Here’s one way to respond to a hardware shortage: A Manhattan Apple store lost two boxes of iPads in two different robberies last week.

Police reports suggest that the same guy (perhaps with the aid of an accomplice) was behind both thefts. In both cases, the robberies occurred outside Apple’s Upper West Side store, when UPS (UPS) was dropping off new shipments of the gadgets.

The store’s employees, understandably, tell the New York Post they now have “a heightened security presence.”

Modest proposal: Why not leverage the legions of crazed Apple (AAPL) fans who are already willing to spend their free time standing outside the company’s stores? I bet you wouldn’t even have to pay them to help police the property–don’t you think Robert Scoble, et al would clamor for a chance to become deputized Apple loss-prevention experts?

The report says investment bankers for the company have already begun pitching private equity firms about a potential LBO of the retailer.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The twist is that while Peter Lauria is leaving his gig at the New York Post where he covered media moguls, he’s staying in the business. He’s moving across town to The Daily Beast, where he’ll become a senior correspondent with the same beat.

There are two big differences here. Instead of working for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (NWS)–which also owns this Web site–Lauria will be working for Barry Diller, via his IAC (IACI) conglomerate. The more important change is that he’ll have the ability to publish more than once a day, which the Post has been loath to do on its Web site (which makes no sense).

Asked for comment about the move, Daily Beast Managing Editor Edward Felsenthal sent me a link to this item from the Post’s Page Six gossip section:

Harvey Weinstein doesn’t like everything written about him in The Post. Peter Lauria, who covers media for our business section, has gotten under the movie mogul’s delicate skin. When a reporter for another publication mentioned “Inglourious Basterds,” the hit replenishing the Weinstein Co. coffers, Harvey joked, “Peter Lauria. He’s the inspiration for ‘Inglourious Basterds’…we were thinking who were the bastards that we know, and he was the No. 1 bastard.”

High praise!

The New York Post reports that the producers of American Idol are eager to hire Stern for the show. The Page Six item says that Stern is the show’s top choice to take over from Cowell, who will leave the show at the end of the current season. Stern’s current contract with Sirius XM (SIRI) expires in January 2011.

An excerpt from the Post:

A source connected to “Idol” said, “It’s one of the few shows that could compete with Stern’s $100 million-a-year Sirius contract, and ‘Idol’ bosses think he’d be even nastier than Simon.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

That’s what Sony says it is trying to do with News Corp. and some of its publications. The partnership the two companies announced today won’t be nearly enough to make Sony’s Reader line competitive. But it does point in the direction both companies would like to head.

Dow Jones (which owns this Web site) will sell a version of its flagship Wall Street Journal for the Reader devices, as well as a “Wall Street Journal Plus” package that includes a second mini-edition of the paper to be published at the end of the day. Also on offer: A Reader-tailored version of the Marketwatch finance site and a subscription to the New York Post.

Sony (SNE) will have the only e-reader that sells the Post and the second edition of the WSJ. But that’s about it as far as exclusivity goes. The regular Reader version of the Journal looks to be the same one Amazon (AMZN) is already selling at the same price: $15 a month for the basic edition.

And even if you’re one of the people who loves to read a print paper on a handheld device, most of these offers don’t make a lot of sense for an e-reader.

The Post is a tabloid that’s pretty much designed to be consumed, then tossed away, in the course of a subway ride–and if you want to get it for free on the Web, you can do that too.

You can also consume all of Marketwatch for free on the Web, where it makes much more sense to do so, since that the site provides constant updates on…the market.

And given the Journal’s increasing emphasis on speed and breaking news, you’d think its paying subscribers would want the freshest copy possible. But the Sony Reader version is completely static.

So this is pretty much a symbolic deal, right? More or less, Sony CEO Howard Stringer told a press conference this morning. The big picture, he says, is that devices like the Reader are both a growth business for Sony and an opportunity for content owners to charge for stuff that has been free on the Web.

“The sense of losing control of our content is on all of our minds,” says Stringer, whose company is famously both a hardware manufacturer and an entertainment provider. “We’re trying to preserve the value of content in both movies and music and newspapers.”

