A special note from the Editor of MediaCircus.com: Personally, when people ask — “are you recycling your newspapers?” and since I don’t even get a newspaper and haven’t for over 15 years, I’m doing my recycling part by not even subscribing. Amen.
Sun-Times Media, the parent company of The Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, said Tuesday that it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and hired an investment bank to explore possible asset sales.
The company said it would continue to operate its 59 newspapers and various Web sites as it goes through the bankruptcy process. The company has retained Rothschild, an investment bank, to commence a process for the sale of assets, the company said. The bankruptcy petition was filed in Delaware.
The Sun-Times is the second Chicago publishing company to seek bankruptcy protection. The newspaper’s crosstown rival, the Chicago Tribune Company, which publishes The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times, filed for court protection in December to reduce its crushing debt load.
The Sun-Times has a weekday circulation of 313,000 and a Sunday circulation of 256,000. The Tribune’s circulation was 516,000 daily and 865,000 for Sunday.
The Sun-Times listed assets of $479 million and debts of $801 million.
Chicago is one of a dwindling number of large United States cities to have two major newspapers. Last month, one of Denver’s two newspapers, The Rocky Mountain News, shut down, while one of Seattle’s two newspapers, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, recently became an online-only publication.
UPDATE:Kansas City Star will combine, reduce number of selections
The Kansas City Star plans to combine its main news and local sections — along with its business section four days a week — into a single section, starting in the next week to 10 days, according to a Star advertising department client e-mail.
The Star will combine its business section on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday into the new single section, according to the e-mail. The paper’s Tuesday business tabloid section will continue as a stand-alone section.
The Star will combine its sports and classified sections every day except Sunday.
”Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America’s coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.”
”These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like ‘I haven’t been some coal booster’ and ‘if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them’ are extraordinarily misguided.”Â It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.
”Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation’s coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to ‘bankrupt’ our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.”
“If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Barack Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January.
So the real question is, why did theSan Francisco Chronicle sit on thisuntil recently. They may have put it online, but this should have been front page material early in the primary, not today. Instead they put it there and didn’tÂ tell anyone about it. Â If McCain had said anything like this the elite media would have had a field day with it. This little tactic of posting explosive or important information with as little notice as posible is called ”burying the lead”. It is one of the most often used forms of media bias.
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden have views about coal which should concern all Americans but which represent very substantial danger to several states, at least a few of which (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado) are critical in this week’s election.
Obama’s view represents a serious threat and one which should cause all but the most partisan Democrats to reconsider any thought they might have had for voting for a president who clearly opposes capitalism and now clearly opposes affordable electricity.
Colorado’s coal industry directly employs nearly 2,300 people at an average salary and benefits package of over $100,000, for total industry payroll and benefits of $228 million within the state. Colorado’s current coal industry employment is its highest in two decades, with the state having one of the country’s most efficient production rates.
The industry paid nearly $140 million more in taxes and royalties in 2007, for a total contribution to the coffers of citizens and government of over $356,000,000. The CMA notes that “more than half of Colorado’s share of federal mining royalties is paid to the state school fund and local school districts.”
And now we hear Barack Obama saying “If someone wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
Does he not realize that fully half of the nation’s electric power generation comes from coal-fired plants?
Share of Electric Power Sector Net Generation by Energy Source, 2005 vs. 2006?(Percent):
Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report.”
Does he not realize that the industry directlyemploys over 80,000 people in America, not to mention the massive indirect employment created for people who build and sell mining equipment or who own business in towns which are supported by spending from mine employees?
Barack and Obama dislike any source of energy which actually produces an important quantity of power for Americans. They hate oil, coal, and nuclear power, and are ambivalent at best about natural gas. What do they like? Wind farms and solar power which are pleasant “green” things to think about but which are far from being able to produce less than 1% of the nation’s energy combined and much of that in relatively inefficient small generation rather than the huge generating potential of traditionally-powered electrical plants.
The Department of Energy says that “coal-fired plants typically are more economical, and they account for 40 percent of (projected) total capacity additions from 2006 to 2030.” In other words, coal is not just cheaper now, it is expected to remain the most economical source of electric power for the nation for a generation or more and therefore shows nearly as large a projected gain in percentage terms as renewables and a massive gain in absolute terms compared to any other source in the DOE’s projected energy generation in 2030 as compared to 2006.
Indeed, even with all the hype about renewables changing the world, they are still expected to produce less power – with all renewable forms, including hydroelectric, combined – than either nuclear or natural gas powered electric plants generate today. And each of those is far less than half of the power generated by coal. If you take out conventional hydropower from the renewables category (since almost all the growth in the category is outside hydro), the power generated by the combination of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal power generating systems will, in 2030, represent barely half of what either nuclear or natural gas generate today, and not even 1/8th of what coal will generate for the nation in 2030.
Unless Obama and Biden get their way, in which case I submit it is not possible for renewables to make up for the loss in power generation which the Democrats’ anti-energy platform, in service of their radical environmentalist donors, will cause.
With the recent economic crisis, people have temporarily forgotten about the recent spike in energy prices and what can happen if we do not ensure the most flexibility possible and most domestic production possible to generate America’s energy needs.
It is an interesting coincidence that Obama’s statement about wanting to bankrupt coal-fired power plants represents a grave threat to at least three of the most important states in this week’s election. But it represents more than that: It represents a threat to anyone, anywhere in America, who uses electricity. If you happen to fall into that category, Obama/Biden represent an almost certain increase in your cost of living, your cost of heating, of driving, of cooking, of absolutely anything that you can’t power by burning your own trees…and I’m sure they’ll try to stop that too.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission has opened a “preliminary inquiry” into how an outdated bankruptcy story sparked a $1 billion run on an airline’s stock value.
The article about how United Airlines filed for bankruptcy in 2002 was revived when it showed up on a newspaper site’s “most viewed” section on Monday.
From there it was picked up by Google News and later seen by alarmed stockholders. The stock plunged from around $12 to just $3 a share before trading was halted.
The Chicago-based company’s shares did not fully recover once trading resumed on Monday, and were still down at just over $11 dollars at close of trading yesterday.
With the possibility of legal action in the air, those involved have been hotly disputing who was to blame.
The errors provide a salutary lesson for investors of the power and perils of computer automation and throw a spotlight on Google’s News search technology which, using “Googlebot” algorithms, scours web pages in search of news articles.