This winter, a bit more of New York is headed to Florida. Layoffs for 2010 have already been announced for the New York Times Company(NYT). The New York Times News Service will lose 25 editorial positions next year and shift the service's editing to one of the parent company's Florida newspapers. At present, the news service has 30 editorial jobs. Some of the layoffs will occur in February, and the others will happen in May.

These layoffs are not included in the planned slashing of 100 jobs in the flagship newspaper's newsroom -- a workforce reduction of 8% that should take hold by the end of the year. The NY Times is also ceasing pension contributions for nonunion employees.

Vibe, the urban music magazine, is clawing its way back to life. New owners and editors are trying to make the magazine a success reality again, and they are making the web a priority ... which shouldn't be news but is for an ailing print industry.

The new editor-in-chief, Jermaine Hall, told AdAge that "Vibe.com is really the hub," and that everything needs to point back to the online presence. The print publication will be just one part of the Vibe Lifestyle Network, a move we're also seeing with the likes of Rolling Stone, where the website is being brought back into the fold (and may actually get some resources).

The mayhem in the media industry continues. The Wall Street Journal, a News Corp (NASDAQ: NWS) property, is closing its Boston bureau and sending nine employees into the wind. The newswire and MarketWatch operations are going to stay open in Boston, however, with no headcount impact.

The Journal doesn't have any plans to close other offices, according to a memo by managing editor Robert Thomson: "there are no plans, nascent or otherwise, to close any other U.S. or international bureau." The WSJ will still support an "investigative function" in Boston, but the New York-based Money and Investing team will cover Boston's mutual fund industry, which boasts such heavy hitters as Fidelity.

At the same time, magazine company Time Inc., owned by Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) is looking to cut $100 million in expenses, and layoffs will undoubtedly figure into the equation. The company that owns Time, Fortune, People and Sports Illustrated – and falls under the same umbrella as AOL, which owns BloggingStocks – is feeling the squeeze of a media recession that's even worse than the regular recession we've all been battling for what feels like decades.

The folks in the news business are probably growing to hate Mondays. Gannett's (NYSE: GCI) profits are off by more than 50%, and the New York Times announced that it's chopping 100 jobs from the newsroom, along with an unspecified number elsewhere in the newspaper. Like Gannett, the New York Times cites declines in ad revenue as the reason for the decision. The company is hoping that employees will take voluntary buyouts where offered, but it is prepared to conduct a round of layoffs if necessary.

The newspaper, which is the flagship property of the New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT), cut 100 newsroom positions last year, mostly through voluntary buyouts, before a "relatively small" round of layoffs. This year's 100-job cut is approximately 8% of the newsroom, but the paper will still have the largest in the United States. Approximately 1,150 reporters and editors will remain. Already, 100 jobs have been slashed on the business side, leaving it now staffed at 1,850.

Gannett (NYSE: GCI) lost more than half its third-quarter profits year-over-year, as the newspaper industry shows yet another sign of decline. A substantial drop in ad revenue was the primary reason for the plunge.

The newspaper giant was able to stay in the black because of aggressive cost cutting, a move that can work for only so long. For now, it's the most popular option available to the beleaguered industry, as evidenced by a New York Times (NYSE: NYT) announcement that it would slash another 100 positions from the newsroom, and more positions elsewhere.

After months of speculation and years of underperformance, the New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) has decided not to sell the Boston Globe and related businesses. The company claims that the changes made at the Globe to slash expenses and right the ship financially have made it worth holding on to the newspaper. This comes after two parties submitted their final bids (similar financially) for the beleaguered 137-year-old property.

The NY Times Co. picked up the Globe in 1993 for $1.1 billion. Since then, it's watched the paper's revenue and circulation plummet, a situation worsened by the advent of the internet and the newspaper industry's generally slow response to it. Now, it's apparently worth just under 10% of NYT's original purchase price, with the offers pushed higher by both parties' willingness to assume $59 million in pension liabilities.

The next step remains uncertain for what will go down in history as among the worst newspaper acquisitions.

On Friday, the deadline for submitting bids for the Boston Globe, which is owned by The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT), passed. Two major contenders were expected to write figures on slips of paper and slide them across the proverbial desk: Platinum Equity, a Beverly Hills-based private equity firm and owner of the San Diego Union-Tribune, and Stephen E. Taylor, whose family sold the Globe in 1993.

The battered Boston Globe isn't worth 90% of what the NY Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) paid for it, but it seems to have bounced a bit from the bottom of the barrel. In a meeting with a few hundred of the newspaper's employees, company chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson revealed that the Globe's finances have improved significantly. Because of this development, they continued, there is a chance the newspaper will not be sold.

This was the first meeting between company executives and the Globe's unions since the latter accepted pay cuts back in July. The newspaper, which has a 137-year history, lost $50 million in 2008 and looked like it was going to drop another $85 million this year. Though this no longer appears likely, the Globe is still in rough shape.

The daily biscuits. With the June deadline for Steve Job's reappearance as Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) CEO coming on fast, speculation in the media has begun to build that Jobs will choose to retire. That would be a horrifically bad thing for Apple shareholders, who have done very well of late. Sentiment on Apple is holding strong, so at least some people don't think Steve is bowing out.

This website is in the business and financial news business. So are a number of other online financial sites like SeekingAlpha, TheBigMoney, ClusterStock, and Minyanville. Just a few years ago, none of these operations existed.

Last year, advertising pages in tradition business magazine like BusinessWeek and Forbes were down by double digits. With the recession deepening and marketers pulling back, 2009 may not be any better.

On TV, there are now two business channels, CNBC and Fox, which is barely a year old and has horrible audience numbers. So far. But CNBC is owned by GE (NYSE:GE) and Fox is owned by News Corp (NYSE:NWS). That means both are likely to be around for a long time. They both compete against Bloomberg TV.

In the news service business, Bloomberg, Reuters, and the AP all have large financial reporting operations. In the newspaper business, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times compete for readers.

Lest you say that this post is just a bunch of names typed onto a page, consider that the economic downturn will not support all of these media. Advertising will disappear. Perhaps more frightening, as people pull money out of the stock market, the interest in investing will drop. As investment professionals are fired, they may drop out of the business news consumption population as well.

Who may not make it? The traditional business magazines publish on weekly or fortnightly cycles. That is too long a time between articles in a world where the web delivers information in real time. They may not get enough readers on the internet to offset sales lost in print.

One thing for certain. A number of the operations with their names in this piece won't be here in 2010.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 237wallst.com.

The ridiculous story published by the New York times yesterday regarding John McCain's encounters with a Washington lobbyist offered little to it's readers or the voting American public. It was a waste of time on talk shows and the broader media coverage it received shows how petty election politics can be.

Every official in Washington is constantly being bombarded by thousands of lobbyist's all the time and someone in McCains position (and Obama's and Clinton's) get no relief. If his wife is not griping when he gets closer to some then others and they happen to be attractive too, we have nothing to say about it, unless it crosses some legal or ethical boundary.

McCain was unhappy. I was unhappy and most pundits I listened to thought as much of the story as I did. However, I might have handled it with some good humor. McCain should have issued a press release with pictures of the top 100 best looking lobbyists (male and female) that he has met with over the past five years. Let them run that in the New Yorks Times. Now that would spark huge readership.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money.