The New York Times (NYSE: NYT) reported that its October revenue got beat up again. If anything, it was worse than some previous months this year, but it's papers are caught in the vortex of a failing industry. For the month, advertising revenue was down 16.2%. Internet revenue only rose in the single digits, so online sales are not going to save the company.

In an odd way, the drop in revenue was the relative good news because the company also cut its dividend by a very large amount. The payout was cut by 74% to $0.06 per share. To make matters worse, the stock sold off 10% to a 52-week low of $5.72.

NYT has debt that is due next year. Its papers in New England, led by the Boston Globe, are losing as much as 20% of their ad revenue each month.

The company is controlled by the Sulzberger family, which has been in charge for over a century. One of the reasons the brothers and sisters, aunt and cousins have supported management was for the rich payout they received each quarter. Now, that is going away.

With an unhappy family, the company may be in play. Perhaps Rupert Murdock might buy it. NYT would make a nice bookend for The Wall Street Journal.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

In an attempt to cut costs, The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) is folding Play, the quarterly sports magazine launched in February of 2006, as the weak economy and declining ad sales slam its stock price and threaten the future of its dividend.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that the company explored a variety of options for making Play work, including cutting staff and going online-exclusive, but there was just no way to make the magazine profitable.

It's a shame for sports fans because, as you'd probably expect from The New York Times, it offered a level of intelligence and nuance that is rare in the world of sports writing. A few years ago, the concept might have had a better shot, but with the company's balance sheet the way it is, it's just not in a position to bleed cash on projects that might pan out well over the long-term.

As the stock price craters, you have to wonder at what point the company will become an attractive takeover target once the economy begins to turn around. But with a dual-class voting structure that puts one family in total control of the company's future, a deal seems unlikely even if it is in the best interests of shareholders.

Analyst upgrades:

• Calyon upgraded major network carriers based on falling oil prices and capacity cuts. The analyst is positive over the next 12 months but cautious short-term given the uncertain economy, and volatile markets and oil prices. AMR Corp (NYSE: AMR) and Delta Air (NYSE: DAL) were upgraded to Add from Neutral and UAL Corp (NASDAQ: UAUA) was raised to Neutral from Reduce.
• Ryanair (NASDAQ: RYAAY) was upgraded at Citigroup to Buy from Hold.
• Boardwalk Pipeline (NYSE: BWP) was raised to Buy from Hold at Deutsche Bank.
• Cowen lifted Biogen Idec (NASDAQ: BIIB) to Outperform from Neutral.
• JP Morgan upgraded Choice Hotels (NYSE: CHH) to Neutral from Underweight following the better-than-expected Q3 report.
• Oppenheimer upgraded shares of Integra LifeSciences (NASDAQ: IART) to Outperform from Perform on valuation, the company's minimal exposure to economic conditions, and expectations for margin improvement and a rebound in organic growth.

Analyst downgrades:

• Sherwin-Williams (NYSE: SHW) and AerCap Holdings (NYSE: AER) were downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at JP Morgan.
• UBS downgraded Embarq (NYSE: EQ) to Neutral from Buy following the CenturyTel (NYSE: CTL) merger announcement.

Has management of New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) finally woken up and smelled the coffee? Not only did the third-largest newspaper publisher report awful earnings, but the New York-based company also announced that it might cut its dividend, a move that will hit the controlling Sulzberger-Ochs family where it hurts -- in the pocketbook.

Net income at the publisher of the namesake newspaper fell 51.4 percent to $6.52 million, or 5 cents a share, compared with $13.4 million, or 9 cents, a year earlier, the company said in a press release. Total revenues decreased 8.9 percent to $687.0 million from $754.4 million. Advertising revenue fell a whopping 14.4 percent as companies reduced marketing spending because of the uncertainty about the economy.

Commenting on the expected carnage in the financial markets today, The New York Times notes that "Now, the risk for the financial firms is that investors will respond by trying to do exactly what they are trying to do - minimize their risk. If enough investors do that and choose to sell, stocks could plummet in markets worldwide, thus increasing the risks rather than easing them."

In reality, it's exactly the opposite. The lower the stock market drops, the lower the risk is. A stock market decline could trigger problems for over-leveraged financial companies dependent upon their credit ratings for their access to capital but, for mom and pop investors, an opportunity to buy stocks at lower prices is good.

In the long run, companies are worth whatever they're worth. Paying 50 cents for an asset is less risky than paying $1, and long-term minded investors should look forward to days like these. There may be other factors that are increasing risk for investors, just as excessive leverage at so many banks has, but lower prices certainly don't qualify as a risk.

BusinessWeek recently posed the question of how The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) could be worth so little? The question is worth pondering.

