The recent announcement by the New York Times (NYT) that it would start to require subscriptions next year has drawn no shortage of attention and commentary. It has tried to put content behind a pay wall before (and failed), as have other newspapers.

Almost universally, newspapers have struggled with online subscriptions, with the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, a News Corp (NWS) property, the only two that have really delivered results better than awful. Whether the New York Times can operate at that level is in doubt, particularly given the stunning realization about Long Island daily newspaper Newsday.

The New York Times (NYT) is putting its 2.3 million followers to work. It isn't ready to start charging a la carte for Twitter advertising, but it is including the channel in the comprehensive packages it presents to advertisers. And, the Times isn't alone. Several media outlets (including BloggingStocks) have ads running through their Twitter streams, but this is still virgin territory, for the most part, and media companies are still feeling their ways through it.

Facebook is implementing a new stock structure to make sure the founders retain control, immediately causing rumors about an impending initial public offering. Why would Facebook need Class A and Class B shares otherwise? Under the new structure, which is similar to Google's (GOOG), Mark Zuckerberg and other early entrants wouldn't have to worry about yielding the floor to outsiders when if the company goes public.

The stock structure was adopted to ensure that existing shareholders keep control on voting issues, according to Facebook statement. No details were given as to who the winners are in this arrangement, but a Wall Street Journal report says that, according to its sources, all current shareholders would be converted to Class B shares, which carry 10 times the voting rights of Class A shares.

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 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.

Platinum Equity, the private equity firm that recently bought The San Diego Union-Tribune, has joined the bidding to acquire The Boston Globe from The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT).

The New York Times reported that "Platinum, based in Beverly Hills, bid $35 million and would assume $59 million in pension liabilities, according to people briefed on the process, who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to discuss the matter."

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.

The rumors about Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim investing in The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) are heating up.

Andrew Ross Sorkin reports that Slim is near a deal to invest up to $250 million in a deal that could be approved by the company's board of directors today. According to Sorkin, "As part of Mr. Slim's investment, which resembles a loan, he is expected to get a special annual dividend, perhaps as high as 10 percent or more on this investment, these people said."

What is interesting is that Mr. Slim is not set to receive any control of the company's corporate governance. The company's dual-class voting structure that provides the Sulzberger family with total control of the company in spite of an equity stake of less than 20% has been a sore spot with many investors. Slim is also not looking to influence the company's operations.

But the nature of the deal may make that OK from Mr. Slim's perspective: A special annual dividend of 10% and warrants that allow him to benefit from stock price appreciation if things go well is a pretty good deal.

And while the cash infusion is good news for shareholders because it gives the company a liquidity breather, it will do little to solve any of the company's longer-term issues that created the balance sheet problem in the first place.

The New York Times needs a dose of its own medicine. In this editorial, it talks about how Wall Street needs to clean house so its executives can be held accountable for its mistakes: "As painful as firings and resignations may be, they are at times necessary, probably more so now than ever...Clinging to the old guard also runs the risk of dragging the problems out, which further impairs confidence by leaving investors to wonder how much worse is yet to come."

I am happy to say I have no financial interest in the New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT), because its current leadership has done such a miserable job of managing its finances. In its most recent report, the Times saw its revenues inch up at a 1.8% five-year annual growth rate to $3.3 billion in the last year, while it lost $605 million. Meanwhile, its stock is down 18% in the last year, compared to a 21% rise in the S&P 500. Over the last five years, its return on equity has averaged 8.4%, compared to 18.8% for the newspaper industry.

I really enjoy reading The New York Times but I am surprised that its editors don't see the irony in editorializing about accountability on Wall Street while they keep the old guard firmly entrenched at the Grey Lady's glitzy new headquarters.

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 New York Times securities.

Tribune Co.'s (NYSE:TRB) No. 2 shareholder has hired the Blackstone Group to advise it on its investment in the beleaguered media company, according to Bloomberg News.

What makes this development particularly embarrassing is that the shareholder in question is the Robert McCormack Tribune Foundation, which is run by Tribune CEO Dennis FitzSimons. The foundation's ties to Tribune are deep. Robert McCormack and Joseph Medill Peterson assumed ownership of the company in 1912. Tribune was founded by their grandfather Joseph Medill.

Blackstone has its work cut out for it. The Chicago-based company has gotten a lukewarm response at best ever since it announced in September that it was considering a sale. It's received unsolicited bids for the Los Angeles Times from three billionaires. Pressure is mounting on Tribune from big shareholders including The Chandler family, whose Times Mirror firm was sold to Tribune in 2000.

I am not sure whether the wannabe publishers of the LA Times are letting hubris cloud their business judgment. The newspaper business is lousy and will continue to be lousy for some time. Local owners will face the same issues of declining circulation and the shift of advertising online that have vexed media conglomerates. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the advice Blackstone will give the McCormack Foundation will related to the sale of the paper, which despite huge problems remains a marquee property. You can bet that the shareholders of the New York Times Co. (NYSE:NYT) are watching these developments closely.