Posts tagged with ‘business models’

In the last decade, newspapers’ weekday circulation has fallen 47 percent, ads have fallen 55 percent, and about seven in ten newspaper readers are now older than 45. Stats like these provide the background music to events of the last few months, when News Corp, Time Warner, Gannett, the Tribune Company, and E. W. Scripps all unloaded their journalism divisions. Including the Washington Post’s sale within the last 12 months, this means that seven of the ten largest newspapers in the country have been dumped in an annus horribilis for print.

A Terrible Year for Newspapers, a Good Year for News - The Atlantic (via infoneer-pulse)

FJP: Horrendum X Annos. But, yes, also an amazing age for news.

(via infoneer-pulse)

Business News, August 2014 Edition
Buzzfeed, which gets about 150 million of us to visit each month, just closed a $50 million round with Andreessen Horowitz, the prominent technology venture firm.
Chris Dixon, general partner at the VC firm, says Buzzfeed is a “full stack" startup, meaning that it’s not just an online publisher, but rather an online publisher with integrated end-to-end technologies.
In this case, a media stack on which listicles and in-depth reporting can co-exist side by side, driven by a modern content management system, integrated analytics and ad serving engines, and a 75 person team creating “native content” for advertisers. It’s repetitive to say Buzzfeed also gets the social thing. About 75% of Buzzfeed’s traffic comes from social media.
What, fundamentally, makes this an interesting investment to Dixon? A mastery of social, mobile, content and tech:

Many of today’s great media companies were built on top of emerging technologies. Examples include Time Inc. which was built on color printing, CBS which was built on radio, and Viacom which was built on cable TV. We’re presently in the midst of a major technological shift in which, increasingly, news and entertainment are being distributed on social networks and consumed on mobile devices. We believe BuzzFeed will emerge from this period as a preeminent media company.

Meantime, legacy media companies are dropping their print publications. “Divestiture" is the name of the 2014 game. Three companies built on print — Ganett, the Tribune Company, and EW Scripps — are focusing on television, radio and the Internet, and spinning off their print properties to survive as independent companies that sink or swim as the tides may turn.
Says The New York Times’ David Carr:

The persistent financial demands of Wall Street have trumped the informational needs of Main Street. For decades, investors wanted newspaper companies to become bigger and diversify, so they bought more newspapers and developed television divisions. Now print is too much of a drag on earnings, so media companies are dividing back up and print is being kicked to the curb.

The news behind the news, of course, is that already reeling smaller, regional papers will increasingly vanish without the financial buffer provided by being part of larger diversified companies. This, despite the fact that 72% of Americans follow local news via these same print publications. Then again, many outside the news media bubble don’t know about the financial disruption that’s churned the industry over the last decade.
Via last year’s Pew State of the Media Report:

[T]he majority of people surveyed early this year had heard little or nothing about the financial problems besetting news organizations. The largest group of respondents—36%—said they heard “nothing at all” about the issue and the second largest—24%—said they heard “a little.”

So where goes print?
As news of the $50 million Buzzfeed round pinged about the Internet, a quieter profile of Harper’s publisher John MacArthur hit the Web. In it, he doubles down on print:

The web is bad for writers, [MacArthur] said, who are too exhausted by the pace of an endless news cycle to write poised, reflective stories and who are paid peanuts if they do. It’s bad for publishers, who have lost advertising revenue to Google and Facebook and will never make enough from a free model to sustain great writing. And it’s bad for readers, who cannot absorb information well on devices that buzz, flash and generally distract.
He does not want to explore many of the new revenue streams favored by other publishers — like Monocle, which has stores and a radio station. He will not let advertisers sponsor a section of the magazine, let alone place native ads, for fear that it will look as if they own Harper’s. He does not want conferences or to make videos. “A magazine should be a magazine,” he said. “A newspaper should be a newspaper.”

Harper’s, like other general interest literary magazines, consistently loses money. Then again, as a nonprofit backed by the MacArthur foundation and its $5.7 billion endowment, it’s not going away anytime soon.
For the rest: the forecast reads rocky times ahead.
Image: Old Carissa shipwrecked off the coast of Oregon, via Erin Misserion on Flickr. Select to embiggen.

Business News, August 2014 Edition

Buzzfeed, which gets about 150 million of us to visit each month, just closed a $50 million round with Andreessen Horowitz, the prominent technology venture firm.