That dovetails with News Corp.’s (NWS) big-picture plans, which CEO Rupert Murdoch has been has been hollering out at every opportunity: Pay up.

But there’s also a more practical side to the deal for News Corp., which wants to distribute its stuff on as many platforms as possible–and extract better terms than it gets from Amazon and its Kindle platform.

In November, Murdoch said his company was getting up to $6.50 for each $15 Journal subscription it sold via Amazon (AMZN), but noted that this isn’t enough. News Corp. and other publishers have also carped that Amazon keeps valuable customer data for itself.

The Sony deal offers better terms, said Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Robert Thomson, without getting into specifics: “I think you can assume that we’re getting a better deal and that our concerns about customer information have been addressed.”

Last week, BoomTown translated an opinion piece written by Google CEO Eric Schmidt and published in The Wall Street Journal that focused on defending the search giant from criticism that it was, well, killing journalism.

One of the louder critics, in fact, has been Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp. (NWS), who has been loaded for bear in regard to Google (GOOG), leveling a series of high-profile verbal attacks on the company.

Last week, Murdoch published his own piece in The Journal, which he owns (along with this Web site), on the topic of the wrenching changes in the news business and in which he never mentioned Google by name.

But the company was there anyway, so, in the interests of equal opportunity balloon-pricking, I must also render Murdoch’s post through my decoding machine, because it’s only sporting!

His op-ed, The Journal noted, “has been adapted from his Dec. 1 remarks before the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop on journalism and the Internet.”

What Murdoch wrote: Journalism and Freedom

By RUPERT MURDOCH

Translation: Crikey, as they say in Australia, I have been getting a little wobbly over Google’s growing power, but those bludgers in government will always make me go more troppo.

And, unlike Eric Schmidt, I didn’t need to be called Emperor Palpatine to scare people. Plain old “Rupe” works just fine to give most people the shakes.

What Murdoch wrote: We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down or scaling back. No doubt you will hear some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever–limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to overregulate or subsidize us.

Translation: Please try to ignore the salient fact that it was actually Rupert Murdoch–me!–who has been loudly clanging the bell of late about how Google is laying waste to journalism, much as Sean Hannity did to that poor Alan Colmes nightly for a dozen years.

Also, please ignore that I am saying my message is just the opposite, because–really–I hate government more than I hate Google, so this makes perfect sense if you really think about it.

But don’t think about it, mate!

Murdoch wrote: From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: The trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.

Does this mean we are all going to succeed? Of course not. Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day–and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism belongs to the bold, and the companies that prosper will be those that find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

Translation: Teri: Cue the speech about what journalism means for the little people! But also make sure we get in how News Corp. gets all this digital hoo-ha too and how we are not going to let those pointy-heads of Silicon Valley think we are not ready to rumble!

What Murdoch wrote: First, media companies need to give people the news they want. I can’t tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes–and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves–instead of news that is relevant to their customers. A news organization’s most important asset is the trust it has with its readers, a bond that reflects the readers’ confidence that editors are looking out for their needs and interests.

Translation: There was a trophy cabinet and award wall just like that at The Wall Street Journal before I bought it. I ate it it for breakfast.

What Murdoch wrote: At News Corp., we have been working for two years on a project that would use a portion of our broadcast spectrum to bring our TV offerings–and maybe even our newspaper content–to mobile devices. Today’s news consumers do not want to be chained to a box in their homes or offices to get their favorite news and entertainment–and our plan includes the needs of the next wave of TV viewing by going mobile.

The same is true with newspapers. More and more, our readers are using different technologies to access our papers during different parts of the day. For example, they might read some of their Wall Street Journal on their BlackBerries while commuting into the office, read it on the computer when they arrive, and read it on a larger and clearer e-reader wherever they may be.

Translation: Teri: Tell Jon Miller to get on a plane stat and start chit-chatting with those Asian manufacturers asap. I am not going to let Amazon (AMZN) head Jeff Bezos guffaw me into oblivion with his Kindle or have “American Idol” get hijacked by Apple (AAPL) or have those Google (GOOG) twins shine me on, even as they are developing some magic mobile phone.

