Plague. Pestilence. Stopped presses. Hold onto your horsemen, folks: It’s the end of times!
Or, at least, the end of the Times. Yep: per Michael Hirschorn and his much-buzzed-about Atlantic column, “End Times,” the Grey Lady as we know her (i.e., in print) is soon to draw her final, painful breath. Her long life, per Hirschorn, has an expiration date, too: this May. (Yes, of 2009.)
But the bucket-kicking scenario Hirschorn lays out—limited cash reserves and a poor market forecast leading the Times to default on some $400 million in debt, and therefore to stop its presses—isn’t at all likely. As Portfolio’s Felix Salmon points out (and as the New Yorker’s James Surowiecki reiterates), Hirschorn’s cavalier negativism belies an overly broad approach to the Grey Lady’s woes. The article, Salmon acknowledges, “has been generally well-received by [the] blogosphere.”
For me, however, the article makes very little sense: Hirschorn seems to think that, given a choice between defaulting on debt payments and stopping its print presses, the Sulzbergers might choose the latter. But they wouldn’t: for one thing that’s not a decision the NYT’s lenders would actually want, and for another thing the New York Times Company has any number of assets it could sell off, especially in Boston, before taking such a drastic move.
Poynter’s Rick Edmonds echoes Salmon’s doubts, calling Hirschorn’s scenario “not the least bit plausible.”
The hypothesis of a May closing is pegged to the expiration then of a $400 million revolving line of credit. Hirschorn is aware that if the Times needs cash, it can borrow against the value of its new office building — as it has done now to the tune of up to $225 million. The company also announced on Christmas Eve that it has put its stake in the Boston Red Sox up for sale, which could fetch another $200 million.
New York Times Co. Chief Financial Officer James Follo reported at the UBS Global Media conference in December that the company has two $400 million “revolvers,” the second expiring in 2011. And it has only drawn down a total of about $400 million between the two. So the company could pay off the first entirely and get by on the second, though in practice it will refinance some of the debt to maintain reserves and flexibility.
Long story short, the company will be able to meet the May deadline.
Hirschorn’s premise, however, is only part of his piece—which is, overall, really a comprehensive look at The Future of the Media, seen through the lens of the paper of record. With Hirschorn’s broader argument—that solid, committed, reporting is journalism’s ultimate value to a democratic society, and that whatever platforms we develop for journalism should serve as a means to that end—there’s very little to find fault.
And yet that’s partially because much of that argument is little more than a smart synthesis of conventional wisdom: the only thing really big or groundbreaking about Hirschorn’s article is its breezily superficial Dead By May! premise. One can’t help but wonder whether the sensationalistic sensibilities of the guy who ushered into the world “I Love the ’80s” and “Flavor of Love”—“He did not invent the high-low thing, but I think he is the unacknowledged master of it,” Hirschorn’s former colleague, David Carr, told the Observer—have permeated his more highbrow Atlantic persona.
Or whether, perhaps, it’s the other way around. The Atlantic, after all, commonly engages in the kind of sensationalistic bait-and-switchery on display in Hirschorn’s piece. (Tagline: “Is Google Making Us Stoopid?” Content of article: the strains Web infrastructure places on our attention. Tagline: “Is Israel Finished?” Content of article: the political and martial challenges facing Israel. Tagline: “Can Jesus Save Hollywood?” Content of article: the making of The Golden Compass. Et cetera.)