The entire country has been struggling with the current recession, and while we are still not out of the woods just yet, there are signs that the economic free fall is at least close to coming to an end.

This morning President Obama stated that we were starting to see "glimmers of hope" in the economy, claiming that we are "starting to see progress" on a number of fronts. While Obama admits that the economy is still under "severe stress", he noted that we are seeing a boom in demand for mortgage loans and refinancing, and a thaw in some credit markets.

Writing on TheDailyBeast (where I also have a column), Christopher Buckley points out an interesting correction from The Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. budget deficit is projected to total $1.2 trillion this year. A page-one World-Wide news summary in some editions Jan. 8 incorrectly put the figure at $1.2 billion.

Oops! The difference is only a factor of 1,000 but once you get over the $700 billion mark, does it really even matter? And since we're just going to be printing the money anyway -- we certainly don't have it sitting around -- and foisting the bill on future generations, who cares?

But that got me thinking: How many other brilliant newspaper errors have there been? It turns out that there's an entire website devoted to them. Log-on to Regret The Error and check out their best corrections of 2008. The best correction of the year goes to The Daily Mail:

In articles published on 23 and 26 May 2008, we gave the impression that Mr Gest had contracted a sexually transmitted infection and alleged that he had Liza Minnelli's dog killed without her knowledge. This was wrong. David Gest has never had a sexually transmitted infection and did not have Ms Minnelli's dog killed. We apologise to Mr Gest for any embarrassment caused.

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.

It looks like Ben Bernanke is getting under the Wall Street Journal's skin. That's because Rupert's Rag is not happy with the direction of its candidate for President. And it is annoyed that a Republican appointee, Ben Bernanke, is helping out the Democratic candidate -- Barack Obama. That's what prompted the Journal's headline -- Bernanke endorses Obama.

Oh poor Wall Street Journal! Is this the best you can do? Why does it bother you so much that Ben Bernanke is supporting Obama's call for a new stimulus package? In an October 13th speech, Obama "urged Congress to act 'as soon as possible' before the Bush administration leaves office on January 20 to pass a stimulus measure. If Congress and the president didn't act 'it will be one of the first things I do as president of the United States.'" says Bloomberg News.

But Rupert's Rag is in the tank for McCain and although Obama is already setting U.S. policy on big issues -- a few months ago, Iraq and Bush agreed with Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan -- the Journal is upset that Bernanke and ultimately Bush will go along with Obama's proposed stimulus plan as well. First Colin Powell, and now Ben Bernanke are reading the tea leaves and choosing to position themselves for power in the next administration.

And the Journal is finally waking up to the fact that it will be on the outs for at least the next four years.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Okay, here is an absolutely brilliant idea. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. According to this blurb at The Hollywood Reporter, News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) is interested in doing a sequel to the classic 1987 film Wall Street.

Some of you younger investors out there might not be familiar with the movie, but perhaps you're familiar with the now-famous quote "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." It was uttered by the loathsome Gordon Gekko, whose alliterative name almost oozes corporate scandal and villainy. That character was played by Michael Douglas. Wall Street was directed by Oliver Stone and it portrayed the evil side of capitalism, replete with insider trading and share-price manipulation. It's considered a classic, iconic fictional snapshot of the current zeitgeist at the time: the only thing that mattered was upward mobility and accumulation of as much net worth as conceivable without consideration for the little guy. It came out around the time of the '87 market crash, so it had that going for it.

This is why News Corp. needs to fast-track the project. According to this source from May of last year, a sequel to Wall Street was already in the works. Obviously, the fact that The Hollywood Reporter mentioned the project this week means that execs at Fox feel that the timing for a sequel is approaching an optimal point. In fact, they really should try to get it out into the marketplace as quickly as they can, and hopefully with Michael Douglas reprising his role as Gekko (Douglas' return is not set in stone at this point). Not only could the movie gross a decent amount at the box office, but think of the synergy potential here.

News Corp. is fighting a battle with General Electric's (NYSE: GE) CNBC as we speak. The Fox Business Channel wants to take away as many viewers as possible from the stock-market network. Problem is, CNBC is a very powerful brand in its arena. Of course, that doesn't deter the pit bulls at Fox. If you had to describe the media company with only one word, that word would, by necessity, be a hyphenate: ultra-competitive. In fact, Fox Business Channel recently slammed BloggingStocks' own Jim Cramer in a recent promo (see a piece on this subject by Zac Bissonnette).