What Murdoch wrote: My second point follows from my first: Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.

That’s not going to change, even in a boom. The reason is that the old model was founded on quasimonopolies, such as classified advertising, which has been decimated by new and cheaper competitors such as Craigslist, Monster.com, and so on.

Translation: My second point follows from the first: We can’t charge for milk when we have been giving away the cow for free.

And, frankly, the old media have been lending out Bessie to every Web site that comes looking for a gallon, free of charge, in abject fear that no one likes milk anymore.

In the good old days, when we were the only beverage around–I like to call it a “quasiMOOnopoly”–we could set any price we wanted.

Now, unfortunately, everybody’s got milk.

What Murdoch wrote: In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites. The critics say people won’t pay. I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don’t get something for nothing.

Translation: People will pay, once we de-index our sites from Google and they can’t get their daily dose of the New York Post’s Page Six for free. Where else will they get the latest online tidbits on the Tiger Woods scandal, for example?

Okay, from everywhere. But Page Six names at least 46 percent more mistresses than TMZ, and that’s worth something.

What Murdoch wrote: That goes for some of our friends online too. And yet there are those who think they have a right to take our news content and use it for their own purposes without contributing a penny to its production. Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks or even months in their stories–all under the tattered veil of “fair use.”

Right now, content creators bear all the costs, while aggregators enjoy many of the benefits. In the long term, this is untenable. We are open to different pay models. But the principle is clear: To paraphrase a famous economist, there’s no such thing as a free news story, and we are going to ensure that we get a fair but modest price for the value we provide.

Translation: By “friends,” I mean “sworn enemies,” also known as “Google.” (Until it meets with me to do a deal and then it is “friends” again.)

By “tattered veil of ‘fair use,’” I mean “the law I am going to get gutted by my 1,473 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.”

By “to be impolite, it’s theft,” I mean “to be impolite, it’s theft by Larry and Sergey.” (Until they meet with me to do a deal and fork over the moolah, and then it will be a “business arrangement.”)

By “there’s no such thing as a free news story,” I mean “I hope to trick those Google-obsessed Bing boys at Microsoft (MSFT) into paying me that boatload of money they aren’t sending Carol Bartz of Yahoo (YHOO).”

What Murdoch wrote: Finally, a few words about government. In the last two or three decades, we have seen the emergence of new platforms and opportunities that no one could have predicted–from social networking sites and iPhones and BlackBerries, to Internet sites for newspapers, radio and television. And we are only at the beginning.

These developments mean increased competition, and that is good for consumers. But just as businesses are adapting to new realities, the government needs to adapt too. In this new and more globally competitive news world, restricting cross-ownership between television and newspapers makes as little sense as would banning newspapers from having Web sites.

Translation: Oh, I do not like Silicon Valley, but I dislike government even more!

And now that Google is its bogeyman instead of me, I really hope to finally be able to gut all those annoying cross-ownership rules that prevented me from owning the entire media landscape of every major city in America.

This must be done immediately, because those icons on people’s cellphones–especially that dangerous iFart app–are poised for attack!

What Murdoch wrote: In my view, the growing drumbeat for government assistance for newspapers is as alarming as overregulation. One idea gaining in popularity is providing taxpayer funds for journalists. Or giving newspapers “nonprofit” status–in exchange, of course, for papers giving up their right to endorse political candidates. The most damning problem with government “help” is what we saw with the bailout of the U.S. auto industry: Help props up those who are producing things that customers do not want.

The prospect of the U.S. government becoming directly involved in commercial journalism ought to be chilling for anyone who cares about freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers knew that the key to independence was to allow enterprises to prosper and serve as a counterweight to government power. It is precisely because newspapers make profits and do not depend on the government for their livelihood that they have the resources and wherewithal to hold the government accountable.

Translation: You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? Then who the hell else are you bailin’ out? You bailin’ out me? Well I’m the only one here. Who the %*#! do you think you’re bailin’ out?”

