Select Page

The first joint venture agreement was signed on February 20, 1933 between the Albuquerque Tribune (then New Mexico State Tribune) and the Albuquerque Journal of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Their correspondence became typical of the type – both papers were printed on the same printing machines at different times of the day. Sales of classified ads have been consolidated, as have commercial agents. A common unit for the exercise of these functions has been created, represented on an equal footing in both documents within its Management Board. The news coverage and editorial staff remained completely separate, although they were under the same roof in different parts of the same building. AND CONSIDERING that the company wishes to use advertising agents to secure the ads for the said newspaper. Similar agreements allowed most medium-sized cities in the United States to have two daily newspapers until recently. The number of joint venture agreements and the number of dailies published in the evening have been increased in recent years due to the continued consolidation of the press sector as a whole and the decline in readership and interest, in particular, in evening newspapers, attributed by many observers to television and the Internet, the first of which seems to be reinforced by the presence of several messages 24 hours a day in cable television, has decreased considerably. So far, there have been 28 joint operating agreements. The Chattanooga Times and the Chattanooga News-Free Press joint venture agreement were the first to be terminated on August 27, 1966.

[1] [2] In a stage conceived as a hug to the “convergence” of newspaper, radio, television and the Internet, NAC intends to change its name to “Media One”, thus freeing itself from the idea that it is devoted exclusively to the production of newspapers. However, the confusion that has been picked up by the NAC persists among most advertisers and subscribers. The Newspaper Retention Act was presented as a discharge measure to allow several competing newspapers in the same market to reduce costs and thus ensure that no newspaper could dominate the market by expelling the others. However, there is growing evidence that the passage of the law was intended less to protect the editorial diversity of community newspaper markets than to inflate the profit margins of national newspaper chains. [3] By silently and informally adopting certain cartel behaviours, large newspaper chains could make artificially high profits while crowding out independent newspapers (or forcing them to sell their share to a channel). [3] Note that many of the documents listed in the following sections have the same few groups of owners. . . .