Nice analysis, but fundamentally flawed.
At the heart of any good newspaper is the quality of its journalism. The problems you have described above are not unique to the SHit Times. The WSJ, London Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. all face the same problems. The difference is that those newspapers have good journalists and people will pay to read them. Also, the way they now deliver the news to subscribers (digitally, social media, etc.) is a way that they use to offset the lost in revenue from their printed media sources. When you google a news topic, you can find reports from many newspapers on the topic. U can read different articles on the same topic from different media outlets. They can get revenue when you click on their article. No one reads the shit times because they are not good and provide no insights at all. U get a better grasp coming here to Sammyboy. The amazing thing is that all those world wide reputable papers I have mentioned compete with other news papers in their market for business. And yet, they are surviving. Whereas, SHit Times which has a monopoly still cannot make any money or has declining revenues, that is astounding. I mean if you are a big store like Ikea, you have no choice but to place yoru advertisement money with Shit times or one of its subsidiaries. The answer is that you do not have newpaper men nor real business men running the paper. hence you have losses. Same for NOL. Same for temasek.