What Murdoch wrote: When the representatives of 13 former British colonies established a new order for the ages, they built it on a sturdy foundation: a free and informed citizenry. They understood that an informed citizenry requires news that is independent from government. That is one reason they put the First Amendment first.

Translation: Teri: Please insert the clarion cry of the First Amendment here, as it always stirs the heartstrings.

What Murdoch wrote: Our modern world is faster moving and far more complex than theirs. But the basic truth remains: To make informed decisions, free men and women require honest and reliable news about events affecting their countries and their lives. Whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important. What is most important is that the news industry remains free, independent–and competitive.

Translation: Believe me, if we could push a button and get rid of the whole Internet, News Corp. and Time Warner (TWX) and Viacom (VIA) and CBS (CBS) and the whole lot of us old media players would.

Barring that, whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important.

What is most important is that the news industry shake down big piles of dough from those Silicon Valley moneybags–whether they be Google or that Mark Zuckerberg kid, whenever Facebook goes public, or those Twitter dudes (if they figure out a way to make any money outside of fund raising)–in order to remain free, independent–and competitive.

It is, after all, the American way.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

The former French water utility has the ability to hold up the deal due to its 20 percent stake in NBCU and a put option that gives it the right to sell the stake back to back to GE (GE), hang on to it or take the thing public.

There’s no reason for Vivendi to do anything but the first option, but the company is not going to come out and say so, which means that negotiations for GE to buy the stake aren’t going as fast as it or Comcast (CMCSA) would like. Vivendi itself wrote down the value of the stake by a few billion earlier this year, but that was then, and this is now. New York Post:

The deal, which many assumed would be announced today, is being held up because Vivendi is playing hardball in its negotiations with GE, said several sources close to the deal.

“They’re trying to squeeze every nickel they can out of GE,” said one of these sources. “Why wouldn’t they?”

But again, there’s no reason for this deal not to get done, and Vivendi itself made a strong case for it on Friday by announcing plans to spend some $4 billion on Brazilian telecom GVT. The proceeds of a $6 billion sale sure could come in handy for that, no?

While we’re at it: I wouldn’t read all that much into reports that Comcast plans to appoint current NBCU head Jeff Zucker to run the new business. Perhaps they really do. But even if Comcast didn’t, it would have no choice but to say it does. Remember that any deal will take a very long time to clear regulatory review and that someone has to keep running NBCU in the meantime. This stuff will get more meaningful when we’re closer to showtime.

That has to be unnerving, but I can at least offer a little bit of comfort: The worst-case scenario the employees would be facing had they been purchased by private equity firm ZelnickMedia, which was also bidding for the publication.

The short version: Almost everybody gets fired.

Here’s the longer version of the plan, provided to me by a person familiar with ZelnickMedia’s bid. It sounds like a plausible idea for a PE group that specializes in turning around distressed assets–and a chilling one for anybody who draws a paycheck at BusinessWeek:

• Wind down BusinessWeek’s print business “as profitably as possible”–the company would have to honor existing subscriptions and could still sell ads in the magazine. But the focus would be on building up BusinessWeek’s Web site, which has a decent-sized footprint, though not a huge one.
• Dump almost all of the company’s newsgathering staff and outsource most of that work to Thomson Reuters (TRI).
• Employ a small handful of editorial employees–perhaps 20, down from the 200-plus who are there now. Some of them would run a Huffington Post-style aggregation site that produces no original content, and some more expensive hires would produce a smattering of high-quality reporting and writing designed to burnish/sustain the BusinessWeek brand. “Just to give it uniqueness and sizzle,” my source tells me.
• Dump most of the existing business side, as well, but overhaul and bulk up the sales force.

The insult-to-injury kicker: Under ZelnickMedia’s proposal, the buyer wouldn’t pay a dime for the publication it intended to rebuild. Instead, McGraw-Hill would pay the fund to take the publication off its hands. If that sounds implausible, consider that McGraw-Hill just announced that it will save up to $25 million next year by not owning the title.

