revenue last year, growing at a pace that suggests it will meet its stated goal of $800 million in digital sales by the end of 2020.
The results prompted the company to set another lofty target: “To grow our subscription business to more than 10 million subscriptions by 2025,” Mark Thompson, the chief executive, said in a statement announcing the company’s fourth-quarter financial results.
More than 3.3 million people pay for the company’s digital products, including its news, crossword and food apps, a 27 percent jump from 2017. The total number of paid subscriptions for digital and print reached 4.3 million, a high.
Online subscription revenue gained nearly 18 percent to reach $400 million in 2018, while digital advertising rose 8.6 percent, to $259 million. In the last three months of the year, digital subscription sales grew at a slower pace, about 9 percent, to $105 million. That slowdown was partly the result of an extra week in the fourth quarter of 2017 and partly the result of marketing efforts such as introductory discounts for online access. Those offers attract new readers who bring in less revenue — but the company expects many of them to become full subscribers over time.
The Times added 265,000 new digital subscribers in the fourth quarter, the biggest jump since the so-called Trump bump after the 2016 election. About 172,000 of those subscribers signed on for the core news product, while the rest were drawn by digital-only products like Crossword and Cooking.
The company hit another revenue milestone: Digital advertising surpassed print advertising for the first time in the fourth quarter, jumping 23 percent to $103 million. Print advertising fell 10 percent, to $88 million.
The revenue gains will allow the company to spend more on its newsroom operations.
“Our appeal to subscribers — and to the world’s leading advertisers — depends more than anything on the quality of our journalism,” Mr. Thompson said in the statement. “That is why we have increased, rather than cut back, our investment in our newsroom and opinion departments. We want to accelerate our digital growth further, so in 2019, we will direct fresh investment into journalism, product and marketing.”
Last year the company added 120 newsroom employees, bringing the total number of journalists at The Times to 1,600, the largest count in its history
The company reported the positive financial results at a time when newspapers nationwide have experienced a hollowing out. Gannett has laid off reporters across the country and recently fended off a hostile takeover bid. McClatchy offered buyouts to 10 percent of its staff, about 450 employees.
Digital news organizations have also struggled lately. Last month BuzzFeed laid off 15 percent of its work force, roughly 220 employees; Verizon Media Group announced a 7 percent cut in its media divisions, which equals about 800 positions; and a 10 percent cut is underway at Vice Media.
At The Times, the total revenue in the fourth quarter was $503 million, a nearly 4 percent increase from a year earlier. Operating profit decreased by 17.5 percent, to $75 million. (The drop was due partly to the extra week in the fourth quarter of 2017.)
The company also announced on Wednesday that it would increase the dividend it pays shareholders by 25 percent. Investors who own Times Company stock will receive 5 cents per share every quarter, costing the company about $33 million a year. That will also benefit the Ochs-Sulzberger family that controls The Times. As of last February, the family reported it owned about 9 percent of the equity in the company.
In the earnings conference call on Wednesday, Mr. Thompson said the company had plans to test a price increase for digital subscribers in the early part of the year. This would be the first price increase in seven and a half years, Meredith Kopit Levien, the company’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, said.
“We’re confident that our digital subscribers will also understand why the price paid for high-quality journalism sometimes has to increase if the journalism itself is to flourish,” Mr. Thompson said.
Noting that 16 percent of Times subscribers live outside the United States, Ms. Levien said she sees room for international growth. “We believe there is a very big opportunity for The New York Times to be one of the handful of dominant global news producers,” she said.
The company’s cash position continues to grow, and it now has $826 million on hand. In addition to the increase in the dividend and added investments in the newsroom, the company said it would exercise its option to buy back the New York Times Building before the end of this year at a cost of $250 million.
The company entered into the sale-leaseback agreement with W. P. Carey & Company, an investment firm, 10 years ago in order to raise $225 million. At the time, the company was looking to pay down its debts, which stood at more than $1 billion, during a severe slump in the newspaper industry.
The earnings news prompted a 10.3 percent rise in the company’s stock; it closed at $29.69.
Correction: Feb. 6, 2019
An earlier version of this article misstated the scope of the buyouts the publishing company McClatchy offered its staff. It offered buyouts to about 450 employees, not 450 reporters."
Did you notice they corrected their story?
These are numbers from the financial statements for their shareholders, etc.
In other words, they are true.
In even more words, your trumpy talking point is a complete lie, you are passing it on, and you enable trump (12000+ lies and counting).