Chris Dixon, general partner at the VC firm, says Buzzfeed is a “full stack" startup, meaning that it’s not just an online publisher, but rather an online publisher with integrated end-to-end technologies.

In this case, a media stack on which listicles and in-depth reporting can co-exist side by side, driven by a modern content management system, integrated analytics and ad serving engines, and a 75 person team creating “native content” for advertisers. It’s repetitive to say Buzzfeed also gets the social thing. About 75% of Buzzfeed’s traffic comes from social media.

What, fundamentally, makes this an interesting investment to Dixon? A mastery of social, mobile, content and tech:

Many of today’s great media companies were built on top of emerging technologies. Examples include Time Inc. which was built on color printing, CBS which was built on radio, and Viacom which was built on cable TV. We’re presently in the midst of a major technological shift in which, increasingly, news and entertainment are being distributed on social networks and consumed on mobile devices. We believe BuzzFeed will emerge from this period as a preeminent media company.

Meantime, legacy media companies are dropping their print publications. “Divestiture" is the name of the 2014 game. Three companies built on print — Ganett, the Tribune Company, and EW Scripps — are focusing on television, radio and the Internet, and spinning off their print properties to survive as independent companies that sink or swim as the tides may turn.

Says The New York Times’ David Carr:

The persistent financial demands of Wall Street have trumped the informational needs of Main Street. For decades, investors wanted newspaper companies to become bigger and diversify, so they bought more newspapers and developed television divisions. Now print is too much of a drag on earnings, so media companies are dividing back up and print is being kicked to the curb.

The news behind the news, of course, is that already reeling smaller, regional papers will increasingly vanish without the financial buffer provided by being part of larger diversified companies. This, despite the fact that 72% of Americans follow local news via these same print publications. Then again, many outside the news media bubble don’t know about the financial disruption that’s churned the industry over the last decade.

Via last year’s Pew State of the Media Report:

[T]he majority of people surveyed early this year had heard little or nothing about the financial problems besetting news organizations. The largest group of respondents—36%—said they heard “nothing at all” about the issue and the second largest—24%—said they heard “a little.”

So where goes print?

As news of the $50 million Buzzfeed round pinged about the Internet, a quieter profile of Harper’s publisher John MacArthur hit the Web. In it, he doubles down on print:

The web is bad for writers, [MacArthur] said, who are too exhausted by the pace of an endless news cycle to write poised, reflective stories and who are paid peanuts if they do. It’s bad for publishers, who have lost advertising revenue to Google and Facebook and will never make enough from a free model to sustain great writing. And it’s bad for readers, who cannot absorb information well on devices that buzz, flash and generally distract.

He does not want to explore many of the new revenue streams favored by other publishers — like Monocle, which has stores and a radio station. He will not let advertisers sponsor a section of the magazine, let alone place native ads, for fear that it will look as if they own Harper’s. He does not want conferences or to make videos. “A magazine should be a magazine,” he said. “A newspaper should be a newspaper.”

Harper’s, like other general interest literary magazines, consistently loses money. Then again, as a nonprofit backed by the MacArthur foundation and its $5.7 billion endowment, it’s not going away anytime soon.

For the rest: the forecast reads rocky times ahead.

Image: Old Carissa shipwrecked off the coast of Oregon, via Erin Misserion on Flickr. Select to embiggen.

I don’t think Hustler’s going to be around very much longer. Most people are getting their information from the Internet. It’s a technology evolution that brings a lot with it and takes a lot away.

Larry Flynt, Founder, Hustler Magazine to Bloomberg TV via Ars Technica*. “Writing is on the wall” for Hustler print mag thanks to Internet.

FJP: Sometimes we fire up the Internets to take a quick look at ‘information’. Here’s what we’ve found.

*The post has been updated to indicate that Flynt was speaking to Bloomberg TV, not Ars Technica. HT.

Summer Reading from The New Yorker

The New Yorker is opening up its Web site for the next few months, letting visitors read everything currently being published — along with archives back to 2007 — for free.

The move comes alongside a site redesign.

Via The New Yorker:

Beginning this week, absolutely everything new that we publish—the work in the print magazine and the work published online only—will be unlocked. All of it, for everyone. Call it a summer-long free-for-all. Non-subscribers will get a chance to explore The New Yorker fully and freely, just as subscribers always have. Then, in the fall, we move to a second phase, implementing an easier-to-use, logical, metered paywall.

