That’s true now because they sold their headquarters. But in fact they earned more from that sale than they had in many prior years of operations combined. So the essence of the comment was spot on in the case of the NYT.
Wouldn't that be kind of like saying that I'm a real estate baron instead of a Software Developer, because I own a house that is worth many years of my salary as a software developer combined?
I haven't looked at the NYT balance sheets at all recently, so it's possible that I'm off the mark here, but a one time sale of a headquarters does not make them a real-estate company in my mind. To do that, you would need to demonstrate to me that they are regularly engaging in the transaction of property and buildings, instead of a one time sale.