Thank God someone has the balls, that trump pretends to have, to print the truth. Bias doesn't make truth false.
And the words of a trump shill mean nothing without proof.
On a side note, confirmation that I am correct about something means nothing coming from a biased guy who made up his own boogeyman.
How about you pointing out when I'm wrong and showing some proof.
Stop using trump as an excuse to lie.
Interesting that you and the leftist ilk here are quick to dismiss news outlets like Fox, OAN and Newsmax as unreliable sources. I don't get OAN and Newsmax by the way. Not interested to add them either. i can go to their sites free. I think you'd have a hard time showing that these sites are less reliable than the bulk of the main stream media like CBS, ABC, NBC/MSNBC and CNN.
These sites have repeatedly printed knowingly false and negative coverage of anything Trump. and like the NY Times and the HuffPo, they have suffered in viewership/readership for it. You can try to show these sites are truthful and unbiased if you like. Good luck with that!You can't even get the easy part right. Everything is biased and no one has to prove they are truthful. Your obvious bias is an attempt by you to force them to convince you, a highly biased person who can't see or admit their own bias, they are telling the truth. You have to show proof they lied.
Another example of how lazy liars are. Because it takes no effort to lie.
Now about this missile accident. How interesting that them Russki's used a fictional spy movie "Skyfall" as the name? seems like the missile's capability is fictional also. The use of nuclear propulsion shouldn't confuse people as overkill. traditional rocket fuel would require too much storage to give the missile it's hyped range and more importantly it's maneuverability. Problem is, Russia has a long history of bad designs and implementation of nuclear power. it goes farther than Chernobyl. Their nuclear sub fleet is notorious for accidents and lack of proper shielding. They may have made some modest improvements over time but there is a reason the bulk of the Russian sub fleet is anchored and unusable.
As this accident shows, Mother Russia is still way more theoretical hype than substance. This must be quite embarrassing for Vlady Putin. And with elections coming up too! Oops! Vlady himself is safe as he won re-election in 2018. His party and its grip on Russia is not. His approval rating is way down and the citizens are getting restless. This accident just ahead of general elections isn't going to help Vlady is it? After he hyped this missile recently in a political rally, it goes BOOM in his face! Russia has always been unable to produce hi-tech that is reliable. And when you screw with nuclear power .. it amplifies the risks of an accident. This missile, like the so-called Chinese "carrier killer" (which is a conventional rocket) is unproven and untested. i wouldn't be too worried about its capabilities to begin with, and this accident proves that. They risk repeated nuclear accidents just testing this weapon. So let them! I'm betting a few more of these catastrophes will kill their program. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
- matchingmole
- 08-15-2019, 10:15 PM
Interesting that you and the leftist ilk here are quick to dismiss news outlets like Fox, OAN and Newsmax as unreliable sources. I don't get OAN and Newsmax by the way. Not interested to add them either. i can go to their sites free. I think you'd have a hard time showing that these sites are less reliable than the bulk of the main stream media like CBS, ABC, NBC/MSNBC and CNN.When the Vegas shooting happened.. Kilmead or whoever the dark haired guy is in the morning show....said the shooter was firing from the balcony with what sounded like a machine gun. The split screen that was being broadcast clearly showed a steel and glass structure with no balcony at all. That is Fox for ya...not only biased...but inept also. I used to watch 'em many years ago...they would call out Obama...which is fine since he was President and should be held accountable by the press. Now that Fox is the major cheerleader for Trump...they serve no purpose.
These sites have repeatedly printed knowingly false and negative coverage of anything Trump. and like the NY Times and the HuffPo, they have suffered in viewership/readership for it. You can try to show these sites are truthful and unbiased if you like. Good luck with that!
Now about this missile accident. How interesting that them Russki's used a fictional spy movie "Skyfall" as the name? seems like the missile's capability is fictional also. The use of nuclear propulsion shouldn't confuse people as overkill. traditional rocket fuel would require too much storage to give the missile it's hyped range and more importantly it's maneuverability. Problem is, Russia has a long history of bad designs and implementation of nuclear power. it goes farther than Chernobyl. Their nuclear sub fleet is notorious for accidents and lack of proper shielding. They may have made some modest improvements over time but there is a reason the bulk of the Russian sub fleet is anchored and unusable.