Given the above terms, it’s easy enough to see why McGraw-Hill ended up going with Bloomberg. For starters, the winning bidder actually paid cash for the magazine, and McGraw-Hill will end up netting a $5.9 million gain, after taxes, on the deal.

Also important: McGraw-Hill won’t have to anguish as it watches one of its flagship properties get dismantled.

So what will happen to BusinessWeek now that Bloomberg owns it? Nothing nearly so drastic, at least in the short term. For now, Bloomberg is talking about bulking up the title, not shredding it, so that’s a good sign for both employees and readers.

Alas, Bloomberg can’t take on all of the magazine employees looking for jobs, and that pool is only going to get bigger.

Forbes slashed deep into its staff this week, and next week Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. will lay out some of its layoff goals. I’ve heard Time Inc. employees refer to layoff plans as “tree-trimming” or “surgical,” but I think the trimming will feel much blunter to the folks who lose their jobs. The publisher’s cost-cutting plans include hundreds of layoffs–something likely similar to the cuts the publisher went through last year, I’m told.

The New York Post’s Keith Kelly reports today that Time’s News and Finance unit, which includes Time, Fortune and Sports Illustrated, will be particularly hard hit, and I’ve confirmed that myself.

UPDATE: No surprise here: BusinessWeek President Keith Fox is stepping down. Mild surprise: He’s staying on at McGraw-Hill. Here’s his memo:

When we announced that McGraw-Hill was exploring strategic options for BusinessWeek, I promised to communicate with you as openly and often as I could. In this spirit, I wanted each of you to know that I will be remaining with McGraw-Hill after the deal with Bloomberg is closed. I will continue to play a role in the integration post-close and plan to take on a new role at McGraw-Hill in 2010.

During this process, our collective goal was to find the best buyer for BusinessWeek. I am proud that I played a role in ensuring that BusinessWeek has a new home at Bloomberg, where it will thrive under the leadership of Norman Pearlstine. I am committed to the transition and helping in any way that I can.

It’s been a privilege to be the President of BusinessWeek. I thank Terry McGraw for his confidence and trust in me and Glenn Goldberg for his support, direction, clarity, and sense of humor. I’ve also been a member of an amazing team which has navigated the transformation of the media environment with agility, focus, passion, and integrity.

The team–Steve Adler, Jessica Sibley, Tania Secor, Linda Brennan, Roger Neal, and Carl Fischer–is the best in the industry. Like BusinessWeek, they have bright futures ahead of them. I will miss the daily interaction, but I am wiser (and a little grayer) because of their collaborative spirit and desire to make BusinessWeek the global leader in business that it is today.

I also have a special thanks to Patricia Hipplewith, my assistant, who juggled my calendar, protected me from solicitors, and kept me on schedule and well fed! She is the personification of commitment and integrity.

I am humbled by BusinessWeek’s 80-year history. Thank you for allowing me to play a small part in it.

Keith

I’ve heard that Arango is leaving for six months and that the Times doesn’t have plans to replace him while he’s out. But media editor Bruce Headlam, via email, says the paper is still figuring all of that out:

A lot is still up in the air–When Tim might go and for how long. We do know that he will be coming back, however, and he’s a huge asset to our group so we’re looking for creative solutions in the meantime.

Arango came to the Times after stints at Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune and News Corp.’s (NWS) New York Post. I’ve asked him for comment–for instance, I’d love to know why he wants to trade midtown office suites for the desert–and will report back if I hear from him.

And to cap off the meta navel-gazing, I should report here that I like my gig very much and have no intention of leaving.

And for the last several years, the New York Times (NYT) has provided excellent on-the-ground coverage, usually via Dealbook’s Andrew Ross Sorkin.

Not this year.

Reporters and media chieftains alike started arriving at the Idaho resort last night, but the Times is AWOL. If you want first-hand reportage on who said what outside the bar or by the duck pond, you’re going to have to rely on other news outlets.