The company has a market cap of about $1.8 billion, roughly the price that CBS Corp. (NYSE: CBS) recently agreed to buy CNET for. Its enterprise value is about $2.85 billion.

Lehman Brothers analyst Craig Huber estimated that the Boston Globe and 15 regional papers could be sold for $575 million after taxes, and valued the company's 17% stake in the Boston Red Sox at $152 million and estimated NYT's portion of its new headquarters at $750 million. About.com, which the Times bought for $410 million three years ago, could fetch a tidy profit if it were sold today.

Shares of The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) are trading higher today after the company posted a second-quarter profit of $21.1 million, or 15 cents per share. NYT's adjusted profit came in at 26 cents per share, beating analysts' estimates of 22 cents per share. The company also annouced an increase int eh newsstand price from $1.25 to $1.50. If you think that the stock won't fall by too much in the coming months, then now could be a good time to look at a bullish hedged trade on NYT.

After hitting a one-year high of $23.85 last July, the stock hit a one-year low of $12.08 last week. NYT opened this morning at $13.05. So far today the stock has hit a low of $12.38 and a high of $13.42. As of 1:15, NYT is trading at $13.00, up $0.16 (1.1%). The chart for NYT looks bearish and steady, while S&P gives the stock a bearish 2 Stars (out of 5) Sell rating.

For a bullish hedged play on this stock, I would consider an August bull-put credit spread below the $12.50 range. A bull-put credit spread is an options position that combines the purchase and sale of put options to hedge risk in case the stock doesn't do what you think but still leverage nice returns. For this particular trade, we will make a 19.0% return in just four weeks as long as NYT is above $12.50 at August expiration. NYT would have to fall by more than 4.3% in the next few weeks before we would start to lose money. Learn more about this type of trade here.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says massive debt at the newspapers means they no longer work as businesses.

Maybe newspapers don't work as businesses. The shocking 10% workforce reduction announced this week by McClatchy (Cramer's Take) (NYSE: MNI), formerly the best-run chain out there, is a reminder that all of these companies have borrowed too much money and don't generate the cash flow to make it work. McClatchy, with an 8% yield, is showing signs of collapsing under its own weight, something that has been exacerbated by Wall of Shame performer Gary Pruitt, a man who is still, amazingly, the CEO.

But all of this was totally predictable. I have never seen an industry attract so many buyers with so much debt and so little equity.

Take Tribune (Cramer's Take). Sam Zell's a smart guy. He let the newspaper employees do the heavy lifting when he bought the Tribune company. That was so smart. He will be out very little if the deal fails. The workers will be out their retirement money. That was a smart deal -- unless you work there -- but I have spoken against that deal so many times I am sick of talking about it.

McClatchy could have weathered this downturn, instead of -- it is a bit unthinkable, but I think it will happen -- defaulting on its debt, if it hadn't been determined to buy a bunch of properties for much more than they are worth. The New York Times (Cramer's Take) (NYSE: NYT) and Gannett (Cramer's Take) (NYSE: GCI) spent a lot of money, but they didn't have to buy back stock. Gannett's 6% yield isn't tempting in the least.

The New York Times reports -- with relief (since the Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin's name had been floated for the job) -- that News Corp's (NYSE: NWS) Wall Street Journal has appointed Robert Thomson, a Murdoch loyalist who formerly edited the Times of London as its managing editor. Murdoch also appointed another loyalist, Leslie Hinton, as its publisher. Thomson and Hinton will also be editor-in-chief and CEO, respectively, of Dow Jones.

I remember back when Murdoch was courting the Bancroft family and people were worried that he would replace the senior people at the Wall Street Journal with his own people. Back then, I posted that he had a track record of doing that when he took over newspapers. I did not expect a different outcome with the Journal.

I was just thinking today that since I skip over most of what the Wall Street Journal publishes in its print edition, it would not be too much of a hardship to cancel my subscription when it comes up for renewal. If Thomson's appointment means less business insight and more propaganda, that decision will be an easier one.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

Who is the boss of Bloomberg News?

During my career there, there was no question that Matthew Winkler was in charge. My colleagues laughed hysterically when I told them I asked Winkler about his bow ties during my interview with him before I was hired. Bloomberg's editor-in-chief is not known for his sense of humor. Good thing I didn't bring up bow ties -- which he wears every day -- again.

That's why I found the appointment of former Wall Street Journal top editor Norman Pearlstine as Bloomberg's chief content officer so curious. Does this mean that Pearlstine, who was Winkler's boss at the Journal, will supervise him again? What exactly does a chief content officer do that's different than an editor-in-chief? I am not sure of the answers to those questions and neither is the New York Times.