As this accident shows, Mother Russia is still way more theoretical hype than substance. This must be quite embarrassing for Vlady Putin. And with elections coming up too! Oops! Vlady himself is safe as he won re-election in 2018. His party and its grip on Russia is not. His approval rating is way down and the citizens are getting restless. This accident just ahead of general elections isn't going to help Vlady is it? After he hyped this missile recently in a political rally, it goes BOOM in his face! Russia has always been unable to produce hi-tech that is reliable. And when you screw with nuclear power .. it amplifies the risks of an accident. This missile, like the so-called Chinese "carrier killer" (which is a conventional rocket) is unproven and untested. i wouldn't be too worried about its capabilities to begin with, and this accident proves that. They risk repeated nuclear accidents just testing this weapon. So let them! I'm betting a few more of these catastrophes will kill their program. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
- The_Waco_Kid
- 08-15-2019, 10:17 PM
Stories stand or fall based on the ability to confirm them. If a story is biased, you should be able to point out the bias. Bias doesn't make a true story false.
And saying talking points pretending they are common knowledge is the biggest joke of all.
Like your take on the NYT.
What false coverage have they printed that they haven't printed a retraction? What false coverage have they printed they did print a retraction? You keep claiming this bullshit but you never give examples. What about the rightwing bias?
The main point I'm making is you are completely wrong about one of trump's biggest sacks of horse shit. And instead of taking 2 minutes to check, you knowingly spread false and negative trumpy disinformation.
Christ you guys are lazy.
Oh, and eat your heart out.
"The New York Times Co. Reports $709 Million in Digital Revenue for 2018
By Jaclyn Peiser
Feb. 6, 2019
The New York Times Company generated more than $709 million in digital revenue last year, growing at a pace that suggests it will meet its stated goal of $800 million in digital sales by the end of 2020.
The results prompted the company to set another lofty target: “To grow our subscription business to more than 10 million subscriptions by 2025,” Mark Thompson, the chief executive, said in a statement announcing the company’s fourth-quarter financial results.
More than 3.3 million people pay for the company’s digital products, including its news, crossword and food apps, a 27 percent jump from 2017. The total number of paid subscriptions for digital and print reached 4.3 million, a high.
Online subscription revenue gained nearly 18 percent to reach $400 million in 2018, while digital advertising rose 8.6 percent, to $259 million. In the last three months of the year, digital subscription sales grew at a slower pace, about 9 percent, to $105 million. That slowdown was partly the result of an extra week in the fourth quarter of 2017 and partly the result of marketing efforts such as introductory discounts for online access. Those offers attract new readers who bring in less revenue — but the company expects many of them to become full subscribers over time.
The Times added 265,000 new digital subscribers in the fourth quarter, the biggest jump since the so-called Trump bump after the 2016 election. About 172,000 of those subscribers signed on for the core news product, while the rest were drawn by digital-only products like Crossword and Cooking.
The company hit another revenue milestone: Digital advertising surpassed print advertising for the first time in the fourth quarter, jumping 23 percent to $103 million. Print advertising fell 10 percent, to $88 million.
The revenue gains will allow the company to spend more on its newsroom operations.
“Our appeal to subscribers — and to the world’s leading advertisers — depends more than anything on the quality of our journalism,” Mr. Thompson said in the statement. “That is why we have increased, rather than cut back, our investment in our newsroom and opinion departments. We want to accelerate our digital growth further, so in 2019, we will direct fresh investment into journalism, product and marketing.”
Last year the company added 120 newsroom employees, bringing the total number of journalists at The Times to 1,600, the largest count in its history
The company reported the positive financial results at a time when newspapers nationwide have experienced a hollowing out. Gannett has laid off reporters across the country and recently fended off a hostile takeover bid. McClatchy offered buyouts to 10 percent of its staff, about 450 employees.
Digital news organizations have also struggled lately. Last month BuzzFeed laid off 15 percent of its work force, roughly 220 employees; Verizon Media Group announced a 7 percent cut in its media divisions, which equals about 800 positions; and a 10 percent cut is underway at Vice Media.
At The Times, the total revenue in the fourth quarter was $503 million, a nearly 4 percent increase from a year earlier. Operating profit decreased by 17.5 percent, to $75 million. (The drop was due partly to the extra week in the fourth quarter of 2017.)
The company also announced on Wednesday that it would increase the dividend it pays shareholders by 25 percent. Investors who own Times Company stock will receive 5 cents per share every quarter, costing the company about $33 million a year. That will also benefit the Ochs-Sulzberger family that controls The Times. As of last February, the family reported it owned about 9 percent of the equity in the company.