The US markets did have a furious rally, rising 11% on major indexes. Overnight, Japan's Nikkei was up over 14%. The move to put money into banks and credit markets appears to be working.

But, don't forget the recession, which many economists see lasting longer than any downturn since 1974. Unemployment went to nearly 9% then. That is about 50% higher than the current 6.1% rate.

Yesterday, General Motors Corporation (NYSE:GM) said it would cut production more. Who would be surprised if the auto industry cut more jobs? The financial sector has lost tens of thousand of jobs, and as bank mergers go through, that is likely to go up sharply.

If there is on element which could pull the stock market back down, it is the realization that the economy is getting much, much worse and that corporate earnings will suffer accordingly.

A new wave of data about the economy will be coming soon. According to The Wall Street Journal, "The biggest data point is: the Census Bureau's retail sales report for September, on Wednesday. Economists expect sales tumbled for the third straight month, led by abysmal auto sales."

Investors who pour their money back into the market now, do so at their own peril. Don't forget the recession.

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

In a way, we are seeing a replay of the 1980s: we are dealing with the consequences of a credit bubble as banks teeter and the economy slows down.

In today's Wall Street Journal [a paid publication], there's a great piece from some of the veterans of that era from former US Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, former US comptroller of the currency Eugene Ludwig, and former Fed Chairman Paul Volker.

They don't mince words. Simply put, they think the U.S. financial system is on the brink, and if action is not taken, we may see "the mother of all credit contractions."

What can be done? Interesting enough, there is a precedent: the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). This was a strong organization that allowed for the smooth unwinding of the S&L industry during the early 1990s.

Essentially, the RTC had full backing and a clear mandate. And when it completed its job, it actually closed down (yes, that's something that rarely happens with a federal agency).

As for the current situation, an RTC organization would be a buyer of distressed securities. Ultimately, this will encourage more trading, liquidity, and hopefully, more economic activity -- especially in the housing sector.

Unfortunately, policy makers are currently taking an ad-hoc approach, putting out one fire after another. How can this engender confidence? If anything, investors are waiting for the next financial institution to implode, which just becomes a vicious cycle.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook and The Edgar Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements. He is also the founder of BizEquity, a valuation website

The Wall Street Journal today corrected a story reporting that Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) would host a Miley Cyrus performance at today's shareholders' meeting. Could the change have anything to do with those Vanity Fair photos?

Of course not. The 15-year old billion dollar phenomenon won't appear "because of a scheduling conflict, the company said." The Wall Street Journal owes its readers an explanation for its faulty reporting. And the way to do that would be to investigate the scheduling conflict. Here are some questions for the Wall Street Journal's reporters to ask Wal-Mart and Miley:

• What was the exact scheduling conflict that came up so suddenly between Thursday and this morning?
• Did Miley decide to book another concert appearance on Thursday just so she could have an excuse to cancel her appearance with Wal-Mart?
• Or did Wal-Mart suddenly decide that Miley's Vanity Fair photos made her "inappropriate"?

Can't Rupert Murdoch hire any competent journalists? We need to know what Miley's scheduling conflict was. A one line correction won't do.

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 Wal-Mart securities.

Fortune's Devin Leonard writes about the changes that have come at the Wall Street Journal following its acquisition by News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) and concludes that Rupert Murdoch has failed to live up to his promise to maintain editorial independence at the paper.

After pushing out Marcus Brauchli as managing editor, he installed Robert Thomson at the helm -- an Australian who had previously sat at the helm of News Corp.'s The Times, a London newspaper.

There's nothing too shocking here. Gary Weiss and many others had predicted all along that, promises to the contrary aside, Murdoch would find a way to do what he wanted once he won his prize.

Leonard concludes that "Murdoch must be pleased. The Bancrofts probably feel differently. But it's too late for them to complain now. If they didn't want Murdoch to have his way, they never should have parted with Dow Jones."

The problem is that, as a public company with a fiduciary responsibility to deliver returns to shareholders, Dow Jones, ethically and maybe legally too, had to sell given that Murdoch's offer was such a strong one. The only way to avoid putting profits over journalistic integrity is to be a private company.