Images: Twitter posts from The New Yorker… and an ellipsis for good measure.

Recently, In Advertising
"There are things in there editors won’t like, and things in there that publishers won’t like," a Condé Nast editor tells AdAge about the company’s decision to formalize its native advertising policies.
An approximately 4,000-word internal document is currently circulating the company, AdAge reports, that “not only delves into advertising but also provides standards and practices around certain legal and privacy concerns, including how the company will handle consumer data.”
Condé Nast includes publications such as Wired, Vogue, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair among many others.
Other large publishers, such as Hearst (Cosmo and Esquire) and Time, Inc (Time, People and Sports Illustrated), are sticking to more general guidelines and making case-by-case decisions on native ads and their formats.
Meantime, Time magazine and Sports Illustrated are breaking a magazine industry taboo by selling advertising on the covers of their print editions.
As The New York Times notes:

[T]he Time and Sports Illustrated cover ads appear to violate the guidelines of the American Society of Magazine Editors, the influential trade group that awards the National Magazine Awards. The first rule in its guidelines for magazine editors and publishers is, “Don’t print ads on covers.”
"The cover is the editor and publisher’s brand statement," it says. "Advertisements should not be printed directly on the cover or spine."

That said, print newspapers such as the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal run ads on their front pages, and ads on the home pages of magazine and news sites are pretty much the norm.
"You can either say this is a groundbreaking decision to put ads on covers after 91 years in the business," Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc’s chief content officer, tells AdAge, ”or you can say this is a relatively modest reference that catches up to what’s going on in the industry.”
We go with the latter with the caveat that it will be disappointing when our best magazine covers are covered in ads.
Image: Vintage Youtube by Moma, a Brazilian advertising agency, as part of a 2010 “Everything Ages Fast” campaign.

Recently, In Advertising

"There are things in there editors won’t like, and things in there that publishers won’t like," a Condé Nast editor tells AdAge about the company’s decision to formalize its native advertising policies.

An approximately 4,000-word internal document is currently circulating the company, AdAge reports, that “not only delves into advertising but also provides standards and practices around certain legal and privacy concerns, including how the company will handle consumer data.”

Condé Nast includes publications such as Wired, Vogue, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair among many others.

Other large publishers, such as Hearst (Cosmo and Esquire) and Time, Inc (Time, People and Sports Illustrated), are sticking to more general guidelines and making case-by-case decisions on native ads and their formats.

Meantime, Time magazine and Sports Illustrated are breaking a magazine industry taboo by selling advertising on the covers of their print editions.

As The New York Times notes:

[T]he Time and Sports Illustrated cover ads appear to violate the guidelines of the American Society of Magazine Editors, the influential trade group that awards the National Magazine Awards. The first rule in its guidelines for magazine editors and publishers is, “Don’t print ads on covers.”

"The cover is the editor and publisher’s brand statement," it says. "Advertisements should not be printed directly on the cover or spine."

That said, print newspapers such as the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal run ads on their front pages, and ads on the home pages of magazine and news sites are pretty much the norm.

"You can either say this is a groundbreaking decision to put ads on covers after 91 years in the business," Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc’s chief content officer, tells AdAge, ”or you can say this is a relatively modest reference that catches up to what’s going on in the industry.”

We go with the latter with the caveat that it will be disappointing when our best magazine covers are covered in ads.

Image: Vintage Youtube by Moma, a Brazilian advertising agency, as part of a 2010 “Everything Ages Fast” campaign.

At one point Andreessen offered up the “most obvious 8 business models for news now & in the future.” After listing today’s staples, (1) advertising and (2) subscriptions, he continued with (3) premium content (that is, “a paid tier on top of a free, ad-supported one”); (4) conferences and events; (5) cross-media (meaning that your news operation also generates books, movies, and the like); (6) crowd-funding; (7) micropayments, using Bitcoin; and (8) philanthropy. Nicholas Thompson, the editor of The New Yorker’s Web site and a co-founder of the digital sort-of-magazine The Atavist, chimed in with two more: (9) “while building product you’re passionate about, create software you then license widely!”—The Atavist’s approach—and (10) “fund investigative business stories + then short stocks before publishing,” a reference to the billionaire Mark Cuban’s controversial relationship with Sharesleuth.