In the earnings conference call on Wednesday, Mr. Thompson said the company had plans to test a price increase for digital subscribers in the early part of the year. This would be the first price increase in seven and a half years, Meredith Kopit Levien, the company’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, said.
“We’re confident that our digital subscribers will also understand why the price paid for high-quality journalism sometimes has to increase if the journalism itself is to flourish,” Mr. Thompson said.
Noting that 16 percent of Times subscribers live outside the United States, Ms. Levien said she sees room for international growth. “We believe there is a very big opportunity for The New York Times to be one of the handful of dominant global news producers,” she said.
The company’s cash position continues to grow, and it now has $826 million on hand. In addition to the increase in the dividend and added investments in the newsroom, the company said it would exercise its option to buy back the New York Times Building before the end of this year at a cost of $250 million.
The company entered into the sale-leaseback agreement with W. P. Carey & Company, an investment firm, 10 years ago in order to raise $225 million. At the time, the company was looking to pay down its debts, which stood at more than $1 billion, during a severe slump in the newspaper industry.
The earnings news prompted a 10.3 percent rise in the company’s stock; it closed at $29.69.
Correction: Feb. 6, 2019
An earlier version of this article misstated the scope of the buyouts the publishing company McClatchy offered its staff. It offered buyouts to about 450 employees, not 450 reporters."
Did you notice they corrected their story?
These are numbers from the financial statements for their shareholders, etc.
In other words, they are true.
In even more words, your trumpy talking point is a complete lie, you are passing it on, and you enable trump (12000+ lies and counting).
Thank God someone has the balls, that trump pretends to have, to print the truth. Bias doesn't make truth false.
And the words of a trump shill mean nothing without proof.
On a side note, confirmation that I am correct about something means nothing coming from a biased guy who made up his own boogeyman.
How about you pointing out when I'm wrong and showing some proof.
Stop using trump as an excuse to lie. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Stop using stupid as an excuse to post.
- Munchmasterman
- 08-15-2019, 10:25 PM
The Russians didn't name it "Skyfall".
That is the NATO designation for it.
From WaPo
"Russia’s mysterious ‘new’ nuclear weapons aren’t really new
The U.S. pursued similar technology in the 1960s but abandoned it back then. For good reasons.
By Gregg Herken
Gregg Herken is an emeritus professor of American diplomatic history at the University of California. From 1988 to 2003, he was the curator of military space at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
August 15 at 6:00 AM
Last week, Vladimir Putin’s government cryptically announced that there had been an explosion at a missile test center in remote northern Russia that involved the release of radioactive materials. Initially, two people were said to have been killed; the death toll was subsequently raised to seven. A nearby village was ordered evacuated, then the villagers were told to stay put.
U.S. analysts think the accident involved the prototype of a nuclear-powered cruise missile that the Russians call Burevestnik, or Petrel, but is known in the West by its NATO designation, Skyfall. Putin has called it “a fundamentally new type of weapon” — an “invincible missile” with virtually unlimited range, easily able to evade U.S. defenses. When Skyfall was first announced, early last year, some Western military analysts started hyperventilating. “That’s a technological breakthrough and a gigantic achievement,” claimed one. “These weapons are definitely new, absolutely new.”
But in fact, these “new” missiles are a throwback to the early days of the Cold War. And back then, it was the United States that developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile, in the early 1960s. “Project Pluto” was part of a Pentagon program known as Supersonic Low Altitude Missile, a clunky name almost certainly designed to yield its catchier acronym, SLAM. The missile was canceled in 1964, never having taken flight. Nuclear-powered cruise missiles were not a good idea then, and they are not a good idea now.
That’s not to say that such weapons are not impressive, in a way. SLAM envisioned a locomotive-sized missile flying at three times the speed of sound near treetop level, tossing out hydrogen bombs along the way and spewing radiation in its wake. (In 1990, when I worked at the National Air and Space Museum, I researched the history of the project for an article in Air and Space magazine.) There was a reason Pluto’s inventors, at the Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory in California, dubbed it “the weapon from Hell.” The noise level on the ground when Pluto went by was expected to be 150 decibels. (The Saturn V moon rocket, by comparison, produced 200 decibels at full thrust.)