Sorkin explained his absence via email to me:

For better or worse, I couldn’t make it out to Sun Valley this year because I’m chained to my desk for the next couple of weeks trying to finish my upcoming book, “Too Big to Fail.”

Given the market jitters–and resulting deal drought–we made the decision to cover the event from afar this year. I’m trying to stay up to date on the latest machinations out there by speaking with a half dozen of the invitees daily by phone and email–some of whom have already tapped out notes by Blackberry from inside this morning. (We actually might have a pretty interesting Sun Vally story up on DealBook in the next 24 hours.) We’re also running a series of Twitter feeds from other news organizations on DealBook’s homepage. And we plan to run several Sun Valley photo slide shows, as we’ve done in year’s past.

In truth, it’s debatable whether any news outlet has to be at Sun Valley: Some of the moguls use the opportunity to hold briefings with the press there. Google’s Eric Schmidt (GOOG) has been particularly talkative in years past. But anything truly important generally happens away from the scribes and usually comes to light well after the fact, so you could argue that real-time coverage is overrated.

On the other hand, last year Rupert Murdoch, who owns this Web site, enlisted the help of the press corps to help him find his wedding ring after an evening at the bar. That was a pretty great story.

And in any case, there are still plenty of other outlets on the ground. Among them: The Financial Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, the Los Angeles Times, CNBC, the New York Post, and our colleague Julia Angwin from The Wall Street Journal.

A quick perusal of Google News will keep you up to date, and if you want second-by-second stuff, there’s a Twitter stream, of course. And sure enough, Sorkin’s Dealbook has a nifty widget that lets you toggle between different Twitter feeds. It’s worth checking out.

McNamee, who spearheaded Elevation’s purchase of 40 percent of Forbes Media in 2006, tells the New York Post’s Keith Kelly that his company’s original thesis–that Forbes’s fast-growing Web site would offset its declining magazine business–”has proved to be wrong for reasons that are no fault of Forbes.” More from McNamee:

“The deterioration in the advertising market late last year caused Forbes and Elevation to agree that we could no longer count on Forbes.com to offset declines in print. We agreed to a strategy shift from investment in the Web to aggressive cost cutting.”

As part of that shift, McNamee will be replaced by Elevation’s Bret Pearlman, who has a reputation as an aggressive cost-cutter.

Said McNamee of Pearlman’s appointment: “Elevation’s cost-cutting team happens to be in New York, so swapping Bret in and me out was an obvious play. I remain engaged in strategy and Web technology at Forbes.

I asked Forbes for comment this morning and got back this statement:

Several Elevation partners have rotated on the Forbes Media board. Bret Pearlman, while not formally a member of the board previously, has been involved from day one.  Roger is still very much engaged with the company, particularly web strategy and technology. Cutting costs, while painful, has been necessary at Forbes and virtually every other media company in response to the unprecedented economic downturn. We and Elevation believe that Forbes is well placed to ride out the present market and emerge in a very strong position when the recovery comes.

It’s possible that Forbes’s woes exist in a vacuum, or at least in a vacuum specific to the business magazine sector, which has already seen one title–Condé Nast’s Portfolio–shutter this year. But I don’t think so.

Which means we’ll see even more pressure at Time Warner (TWX) to cut costs at publisher Time Inc. People familiar with Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes’s thinking tell me he would like to spin off the publishing unit in the next year once he’s finished cleaving AOL from the company. If that’s the case, he’ll want to clean up the magazine business as much as possible before putting it on the market.

More than you think, argues the New York Post’s Keith Kelly. If you’re interested in either publishing or Washington’s attempt to save the auto business, you should read the entire piece.

But here’s the important part: Quadrangle Group, the big media investment group run by Steve Rattner, borrowed $125 million from Cerebus Capital Management to buy Maxim and other high-concept, big-print titles from founder Felix Dennis. Those magazines are in disarray (yesterday, Quadrangle shuttered music title Blender) and Quadrangle defaulted on those loans last year.

Still there? OK. Now Rattner has left Quadrangle for Washington, where he’ll advise the Obama administration on how to deal with companies that include Chrysler, which is owned by… Cerebus.