Justin Fox, via Felix Salmon, Why I’m Joining Fusion.

So here, in a nutshell, are your news media business models.

Bonus: Om Malik, in an interview with the Italian version of Wired, talks about successful digital strategies.

Navigate the News
The Upshot, a new, data-driven venture from the New York Times, launches tomorrow. It will cover politics, policy and economic analysis, Quartz reported in March, and added:

David Leonhardt, the Times’ former Washington bureau chief, who is in charge of The Upshot, told Quartz that the new venture will have a dedicated staff of 15, including three full-time graphic journalists, and is on track for a launch this spring. “The idea behind the name is, we are trying to help readers get to the essence of issues and understand them in a contextual and conversational way,” Leonhardt says. “Obviously, we will be using data a lot to do that, not because data is some secret code, but because it’s a particularly effective way, when used in moderate doses, of explaining reality to people.”

Today, Leonhardt explained the why of it on Facebook:

You have no shortage of excellent news sources — sources that expertly report and analyze news as it happens. Like you, those of us at The Upshot rely on those sources every day. So why are we starting a new site to help people understand the news?…
…One, we believe many people don’t understand the news as well as they would like. They want to grasp big, complicated stories — Obamacare, inequality, political campaigns, the real-estate and stock markets — so well that they can explain the whys and hows of those stories to their friends, relatives and colleagues.
We believe we can help readers get to that level of understanding by writing in a direct, plain-spoken way, the same voice we might use when writing an email to a friend. We’ll be conversational without being dumbed down. We will build on the excellent journalism The New York Times is already producing, by helping readers make connections among different stories and understand how those stories fit together.

Image: @UpshotNYT announces its launch.

Navigate the News

The Upshot, a new, data-driven venture from the New York Times, launches tomorrow. It will cover politics, policy and economic analysis, Quartz reported in March, and added:

David Leonhardt, the Times’ former Washington bureau chief, who is in charge of The Upshot, told Quartz that the new venture will have a dedicated staff of 15, including three full-time graphic journalists, and is on track for a launch this spring. “The idea behind the name is, we are trying to help readers get to the essence of issues and understand them in a contextual and conversational way,” Leonhardt says. “Obviously, we will be using data a lot to do that, not because data is some secret code, but because it’s a particularly effective way, when used in moderate doses, of explaining reality to people.”

Today, Leonhardt explained the why of it on Facebook:

You have no shortage of excellent news sources — sources that expertly report and analyze news as it happens. Like you, those of us at The Upshot rely on those sources every day. So why are we starting a new site to help people understand the news?…

…One, we believe many people don’t understand the news as well as they would like. They want to grasp big, complicated stories — Obamacare, inequality, political campaigns, the real-estate and stock markets — so well that they can explain the whys and hows of those stories to their friends, relatives and colleagues.

We believe we can help readers get to that level of understanding by writing in a direct, plain-spoken way, the same voice we might use when writing an email to a friend. We’ll be conversational without being dumbed down. We will build on the excellent journalism The New York Times is already producing, by helping readers make connections among different stories and understand how those stories fit together.

Image: @UpshotNYT announces its launch.

Surveillance is the business model of the Internet. We build systems that spy on people in exchange for services. Corporations call it marketing.

Bruce Schneier, security technologist, in a presentation at the SOURCE Boston conference.

Via Security Week:

The data economy—the growth of mass data collection and tracking—is changing how power is perceived, Schneier said in his keynote speech. The Internet and technology has changed the impact a group can have on others, where dissidents can use the Internet to amplify their voices and extend their reach. Governments already have a lot of power to begin with, so when they take advantage of technology, their power is magnified, he said.

“That’s how you get weird situations where Syrian dissidents use Facebook to organize, and the government uses Facebook to arrest its citizens,” Schneier said.

Over the past few years, it’s become easier and cheaper to store data and search for the necessary item rather than to sort and delete. Email is a very good example of this shift in behavior. This change, spurred by the popularity of mobile devices and the push to move more data and services to the cloud has also made it easier to track user behavior. When corporations track users for marketing purposes, it seems benign, but the same actions come across as sinister when it’s the government…

…The government didn’t tell anyone they have to carry around a tracking device, but people now carry mobile devices. The government doesn’t require users to notify any agency about their relationships. Users will tell Facebook soon enough, Schneier noted. “Fundamentally, we have reached the golden age of surveillance because we are all being surveilled ubiquitously.”

