We've put three quarters behind us in 2009, and the most recent one was merely another miserable step downward for the beleaguered newspaper industry. Total ad revenue plummeted in the third quarter to $6.4 billion for the print jockeys, a decline of 28%. This info from the Newspaper Association of America drives home the notion that conditions will only worsen for the newspaper industry. So, if you're hoping those shares of New York Times Company (NYT), Gannett (GCI) and Washington Post Company (WPO), holding your breath will leave you little more than dizzy.

Of the total advertising revenue generated in the third quarter of 2009, $5.8 million came from print, the lowest quarterly amount this year. The $623 million in online advertising sold by America's newspapers was also 2009's worst. Both are down substantially from the same quarter in 2008, when the newspapers posted print ad revenue of $8.2 million and online ad revenue of $750 million, according to NAA data. At this time last year, we lamented year-over-year declines approaching 20%. Now, we have the same feelings as ad revenue drops approach 30%.

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.

The Washington Post Company (NYSE: WPO) published data for the third quarter earlier today. Can't say I was mightily impressed by the numbers. Sure, there was a profit increase, but the top line wasn't exciting, and the newspaper division, as you might have expected, experienced a sharp decline in sales.

Net revenues rose 2%. Earnings per share came in at $1.81. That was sharply higher than the $1.08 per share recorded in the comparable period. Yet, I think you have to be careful in terms of reading too much positive spin into the growth rate.

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.

It costs a fortune to cut fat. For regular people, it can mean hundreds or even thousands of dollars on gym memberships, special meals and organic restaurants. Yet, this pales in comparison to how much the Boston Globe is spending to lose some dead weight. It could cost the NY Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) property more than $1.2 million to bid adieu to the publisher that almost ran it into the ground.

Steven Ainsley has announced that he's going to retire as publisher of the Globe after having been at the helm for three years. Though quite proud of the two Pulitzer Prizes the paper picked up under Ainsley, the announcement didn't include the fact that he almost caused the newspaper retire before him. As usual, the newspaper is all too eager to talk about its awards, without even acknowledging the fact that it's on the brink of disaster.

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.

"We're looking for profits in a sector of the economy that almost everyone has written off -- newspapers," says Glenn Rogers.

In Internet Wealth Builder, he explains, "I have been involved in the newspaper industry for good portion of my career; so it has been with great dismay that I've watched the industry crumble over the last few years." For contrary investors, he looks to New York Times (NYSE: NYT) and Gannett (NYSE: GCI).

"The Internet in general has siphoned off millions of dollars of advertising that used to belong to the newspaper industry.

The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) has hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) to "explore a potential sale" of the New England Media Group, according to a document filed Thursday with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

New England Media Group includes such assets as the Boston Globe, which was purchased for $1.1 billion back in 1993, as well as the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, which was acquired for $295 million in 2000.

The New York Times (NYSE: NYT) is set to report Q1 earnings on Tuesday, April 21. Don't expect a profit. In fact, I wouldn't expect much of anything. After all, we are talking about a company that makes its money off newsprint. Sad as it might be to say, newspapers are fast becoming dinosaurs in the age of digital information.

According to this source, analysts think that the New York Times will lose about $0.04 per share. That's really bad, considering that the same source says that the company was profitable in the year-ago frame, generating $0.09 per share. It isn't surprising though, is it? Not only has the recession destroyed advertising growth in all forms of media, but newspapers simply aren't looked to anymore as the first source of news. The Internet has disrupted that reputation for good.

The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) has finally announced that it will eliminate its quarterly dividend to conserve cash and decrease debt. In a press release, chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said that "Today's decision provides the Company with additional financial flexibility given the current economic environment and the uncertain business outlook."

The New York Times Co. has been struggling with declining profitability and a weak balance sheet, and recently secured a loan from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim on extremely punishing terms: 14% interest and warrants to acquire 16 million of the company's A shares.

By continuing to pay significant dividends even as the company's balance sheet declined, the Times forced itself into a deal of desperation with very high costs to shareholders.

The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) reported a fourth quarter profit decline of 48% yesterday, but that actually managed to top analysts' expectations and the stock moved up 6.79%.

But there could be more trouble for the company. The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that the market meltdown "blew out the Times's unfunded pension obligation to $625 million from $48 million at the end of 2007. The new figure is a whopping 73% of the Times' market capitalization."

Unless the market makes a miraculous rebound reminiscent of the Boston Red Sox (which the Times is in the process of trying to sell its stake in) 2004 ALCS comeback. the Times will have to fund that obligation over the next seven years.

The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) is close to selling the 19 floors it occupies in the 52-story building that serves as its headquarters. The prospective buyer is W.P. Carey & Co. (NYSE: WPC).

The deal would be structured as a sale-leaseback, with the company continuing to occupy the space and pay rent. The New York Times Co. would also receive an option to repurchase the space in ten years. The Times own 58% of that building and would continue to rent the space it does not use to other tenants; that space would not be involved in the deal.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that "a spokeswoman for Times Co. said the company is pursuing a sale-leaseback of the building for as much as $225 million but wouldn't comment further."

The deal will give the company some badly needed cash, although Carlos Slim's $250 million investment in the company ameliorated the urgency somewhat. It's unfortunate that The New York Times Co. paid out tons of dividends when times were good instead of putting something aside for a rainy day. Now it has no choice but to sell off a stake in the company at a paltry valuation while looking to shop real estate in a Manhattan market that is just starting to take a turn for the worse.

Two weeks ago it was The New York Times and now it's The Boston Globe, which is also owned by The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT).

Yesterday's paper featured, for the first time in the Globe's 136-year history, an advertisement on the front page.

Why start yesterday? Here's how desperate The Globe is for cash: They printed 100,000 extra copies because of the Obama inauguration coverage, and then stuck an ad for the movie "Defiance" -- which tells the true story of four Jewish brothers from Poland who escaped the Nazis and the rescued fellow Jews -- below the fold. Globe spokesman Bob Powers told The Associated Press that the advertiser picked that day on purpose to achieve maximum exposure.

Pretty good marketing decision by that ad agency: Buy the ad on a day with tons of extra circulation and then get more publicity by being the first ad to desecrate the sacred front-page of one of the most-respected newspapers in the country.

It sounds like a good movie. I think I'll go see it.

Emergencies make strange bedfellows. Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire, will put $250 million into The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT). According to The New York Times, "Under the terms of the deal, Mr. Slim, who already owns 6.9 percent of the Times Company, would invest $250 million in the form of six-year notes with warrants that are convertible into common shares." The notes carry a 14% interest rate, which makes them the equivalent of junk debt.

If Slim lived in the US, The Times writers would beat him like a rented mule because of his close, some say too close, ties to the Mexican government. These cozy relationships are often viewed as one of the reasons he has done so well financially.

Forbes reports that Slim may be well-regarded outside Mexico, "But not in Mexico, where the media and the masses long have held a sneaking suspicion that there is something shady about Slim. He is decried as a rapacious monopolist who built his empire on cozy ties to Mexican presidents and other politicians."

Slim is a perfect target for investigative reporting, something The Times prides itself on. But, the paper needs the money, so Slim's potential conflicts of interest in his own country will be overlooked.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.