Which should make for an entertaining conversation or two, at the very least.

Sure, fabled magazine publisher Condé Nast has been forced to shutter magazines and trim its staff. But now you know things have really gotten dire: It’s cutting back on cars.

The New York Post’s Keith Kelly says that top Condé editors are eschewing the use of chauffeured autos to make their way across Manhattan and beyond.  Hailing a taxi or even–gasp–riding the subway are as symbolic as it gets at Condé, where the use of a car was considered a birthright, even for mid-level employees.

Alas, symbolism is unlikely to suffice at Condé, where CEO Chuck Townsend has already announced that the company will need to tighten its belt again this spring; Condé is reportedly gearing up for another round of layoffs.

Meanwhile, other New York publishers who never doled out that much largesse to begin with are probably going to make another round of cuts themselves this spring.

Condé Nast is “having the worst year of any publisher,” the New York Post reported last month. So the fact that that CEO Chuck Townsend sent out an all-hands memo entitled “Managing Through Challenging Times” must have certainly sent a shiver through the magazine empire this afternoon.

The good news: Nowhere in Townsend’s missive does he actually mention sackings, reorg or other personnel cuts. The bad news: Townsend warns employees that “all of us” will “have to make additional difficult decisions to manage costs and ensure our financial well-being.” But he doesn’t spell out what those are.

Condé started hacking at expenses last fall by shuttering some titles and making cuts of five percent or more at others. Meanwhile, it has refused to cut ad rates, even as competitors pick up some market share with lower-priced pages.

But while there’s constant chatter within Condé about other titles supposedly destined for the chopping block, we’ve yet to see anything materialize. Condé’s cuts are roughly proportional to the ones that Time Warner (TWX) magazine unit Time Inc. also went through last fall.

Just this week, a Condé executive told me that because individual publishers were cutting back on costs without a companywide edict, it was unlikely that the Condé publisher would need to make bigger cuts this spring.

I’ll update if I get more info.

Click to read Townsend’s complete memo:

From: Townsend, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 05:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Condé Nast Publications
Subject: Managing Through Challenging Times

I continue to believe that there are two things that make our Company truly unique, world-class brands and remarkable employees. This statement is even more true today as I watch how Condé Nast is managing through this challenging economy.

While advertising pages are down, Condé Nast is gaining critical ad revenue market share through the early part of 2009. Perhaps more importantly, our consumer connectivity, as measured in key circulation statistics, is particularly strong.

So, while our Company is not immune to the economic stress that has been experienced by the media community, we have made adjustments to secure our ongoing stability, just as each and every one of us has had to personally deal with the economic challenges we face.

Unavoidably, as the downturn extends, we have to make additional difficult decisions to manage costs and ensure our financial well-being. These decisions involve all of us. We’ll all have to do more with less and accept that some of the benefits and resources that were available to us in robust economic times will have to be scaled back–and revisited when the economy and our business recover lost ground.

The best course of action is for us to prudently and responsibly manage our business costs and expenses through these troubled waters, assuring us the opportunity to fully participate in the recovery that lies ahead. At that time, we will take great pride in what we accomplished.

I can only ask that you join me in these efforts to ensure the continued success of our great Company.

[Image credit: Malbonster]

Last week, we saw News Corp. (NWS) go through this exercise when it wrote off half the value of the $5.7 billion it spent on Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal. Now it’s Cablevision’s (CVC) turn: The Long Island-based cable company is taking a charge of up to $450 million for its hometown newspaper, Newsday, which it bought from Tribune for $650 million last summer.

That’s a write-off of up to 70 percent of the purchase price. News Corp. had also wanted Newsday–in part so it could consolidate its back-end operations with those of its New York Post–but bailed out after the price climbed above its $580 million bid. (News Corp. is the owner of this Web site.)

Boilerplate “sorry about that” language from Cablevision’s SEC filing: “These impairment charges reflect the continuing deterioration of values in the newspaper industry and the greater than anticipated economic downturn and its current and anticipated impact on the newspaper publishing group’s advertising business.”

