TheStreet.com media critic Marek Fuchs wonders why business journalists have continued to give Kodak positive coverage despite its problems.
“The headlines set my shutter speed aflutter, but then I actually read the earnings report. Hardly anyone highlighted the fact that the one-time sale of a health-care division contributed greatly to results. That digital victory? Ehh. Digital sales were up 3%, which is nothing to dismiss, but nothing that is going to save a giant, troubled company that is getting by at this point on a wing, prayer and cost cuts.
“Then came Thursday, a day that brought more evidence of Kodak’s overly favorable standing in the eyes of the business media. Any big, fatty operation like Kodak can cut costs for a long time. But you are almost never going to see evidence of a decisive, lasting comeback until revenue starts moving. That’s because, while you can cut jobs and much else for a long time, you can’t do it forever. At some point, you need revenue to rise. And if revenue stays stagnant, profitability tends to be fleeting.”
Read more here.Â
The Fund for American Studies presented James Bennet of The Economist with the Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award…
The Wall Street Journal is experimenting with AI-generated article summaries that appear at the top…
Zach Cohen is joining Bloomberg Tax to cover the fiscal cliff and tax issues on…
Larry Avila has been named interim editor for Automotive Dive, an Industry Dive publication. He…
Reuters is seeking an experienced editor to take part in our fact-checking project and support the…
CNBC Make It reporter Ashton Jackson writes about ways to make financial news more accessible to consumers.…