Why the glum share story for newspapers? - Times Online :

Something is not right here. You can buy Johnston shares today at eight times this year’s profits on a business that requires minimal capital investment with monopoly brands dotted all around the country. Nor is Johnston exceptional. If you like the Daily Mail, you can buy one of the bits that Viscount Rothermere does not own for ten times this year’s profits; the Daily Mirror, and its parent company, are available at eight times too.

This is cheap, ludicrously cheap. We all know what the Barclay twins paid for The Daily Telegraph; £665 million for a paper that made underlying profits of £30 million to £40 million. Valued on the same basis as Johnston Press (ie, after tax), it would have been more like £160 million - and the difference cannot be accounted for simply because the bragging rights in owning the Telegraph (dinner with the Queen, if desired) are greater than for The Scotsman.

Interesting context from the Times (disclaimer: the Times is a newspaper!). There is still a *lot* of money being made in British newspapers. So why the endless waves of negativity? Personally, I think this piece does overdo it on the positive side, but there does seem to be a stereotypically British story in here - one in which businesses decline, a lot of people shrug, a lot more people weep, and a very small number of people make a great deal of money. Richard Desmond paid £125 million for the Express; he has paid himself £166 million in the last four years, according to this Times piece. Nice work if you can get it.