News Corp. (NWS) competes with other media conglomerates like The Walt Disney Company (DIS), CBS Corporation (CBS), Time Warner, Inc. (TWX), Viacom, Inc. (VIA) and The New York Times Company (NYT) in the media and entertainment business. Our price estimate for News Corp's stock stands at $23.20, which is a premium of roughly 25% to market price.

News Corp. recently revealed its digital magazine "The Daily," specifically designed for Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) iPad. Rather than being a modification of existing magazines or newspapers, this is a completely new product optimized for tablet viewing. The company had reportedly invested about $30 million to create the product.

The word on the street is that newspaper subscriptions could be coming to Apple's iPad soon. And this makes sense. Apple's (AAPL) iPad sold more units than analysts expected, and seems to be a real hit. It is spawning a host of soon-to-be Android powered imitators. While it has added to the ranks of people using devices for eBook reading, the 10 inch screen has caught the eye of others wondering whether the iPad can save newspapers and magazines.

Advertising and subscriptions to newspapers and magazines has dropped steadily over the last ten years, and many see the iPad as a path to staunching some of the bleeding. But so far, setting up subscriptions has been complicated. One can create a dedicated newspaper app that can be purchased in the store. But that leaves a user with a screen littered with various magazine apps. Dedicated readers with tens of magazines may find that unappetizing. Using in-app purchases can work for subscribers, but it's clumsy.

Google (GOOG) has been the bain of the publishing industry -- both printed and electronic -- for years. Its Google Books project scans books by the hundreds in order to make the content accessible online and for free. Have a newspaper website? Google probably scans it daily to aggregate pieces of your content at Google News (again, for free). Google CEO Eric Schmidt, though, thinks that newspapers can follow the Google model and make money using their content online, and not hide everything behind a pay wall.

How are readers finding the news? Well, increasingly, the answer is Facebook. The social networking site, which boasts well over 350 million registered users, is now the fourth largest referral source of traffic to online news destinations. Almost a year ago, only 0.5% of traffic to news and media sites came from Facebook. Today, that level is 3.5%, according to data from Web analytics firm Experian Hitwise.

Only Google (GOOG), Yahoo! (YHOO) and MSN (MSFT) send more traffic to news sites. Google News, a subset of the search engine giant, failed to keep pace with Facebook, despite the fact that it exists specifically to send Internet users to media outlets. Only 1.39% of referrals came from this source.

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.

On Monday, Tom Johansmeyer indicated that a for-pay model for the online version of The New York Times was imminent. Indeed, a press release from The New York Times Company (NYT) hit the wires Wednesday morning, revealing that a paid version of NYTimes.com would launch at the beginning of 2011 -- that's next year. So "All the News That's Fit to Print" will be available to Web browsers at a cost.

But the only folks that will have to open their wallets are those who leaf through lots of Times articles. The casual news browser will have free access to a specified number of articles each month before being charged. Subscribers who pay for home delivery of the traditional paper will have free and unlimited access to the site.

The New York Times (NYT) has been struggling to figure out the web, which has led to a debate over whether to charge for electrons that has spanned years. Well, the Times seems likely to take the plunge, hoping to replicate the successes of the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal ... except, of course, that the Wall Street Journal is famous for not really delivering profits. Fortunately, the new pay wall is expected to look more like the Financial Times than the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times is considering a "metered" system. Visitors will be able to read a certain number of articles free before being required to subscribe.

A friend of Arthur Sulzberger, according to New York Magazine's Daily Intel, said that the final word could come in a few days, a sentiment corroborated by a newsroom source who said that the plan could be announced within weeks. Yet, plans need to be implemented, so it could take months for the Times to begin charging for content.

The New York Times (NYT) reports today that newspapers dominate the news creation business.

This is an interesting twist -- instead of touting readers or paid circulation or ads or total revenue, it's talking about production. It's almost as if Ford (F) were to announce: "We make more cars than anyone else." Who the hell cares if they sell any, right? What's important is production, not sales! For the Times, and print media in general, it feels like yet another attempt to justify its existence and "prove" that it is more valuable than the more cost-effective and nimble online outlets.

The newspaper industry continues to blame Google (GOOG) for its woes, and Google continues to claim its innocence. The search engine giant's CEO, Eric Schmidt, says that his company could actually help the newspaper industry survive the shift from print to digital ... a shift that's been more than a decade in the making, he was kind enough not to note.

According to Schmidt, publishers need to dig into the online environment and find new ways to generate revenue. "With dwindling revenue and diminished resources," he wrote in an op-ed piece published in News Corp's (NWS) Wall Street Journal, "frustrated newspaper executives are looking for someone to blame."

Free content's getting locked down. Google (GOOG), which has been criticized by the newspaper industry for sending them traffic making it easy for readers to find the stories they want without forcing them to make a purchase, is starting to play ball with the print industry.

What's the harm? The way things are going, Google will only have to be nice for a little while. Then, this latest defensive measure by the newspaper industry will have run its course, and Google will be free to do what it wants.

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 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.