But ruptured eardrums would have been the least of your worries if you were in the neighborhood. The shock wave alone might have been lethal. And since Pluto’s nuclear ramjet engine ran at 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit, portions of the missile would have been red-hot — literally “frying chickens in the barnyard” on the way to its targets. Indeed, SLAM operated on the same principle as the errant low-flying B-52 bomber in “Dr. Strangelove.” As Maj. Kong observed to his crew, “they might harpoon us, but they dang sure ain’t going to spot us on no radar screen.” One Livermore engineer told me that SLAM would be deafening, flattening, broiling and irradiating Russians even before it dropped the first bomb on targets in the Soviet Union.
Which was, in part, the problem: Where do you test a flying nuclear reactor? Livermore physicists initially proposed that Pluto be flown in a figure-eight pattern over the remote Pacific, prompting one to ask: “How are you going to convince people that it is not going to get away and run at low level through Las Vegas — or even Los Angeles?” An alternate idea was to tie Pluto to a tether at the Nevada Test Site. (“That would have been some tether,” dryly observed another scientist at the lab.) Finally, what do you do with a highly radioactive missile once it’s been tested? Dumping it in the ocean was the solution offered back then. And it is probably Putin’s preferred solution now.
Ultimately, in the United States, cooler heads prevailed. Six weeks after the successful static test of Livermore’s nuclear engine in Nevada in July 1964, the Pentagon pulled the plug on Pluto. Intercontinental-range ballistic missiles promised to destroy targets in the Soviet Union well before Pluto got to them, with equal certainty and a lot fewer associated risks. SLAM, its critics said, stood for “slow, low and messy.”
But Pluto, it seems, has risen again, this time in a Russian incarnation — a nuclear-powered Frankenstein, a flying Chernobyl. Putin’s Skyfall cruise missile also has a seagoing sibling: a giant nuclear-powered torpedo, dubbed Poseidon, designed to destroy U.S. port cities with a multi-megaton blast. Poseidon bears a striking resemblance to the idea that Russia’s Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Andrei Sakharov, came up with in the early 1960s. When Sakharov told a Soviet admiral of his proposal, however, the latter was “shocked and disgusted by the idea of merciless mass slaughter.” Feeling “utterly abashed,” the physicist abandoned the concept and never raised it again. “I’m no longer worried that someone may pick up on the idea,” Sakharov wrote in his memoirs, published in 1990. “It doesn’t fit in with current military doctrines, and it would be foolish to spend the extravagant sums required.”
Plainly, times have changed. Yet as several experts have since noted, it is also possible that Putin’s amazing new weapons are only part of a propaganda campaign, a response to plans announced by the Trump administration to expand and modernize America’s nuclear arsenal. If so, Putin’s ploy is reminiscent of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s hollow Cold War boast that the U.S.S.R. was turning out ICBMs “like sausages.” (As Khrushchev’s son, Sergei, later observed, his father wasn’t exactly lying: The Soviets weren’t making sausages then, either.)
Of course, flying nuclear reactors and giant nuclear-armed undersea drones could do a lot of damage to U.S. cities if they really existed and were ever used. But the real danger of Putin’s Potemkin arsenal is that it will — as Khrushchev’s boast did decades ago — spark a U.S. overreaction and lead to pressure to revive ideas like Livermore’s Pluto and Sakharov’s Poseidon: forgotten relics of Cold War 1.0 that are best left dead and buried."
That is the NATO designation for it.
From WaPo
"Russia’s mysterious ‘new’ nuclear weapons aren’t really new
The U.S. pursued similar technology in the 1960s but abandoned it back then. For good reasons.
By Gregg Herken
Gregg Herken is an emeritus professor of American diplomatic history at the University of California. From 1988 to 2003, he was the curator of military space at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
August 15 at 6:00 AM
Last week, Vladimir Putin’s government cryptically announced that there had been an explosion at a missile test center in remote northern Russia that involved the release of radioactive materials. Initially, two people were said to have been killed; the death toll was subsequently raised to seven. A nearby village was ordered evacuated, then the villagers were told to stay put.
U.S. analysts think the accident involved the prototype of a nuclear-powered cruise missile that the Russians call Burevestnik, or Petrel, but is known in the West by its NATO designation, Skyfall. Putin has called it “a fundamentally new type of weapon” — an “invincible missile” with virtually unlimited range, easily able to evade U.S. defenses. When Skyfall was first announced, early last year, some Western military analysts started hyperventilating. “That’s a technological breakthrough and a gigantic achievement,” claimed one. “These weapons are definitely new, absolutely new.”
