TPM LiveWire
Wash Times: We Are Not Up For Sale
Justin Elliott | March 30, 2010, 2:28PM
The Washington Times newsroom
Share
Send to a friend!
In response to a claim on the Drudge Report that the Washington Times is "up for sale," the company said in a statement that it is "not currently negotiating" a sale of the company.
"The Washington Times has been approached throughout its history with expressions of interest by parties interested in purchase all or part of the company," said president and publisher Jonathan Slevin. "Contrary to online reports, however, the Washington Times is not currently negotiating with any party for sale of all or part of the company."
Drudge is currently running an unlinked line of text that reads "SOURCES: WASHINGTON TIMES UP FOR SALE... DEVELOPING... "
We followed up with Times spokesman Don Meyer to ask if he could comment directly on Drudge's claim that the paper is "up for sale." Meyer responded: "The statement on Drudge is untrue."
Read TPM's past coverage of the troubles at the Times here.
Comments (20) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Max Thrax
March 30, 2010 2:40 PM
Is there really a nickels difference between the WaPo and the WaTimes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie
March 30, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to Max Thrax
I can't answer since I've refused to read the moonie paper. I was in college back when those of us who lived on campus were actually warned about their recruitment activities.
The WaPo, however, is certainly one of the biggest sellouts to the right in journalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sean
March 30, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Korean Sally Quinn???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prysmith
March 30, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to Max Thrax
Not anymore. I can remember when the WaPo was a decentan readable newspaper. Now it is simply a printed extension of the neo-con mindset that is already out of step with the rest of the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AS
May 1, 2010 4:41 AM in reply to Max Thrax
Yes, the Washinton Times is a rightwing socalled news paper in the ilk of FOX News.
The Washington POST is a center-left widely read / quoted and referred newspaper.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Headlight
May 1, 2010 9:30 PM in reply to AS
I've had a subscription to the Post for 20 years but I'm about done with it. The editorial position of the post has moved a long way to the right from the days when Ben Bradlee was editor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkeeterVT
May 7, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to AS
Actually, the Washington Times is much farther out in right field than Fox News is. In fact, in the past five months, the Moonie-owned paper has gone far off the deep end with editorials so loaded with paranoid apocalyptic language that even Fox's head honcho, Roger Ailes, would blanch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dogger
March 30, 2010 2:43 PM
Why would the GOP sell a prized and needed asset?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JosephP
March 30, 2010 3:04 PM
In its 28 year history, The Washington Times has never made a profit, being subsidized by The Unification Church, which covers about $40 million of their annual $70 million budget. However, Unification Church founder Rev. Sun Myung Moon is now retiring and his sons are running things. The word is that the Rev. Moon's sons do not feel that the Times is a worthwhile expenditure for the Church.
This is the plain fact which is the root of the Times' recent problems. Despite their denials, there doesn't seem to be any other option other than to offer the paper up for sale.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
March 30, 2010 5:08 PM in reply to JosephP
Well, the WaPo has essentially replaced them as the biggest right wing 'newspaper' in DC and made the Times obsolete. They should have hired every Bush speech writer before the WaPo did...too late now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vertigo
March 30, 2010 3:10 PM
This is a golden opportunity for some wealthy liberal philanthropist to buy the Times, maybe rename it, and give D.C. a progressive media print voice to counter the Neocon Washington Post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie
March 30, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to Vertigo
"Let's go Soros!" Clap. Clap. Clap-clap-clap.
He could buy it and run it or simply buy it and charge people who want to come in to help break the presses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
keister7
May 2, 2010 2:08 AM in reply to Vertigo
Problem with that plan is that 99% of the liberal voting base does not read newspapers. Neither do they listen to talk radio. The liberal tv folks lag far behind Fox news in viewership. Anyone would be a fool to buy that sinking ship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkeeterVT
May 7, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to Vertigo
Nobody -- not even Rupert Murdoch -- is going to buy a daily newspaper that hasn't made any money in its entire 28-year history, is losing more than $50 million a year and has seen its circulation plunge to a measley 42,000 in an era when even the mighty New York Times is losing readers to the Internet.
Murdoch is already subsidizing his New York Post, which loses anywhere from $60 million to $75 million a year and hasn't turned a profit since 1974 (which is why its former owner/publisher, Dorothy Schiff, sold the tabloid to Murdoch in 1976).
Besides, the FCC would likely veto any sale by requiring Murdoch to sell WTTG, the Fox TV station in D.C., under its 25-year-old rules banning cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the same market (Murdoch's ownership of New York's WNYW-TV and the Post predate the FCC rule by five years and thus is "grandfathered").
Moreover, in the five months since the Washington Times' internal staff turmoil, it's gone totally "off the rails" editorially -- even by the standards of right-wing media -- with editorials written in increasingly paranoid, apocalyptic language that is almost word for word Unification Church dogma.
The Washington Times is doomed. The only question is when it will finally fold. I predict the Moonie rag will be gone by September, if not sooner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 30, 2010 3:47 PM
It is a simple business decision - a business venture that does not make money is sold or dissolved. Thus, simple business logic tells us not only that the WT is for sale, but also that it should have been up for sale for at least 2o years. So, Justin, what is the news here??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
March 30, 2010 4:20 PM
DC is very blue. I was never sure who read this. It has to be a money loser on a regional level.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
March 31, 2010 1:09 AM
This reminds me of the old gag about the starstruck teenager who leaves his midwestern town for Hollywood.
The following year he is back. His friends ask him, "What happened?"
He answers, "I woulda sold out, but there were no buyers!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mickrussom
May 1, 2010 2:07 AM
By saying they arent up for sale, they may be talking about the fact that most of the other newspapers in the US are communist rats rags that take direction from emperor Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dj spellchecka
May 1, 2010 12:17 PM
washington post is reporting that moon has pulled funding and the times is on the block
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002043.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
May 17, 2010 4:32 AM
Nobody -- not even Rupert Murdoch -- is going to buy a daily newspaper that hasn't made any money in its entire 28-year history, is losing more than $50 million a year and has seen its circulation plunge to a measley 42,000 in an era when even the mighty New York Times is losing readers to the Internet.
Murdoch is already subsidizing his New York Post, which loses anywhere from $60 million to $75 million a year and hasn't turned a profit since 1974 (which is why its former owner/publisher, Dorothy Schiff, sold the tabloid to Murdoch in 1976).
kamagra viagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?