This is the New York Times we are talking about, a company that got blindsided by the internet and social media. NYT is firing editors and renting out office space to stay solvent, it makes sense they would write this article
Can you think of any major old media company that didn't take it in the pants over the internet? I'd argue that there is something to be said for the ones that managed to survive at all.
SiriusXM (27 years old) is financially the only music subscription service that is thriving in terms of printing cash. Not only did they not take it in the pants due to to the rise of the Internet, their fortunes have radically improved over the last 15 years and they've perpetually added to their subscriber base. While Pandora and Spotify bleed red ink by the barrel, Sirius earned $800m in the last four quarters (with $1.5b in operating income).
Fox and its various properties transitioned just fine and have had several record profit years in the last five years. The stock of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. has been hovering near all-time highs (its stock history going back to 1989) the last three years, and that's after spinning off the smaller Newscorp.
Disney has thrived big time in the Internet era. They're far larger than they used to be. Their market cap is five times larger than it was in 1995 (and that's with a modest 17 PE ratio).
CBS Corp's stock is near an all-time high (spun off in 2005) and their sales are as well.
Thomson Reuters is doing just fine in the Internet era. They didn't take it in the pants at all. They're a century old media company (156 years for Reuters, 83 for Thomson), whose stock is at all-time highs, and their operational condition is strong. They're presently worth 10x what the New York Times is.