The NYT and The Athletic

It's a totally different environment. Before the NYT bought it, they were in a low-interest rate environment that had venture capital flowing for more than a decade, so the founders of the company were able to raise a ton of money very easily (I'd say way too easily).

They were losing money, but they could rationalize it as, "We are building something and creating growth." Their ability to raise money was running out around the time they finally sold themselves. I think they sold at the very, very end of their window of opportunity to do it (so good on the founders for getting out). Things that have lived on venture capital and borrowed money, losing that money, but still fetching sky-high valuations. ... that just isn't happening now. The party ended. I think the Athletic is probably more viable (and much smaller in scope), but compare its fate to Buzzfeed recently, for example. If the NYT hadn't bought it. ... it would very likely be facing bankruptcy. Instead, the NYT gives it a lifeline, because of its ability to sustain some losses and supplement it (perhaps because they don't want to admit a mistake).

Regardless, just before the party effectively ended. ... the NYT paid a lot of money for the Athletic, and thought it had a strategy for integrating it into a bundle of other things it offers to make it accretive to the bottom line.

It's a completely different environment and situation now. It isn't in fantasyland anymore, living off millions of dollars of venture capital money (with the prospect of being able to even raise more) while losing money. That money without regard to value doesn't exist now. It's now owned by someone who feels pain if it sustains endless losses.