But in fact, these “new” missiles are a throwback to the early days of the Cold War. And back then, it was the United States that developed a nuclear-powered cruise missile, in the early 1960s. “Project Pluto” was part of a Pentagon program known as Supersonic Low Altitude Missile, a clunky name almost certainly designed to yield its catchier acronym, SLAM. The missile was canceled in 1964, never having taken flight. Nuclear-powered cruise missiles were not a good idea then, and they are not a good idea now.
That’s not to say that such weapons are not impressive, in a way. SLAM envisioned a locomotive-sized missile flying at three times the speed of sound near treetop level, tossing out hydrogen bombs along the way and spewing radiation in its wake. (In 1990, when I worked at the National Air and Space Museum, I researched the history of the project for an article in Air and Space magazine.) There was a reason Pluto’s inventors, at the Livermore nuclear weapons laboratory in California, dubbed it “the weapon from Hell.” The noise level on the ground when Pluto went by was expected to be 150 decibels. (The Saturn V moon rocket, by comparison, produced 200 decibels at full thrust.)
But ruptured eardrums would have been the least of your worries if you were in the neighborhood. The shock wave alone might have been lethal. And since Pluto’s nuclear ramjet engine ran at 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit, portions of the missile would have been red-hot — literally “frying chickens in the barnyard” on the way to its targets. Indeed, SLAM operated on the same principle as the errant low-flying B-52 bomber in “Dr. Strangelove.” As Maj. Kong observed to his crew, “they might harpoon us, but they dang sure ain’t going to spot us on no radar screen.” One Livermore engineer told me that SLAM would be deafening, flattening, broiling and irradiating Russians even before it dropped the first bomb on targets in the Soviet Union.
Which was, in part, the problem: Where do you test a flying nuclear reactor? Livermore physicists initially proposed that Pluto be flown in a figure-eight pattern over the remote Pacific, prompting one to ask: “How are you going to convince people that it is not going to get away and run at low level through Las Vegas — or even Los Angeles?” An alternate idea was to tie Pluto to a tether at the Nevada Test Site. (“That would have been some tether,” dryly observed another scientist at the lab.) Finally, what do you do with a highly radioactive missile once it’s been tested? Dumping it in the ocean was the solution offered back then. And it is probably Putin’s preferred solution now.
Ultimately, in the United States, cooler heads prevailed. Six weeks after the successful static test of Livermore’s nuclear engine in Nevada in July 1964, the Pentagon pulled the plug on Pluto. Intercontinental-range ballistic missiles promised to destroy targets in the Soviet Union well before Pluto got to them, with equal certainty and a lot fewer associated risks. SLAM, its critics said, stood for “slow, low and messy.”
But Pluto, it seems, has risen again, this time in a Russian incarnation — a nuclear-powered Frankenstein, a flying Chernobyl. Putin’s Skyfall cruise missile also has a seagoing sibling: a giant nuclear-powered torpedo, dubbed Poseidon, designed to destroy U.S. port cities with a multi-megaton blast. Poseidon bears a striking resemblance to the idea that Russia’s Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Andrei Sakharov, came up with in the early 1960s. When Sakharov told a Soviet admiral of his proposal, however, the latter was “shocked and disgusted by the idea of merciless mass slaughter.” Feeling “utterly abashed,” the physicist abandoned the concept and never raised it again. “I’m no longer worried that someone may pick up on the idea,” Sakharov wrote in his memoirs, published in 1990. “It doesn’t fit in with current military doctrines, and it would be foolish to spend the extravagant sums required.”
Plainly, times have changed. Yet as several experts have since noted, it is also possible that Putin’s amazing new weapons are only part of a propaganda campaign, a response to plans announced by the Trump administration to expand and modernize America’s nuclear arsenal. If so, Putin’s ploy is reminiscent of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s hollow Cold War boast that the U.S.S.R. was turning out ICBMs “like sausages.” (As Khrushchev’s son, Sergei, later observed, his father wasn’t exactly lying: The Soviets weren’t making sausages then, either.)
Of course, flying nuclear reactors and giant nuclear-armed undersea drones could do a lot of damage to U.S. cities if they really existed and were ever used. But the real danger of Putin’s Potemkin arsenal is that it will — as Khrushchev’s boast did decades ago — spark a U.S. overreaction and lead to pressure to revive ideas like Livermore’s Pluto and Sakharov’s Poseidon: forgotten relics of Cold War 1.0 that are best left dead and buried."
- Munchmasterman
- 08-15-2019, 10:38 PM