Not included in the filing: “We probably should have realized something was up when Rupert Murdoch dropped out of the bidding. If Rupe says a paper’s too expensive, he’s probably on to something.”

No more. Greenfield has cut his recommendation on the company from a “Buy” to a “Sell.” His logic: “While we have long viewed Rupert Murdoch as the most visionary CEO in the media sector…we are increasingly surprised/frustrated with his lack of strategic direction related to News Corp’s television station, newspaper and book publishing assets.”

To tease that out, Greenfield sees News Corp. as two different businesses: There’s a group of “good” assets–its film studio, cable networks, MySpace, etc.–and a group of “bad” assets–its broadcast TV and newspaper units, including Dow Jones, which owns this site. (Uh-oh).

The analyst previously argued that the “bad” businesses would wither away without pulling down the rest of the company; now he worries that Murdoch, who isn’t known as a sentimentalist but is known for his love of newspapers, will prop up his money-losers for too long:

Our fear is that News Corp. is so committed to its existing businesses that it will be willing to sustain businesses that slip into negative profitability for years, (similar to its approach to the NY Post). We believe several of its TV stations are or will shortly be ‘in the red,’ with book publishing heading for losses, as well as a significant number of its Newspapers. In fact, on a reported operating income basis, Dow Jones will generate meaningful losses in its first full-year of News Corp. ownership following its $5.7 billion acquisition.”

So perhaps this will cheer up Greenfield, though it won’t be good for me or for my colleagues: Portfolio.com’s Jeff Bercovici is reporting that Dow Jones’s Wall Street Journal will be making newsroom cuts next week:

It’s unclear exactly how many employees will be affected, but two sources put the number of people being targeted at 50. (If, as seems likely, that is the number of people on the list to be offered buyouts, then the actual number of jobs eliminated could be substantially lower.) It’s also rumored that there will be parallel cuts at Dow Jones Newswires, and that one or more Journal bureaus may be eliminated as part of the cutbacks. A Dow Jones spokeswoman declined to comment.”

In another era, the move would have occasioned finger-wagging from a certain kind of journalistic moralizer. But I think that any moralizers left are busy job-hunting or thinking about new careers. And the Times certainly needs the cash.

But how much cash will this provide? Reuters’s excellent Robert MacMillan takes some preliminary guesstimates from the New York Post and does his own rough math. He figures the Times could pull in $28.6 million a year if it sells the inventory every day of the year. For comparison, that’s a little more than nine percent of the company’s November sales.

Very nice, especially given that this is essentially found money that the Times can count on as along it still has a sales staff and a print edition. But at this rate, that may not be long. Again: What took you so long?

New York Times, Nov. 7: “I was talking to a friend of mine who works in the industry. He’s very wise. I said, “What should I do next?” And he said, “Get out of journalism.” He’s probably right; he’s got a good read on things. But I probably wouldn’t do anything different.”

Time Out New York, Winter Bar Guide: On her dream job: “Writing for you, editing for you, preferably not recapping The Hills for you, but—who am I kidding—that’s totally negotiable.”

New York Post, Dec. 15: “Everything everyone is reading is doom and gloom, so there is a lot of anxiety about the job market,” she said. “There are positions out there–people still need editors, writers and reporters–but now, there is a surplus of very talented and qualified people looking for the same jobs.”

However Paige Ferrari generated the flood-the-zone coverage of herself, it has worked (sort of), says the Post. The paper reports that she has “has landed a part-time gig as a Web editor:

Since negotiations haven’t been finalized, she’s keeping mum on the details. But she did say it’s a Web site that covers pop culture.

‘It’s great for me,’ said Ferrari, 26, who lives in the East Village. ‘It’s part-time, so it gives me the flexibility to freelance, choose my own projects and make my own schedule.’”

More power to her. Let’s hope that other well-publicized unemployed media people have similar luck–and that not too many more of us join their ranks.

Thanks Jeff Bercovici, one of the last men standing at Portfolio.com, for pointing this one out.

[Image Credit: New York Post]