Somewhat related programming note: Read up on Heartbleed, change your passwords everywhere.

Journalists my age and younger (I’ve been in the business since 2005—right around the time digital media emerged as a plausible career option) have never operated under the illusion that a staff job at The New Yorker or a New York Times column was in our future. But nearly a decade into the digital-media revolution, another shift has occurred. It’s not just that journalists understand former “prestige” jobs will be nearly impossible to get. Now we don’t even want them.

— Ann Friedman, The New Dream Job, Columbia Journalism Review

Live video isn’t working for newspapers because they try to do TV (which has its own problems) & it’s not done well →

via newsplexer:

In the past five years, the Times, the Journal, the Post, POLITICO and others have dedicated more resources to video than to any other new endeavor, and, to date, have lost money in every case, sources at those organizations said. Creating compelling television, it turned out, meant more than putting talking heads around a table. It required millions of dollars, new innovations, and, most important, experienced producers and compelling on-air talent.

Now, the hope for live digital television is all but dead, and the entire industry is on a “course correction.” The focus has shifted from live programming to brief video packages requiring minimal cost and production efforts. Even here, news organizations have struggled to turn video into a lucrative business, let alone a robust revenue generator. In 2013, the Times couldn’t even draw enough viewers to deliver on its advertisement deals.

FJP: Let’s bring lack of imagination into this equation.

Just as early radio emulated print, and early TV emulated radio, early Web-based video is emulating contemporary TV.

Think different.

When there are global events such as the recent Ukrainian uprising, hundreds of thousand tuned into Epreso TV. Same same when we watched Tahrir Square via Al Jazeera. 

This doesn’t happen often though so consider what the Web delivery system actually is: text, graphics, video, words, interaction. It’s not TV and shouldn’t try to be.

Your successful video is created within that context, and within that delivery mechanism. Think through your medium and program accordingly. — Michael

Who Controls The Media? Who Controls The FJP?
Let’s take this in order: Who controls the media?
If we’re talking traditional, corporate media it typically looks like this:
GE Owns: Comcast, NBC, Universal Pictures.
News-Corp Owns: Fox, Wall Street Journal, New York Post.
Disney Owns: ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramax.
Viacom Owns: MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Paramount.
Time Warner Owns: CNN, HBO, Time, Warner Brothers.
CBS Owns: 60 Minutes, Showtime, NFL.com.
They all own way more than this, and I’d also add Clear Channel to the equation since it owns the majority of radio stations throughout the United States.
But you can’t talk about “owning the media” without talking about who owns cellular and Internet pipes. That includes companies like AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable.
Online sources remain remarkably diverse despite reliance on upstream providers. People can reach and enjoy them despite the depth and breadth of overall marketshare of the properties mentioned above. That said, recent Network Neutrality rulings threaten our ability to access, interact with and enjoy this online diversity. Take, for instance, this AT&T patent application that would let it discriminate against online content and gives us access (or blocks access) accordingly:

A user of a communications network is prevented from consuming an excessive amount of channel bandwidth by restricting use of the channel in accordance with the type of data being downloaded to the user. The user is provided an initial number of credits. As the user consumes the credits, the data being downloaded is checked to determine if is permissible or non-permissible. Non-permissible data includes file-sharing files and movie downloads if user subscription does not permit such activity.

Similarly, you can’t talk about owning and influencing the media without paying attention to how our technology companies operate within the ecosystem. Namely, how our interaction with information and communication is mediated by the code created by the likes of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. As CUNY’s Lev Manovich has written:

Software has become a universal language, the interface to our imagination and the world. What electricity and the combustion engine were to the early 20th century, software is to the early 21st century. I think of it as a layer that permeates contemporary societies. If we want to understand today’s techniques of communication, representation, simulation, analysis, decision making, memory, vision, writing, and interaction, we must understand software.

So, that is more or less who controls American media.
Second question, who controls Future Journalism Project?
Ask a question, get an answer: meet the power behind the throne.
Most days though it’s me and Jihii. — Michael

Who Controls The Media? Who Controls The FJP?

Let’s take this in order: Who controls the media?