As the Times opines, "the move suggests that Bloomberg, whose fortunes have been buoyed by the selling of its hugely profitable data terminals to brokerage firms and investment banks, plans to expand the journalism side of its business."

Shareholders of Cablevision Systems Corp. (NYSE: CVC) must be scratching their heads over the company's $650 million purchase of Newsday from Tribune Co., the latest in a long series of baffling moves by the Dolan family, which controls the New York-based cable company.

The theory -- if you want to call it that -- is that Cablevision would be able to market the newspaper to its customers and that the company would be able to add additional content to its cable news channel. This makes no sense. People have stopped reading newspapers in droves. The only way that they would even consider subscribing is if Cablevision practically gave the newspaper away. Newsday could have struck an alliance with the cable channel to share content without the paper changing hands; these sort of deals happen all of the time.

Maybe advertisers will be more interested in Newsday now that Cablevision will be able to bundle ad space in the paper and its website along with cable commercial time. The problem, though, is that residents in Long Island have a plethora of media choices including the New York Times, New York Daily News and The New York Post. Like the readers, the only way that advertisers that aren't in the newspaper now would consider doing business with Newsday would be with steep discounts.

It appears that News Corp (NYSE: NWS) will buy the largest newspaper on Long Island, Newsday, from The Tribune Co., increasing pressure on The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) in its home market. News Corp already owns The New York Post. Recent press reports indicate that News Corp is adding more political and international content to The Wall Street Journal to better compete with the Times.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the price for Newsday could be about $580 million, and final details of the purchase or lack of government approval could still kill the deal.

Tribune needs to make the sale to cover debt it took on in its LBO.

The news is especially bad for The New York Times Co. While the Post does not take much advertising from the Times, it does have a circulation of over 600,000 in New York City. Newsday has a daily circulation of about 400,000 in the well-to-do area of Long Island, just east of New York.

The New York Times is already in enough trouble. It posted a loss last quarter, and in March advertising revenue fell about 11%. The firm's stock trades at $20, but many observers believe that it it were not the target of investors who hope to break it up or sell it that the shares price would be much lower.

The value of the company just got undermined again.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) has agreed to give activist hedge funds Harbinger Capital Partners and Firebrand Partners control of seats on its board of directors. The funds own a 19% stake in the company, but that really doesn't matter. The New York Times Co. has a dual-class voting structure, so the Sulzberger family controls 10 directors while the outside shareholders elect 5. So Harbinger and Firebrand control 2 out of 15 directors and the maximum any shareholder could ever dream of electing is 5 out of 15 directors.

In a display of journalistic integrity, the New York Times itself admitted that this move is pretty much irrelevant, saying that "The new arrangement could make for some uncomfortable internal politics, but it is not clear that it will have any effect on the company's direction."

The company says, of course, that it looks forward to working with the new directors, who have pushed for asset sales and more aggressive investment in the internet.

But the problem is that having 2 seats on a 15-member board won't provide any additional leverage, as far as I can tell.

This quixotic activist campaign, however noble, is likely to result in a big fat nothing.

I love going to the drugstore. Whether it's CVS (NYSE: CVS) or my neighborhood Walgreen (NYSE: WAG), I love the convenience of being able to buy everything I need and everything I don't need in one place. I buy lots of Entenmann's donuts, toothpaste, and school supplies at my local store. And now, I may be able to get a flu shot at the store as well.

The New York Times ran an article today entitled "Should Pharmacists Give Flu Shots?" It seems New York City has been suffering from increasingly bad flu seasons. To combat such breakouts, the city is now attempting to pass a bill allowing pharmacists to give flu and pneumonia shots.

The same article quoted the Department of Health as saying that influenza is "now widespread in New York City, with more than 1,000 flu-related visits to emergency rooms each day. Some 20 percent of the current flu vaccine supply is unused."

I feel my local drugstore is competent to sell me nail clippers and gum, but do we really want these stores dispensing medical services?

Zack Miller is the managing editor of IsraelNewsletter.com and a former equity analyst for a leading multinational hedge fund.

My initial assessment of The New York Times' (NYSE: NYT) controversial story about John McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist gave the paper too much of the benefit of the doubt.

Originally, I wrote, "What people, particularly those outside of the media, need to realize is that there rarely are smoking guns in these sorts of stories and that anonymous sources are a necessary evil. At times, journalists have to build their cases using circumstantial evidence the same way lawyers do in court."

But after reading Clark Hoyt, the paper's ombudsman, blast the piece in his column Sunday, I realized that I was too easy on the paper. The story, as Hoyt noted, "did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately - an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad."