I don't think a paper that loses millions of dollars a year and funds itself by taking extortionary loans from plutocratic Mexican billionaires can be said to be competing in anything, Metro or otherwise. My feeling is you only get to congratulate yourself if you produce a great product and make money doing it— you don't get any points for doing just the first half. And that doesn't just go for you guys— I don't think any magazine or newspaper that supports itself by sucking on the teat of some old rich guy (or his heirs!) should be giving anyone else advice.After nearly a month of silence, the Times came back in full force. Gawker's Hamilton Nolan points out to infrequent Gothamist visitors that the website had been plastered with a "the most in-your-face wallpaper ad buy" he's ever seen. The Times ads have changed now, but Nolan grabbed a screenshot:
Nolan's conclusion: "our analysis of this NYT ad is that they just wanted to say 'Bitch, we OWN you.' But we could be wrong."
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at jkeller at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
User Comments
Please type your comment and click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be prompted to log in or register