If we’re talking traditional, corporate media it typically looks like this:

  • GE Owns: Comcast, NBC, Universal Pictures.
  • News-Corp Owns: Fox, Wall Street Journal, New York Post.
  • Disney Owns: ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramax.
  • Viacom Owns: MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Paramount.
  • Time Warner Owns: CNN, HBO, Time, Warner Brothers.
  • CBS Owns: 60 Minutes, Showtime, NFL.com.

They all own way more than this, and I’d also add Clear Channel to the equation since it owns the majority of radio stations throughout the United States.

But you can’t talk about “owning the media” without talking about who owns cellular and Internet pipes. That includes companies like AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable.

Online sources remain remarkably diverse despite reliance on upstream providers. People can reach and enjoy them despite the depth and breadth of overall marketshare of the properties mentioned above. That said, recent Network Neutrality rulings threaten our ability to access, interact with and enjoy this online diversity. Take, for instance, this AT&T patent application that would let it discriminate against online content and gives us access (or blocks access) accordingly:

A user of a communications network is prevented from consuming an excessive amount of channel bandwidth by restricting use of the channel in accordance with the type of data being downloaded to the user. The user is provided an initial number of credits. As the user consumes the credits, the data being downloaded is checked to determine if is permissible or non-permissible. Non-permissible data includes file-sharing files and movie downloads if user subscription does not permit such activity.

Similarly, you can’t talk about owning and influencing the media without paying attention to how our technology companies operate within the ecosystem. Namely, how our interaction with information and communication is mediated by the code created by the likes of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. As CUNY’s Lev Manovich has written:

Software has become a universal language, the interface to our imagination and the world. What electricity and the combustion engine were to the early 20th century, software is to the early 21st century. I think of it as a layer that permeates contemporary societies. If we want to understand today’s techniques of communication, representation, simulation, analysis, decision making, memory, vision, writing, and interaction, we must understand software.

So, that is more or less who controls American media.

Second question, who controls Future Journalism Project?

Ask a question, get an answer: meet the power behind the throne.

Most days though it’s me and Jihii. — Michael

The NSA didn’t wake up and say, ‘Let’s just spy on everybody.’ They looked up and said, ‘Wow, corporations are spying on everybody. Let’s get ourselves a copy.

— Bruce Schneier, Cryptographer and security specialist, via Reform Corporate Surveillance, a parody site of Reform Government Surveillance, created by Aral Balkan, Founder of Indie Phone

The federal government made enough money on student loans over the last year that, if it wanted, it could provide maximum-level Pell Grants of $5,645 to 7.3 million college students.

The $41.3-billion profit for the 2013 fiscal year is down $3.6 billion from the previous year but still enough to pay for one year of tuition at the University of Michigan for 2,955,426 Michigan residents.

It’s a higher profit level than all but two companies in the world: Exxon Mobil cleared $44.9 billion in 2012, and Apple cleared $41.7 billion.

Bloomberg News Spiking Sensitive China Stories

Via The New York Times

The decision came in an early evening call to four journalists huddled in a Hong Kong conference room. On the line 12 time zones away in New York was their boss, Matthew Winkler, the longtime editor in chief of Bloomberg News. And they were frustrated by what he was telling them.

The investigative report they had been working on for the better part of a year, which detailed the hidden financial ties between one of the wealthiest men in China and the families of top Chinese leaders, would not be published.

In the call late last month, Mr. Winkler defended his decision, comparing it to the self-censorship by foreign news bureaus trying to preserve their ability to report inside Nazi-era Germany, according to Bloomberg employees familiar with the discussion.

“He said, ‘If we run the story, we’ll be kicked out of China,’ ” one of the employees said. Less than a week later, a second article, about the children of senior Chinese officials employed by foreign banks, was also declared dead, employees said.

Winkler denies that the stories have been killed.

As The Times notes, the Bloomberg Web site has been blocked inside of China since it published a 2012 series of stories on the personal wealth of family members of Chinese leaders. Bloomberg reporters, too, have been unable to get residency visas to the country since that time.

Subscriptions to its $20,000+ business news terminals have also declined within the country, The Times reports.

The Times finds itself in a similar boat. Its Chinese-language site has been blocked since it published a 2012 article on the family wealth of then Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, and it has been able to secure residency visas for its journalists.

Video: Next Media creates a cartoon mocking Bloomberg News for self-censorship.

UPDATEBloomberg News ‘Disappointed’ in NY Times’ ‘Absolutely False’ Front Page Story, via Medaite.