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.

The special committee set up by Rupert Murdoch to ensure the editorial independence of the Wall Street Journal is about as useful as a referee at a professional wrestling bout. The sad thing is that News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) is paying members of this committee $100,000 a year to let Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch do whatever he wants to do anyway.

A case in point is the abrupt resignation of Managing Editor Marcus Brauchli. The lackeys -- oh, I mean the special committee set up following the Dow Jones acquisition -- felt compelled Monday to issue a press release to show publicly that they were on the case. At least, that's what it tried to do.

"Although our charter does not directly envision a process for dealing with a resignation, Committee members expressed the view that learning of the Brauchli matter after the fact failed to meet the letter and the spirit of the agreement," the committee said in a statement. The committee met with Brauchli alone and was told that "his action was not the result of any problem with editorial interference or attempts to impose an ideological viewpoint. He insisted that News Corp. has been `scrupulous' about the integrity of the paper."

Yeah, right.

Murdoch has meddled in his media properties for decades. No special committee is going to stop his lust for power. Anyone who expected otherwise is either naive or deluded. Murdoch will have no inhibitions of messing with Newsday if he succeeds in buying Newsday from Sam Zell's Tribune Co. because beggars can't be choosers.

Rupert Murdoch is facing off against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as he seeks to take control of two TV stations and three newspapers in New York -- including Newsday -- The New York Times reports. A December 2007 FCC rule allows a company to own just one paper and one television station in the same city in the top 20 markets so long as there are at least eight other independent sources of news and the station is not in the top four. (The stations that News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) controls are the fourth- and sixth-largest in the New York market).

Meanwhile, I am fascinated by the Wall Street Journal's [subscription required] coverage of the departure of its own managing editor, Marcus Brauchli, yesterday. The punch line was that everything is fine because Brauchli was simply doing what the boss wanted. Brauchli's new role? Providing "guidance to senior management in a wide range of areas," including whether Murdoch's Star-TV service in Asia should launch a business-news channel. Sounds like a good fit.

In contrast to the Journal's corporate press release on its page one, The New York Times reported that Brauchli was fired. It noted that a few weeks prior to his departure, Murdoch's henchmen indicated they were unhappy with the pace of change at the Journal. The Times wrote: "At some point, They told him, 'We don't think this is working,' and Brauchli replied that in that case, he should consider leaving."

On April 12th, I wrote about a Wall Street Journal piece that raised some interesting questions about American Apparel (AMEX: APP): CEO Dov Charney had taken the ambitious step of referring to the company's CFO as a "complete loser", and the company was also dealing with accounting issues, a substantial debt load, and more. The stock took a hit following the Journal piece.

American Apparel didn't issue any public rebuttal but, yesterday afternoon, DealBreaker published a letter sent by to the Wall Street Journal by director Adrian Kowalewski. Kowalewski wrote that "Our lawyers are currently pursuing this matter with News Corporation, so we have not yet issued a public statement." He went on to make the case that the company is in strong financial health and that, furthermore, Mr. Charney doesn't walk around the offices in his underwear, except for that one time, but that was part of a promotional video.

The financial issues and Charney's unconventional personality aside, American Apparel has put up some pretty spectacular growth numbers.

In a related story, Judge Judy is not a fan of American Apparel's racy ads.

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.

MAJOR PAPERS:

• If the financial crisis hasn't crippled banks enough, the cost to build bank loan reserves may be just as painful, according to the Wall Street Journal's "Heard on the Street". The need for larger reserves is eating away at earnings and is showing up in first quarter reports for banks such as Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC), whose results took an additional hit because of a $6B addition to its loan loss reserve.
• Just four months after Journal parent Dow Jones & Co. was bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (NYSE: NWS), Wall Street Journal managing editor Marcus Brauchli is expected to resign, according to the Wall Street Journal. Journal publisher Robert Thomson may temporarily take over until a new managing editor is hired.
• The Financial Times reported that Citigroup Incorporated (NYSE: C) is seeking advice from IT group Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE: HPQ) on how to overcome a crisis without breaking up the company.

WEB SITES:

• According to Reuters, activist shareholders in ASM International (NASDAQ: ASMI) believe, by giving more equity to top managers, that they can boost its value by $1.6B.