Print may be under siege, but at least there's no shortage of voices about how to cope -- or not -- with a challenge characterized as "unlike any we've seen before." Last week alone, we heard three: the institutional, the sensible and the comical.

The institutional voice comes from Time Inc. Or, specifically, from CEO Ann Moore, as expressed in a memo about layoffs that doesn't even mention layoffs. That's institutional speak for you.

But the memo does address the challenge referenced in this column's opening sentence. ("Unlike any we've seen before" is attributable to her.) And it stresses how important it is that "we at Time Inc. react quickly to this new reality in order to maintain our financial strength."

Not addressed, unfortunately, is why. Moore can't possibly be speaking about maintaining financial strength from the perspective of a shareholder who qualified as long-suffering long before the stock of parent company Time Warner Inc. dropped another 44% in the past 52 weeks. She's even a bit suspect as a division head: Publishing revenue fell 6% in the most recent quarter, while operating income dropped 15%.

Indeed, if Moore really wants her staff to "build our market position, and sharpen our ability to bounce back at the first signs of economic recovery," then why change anything at all? Why not let the staff get better at their jobs during what institutional speak might term the economic pre-recovery? (It's not as if the market's going to inflict additional punishment on Time Warner because of Time Inc.'s torpidity.) The reason, again, is that darn challenge. It forced Moore to conclude that "it is no longer possible to operate our company with the same decentralized management structure that served us so well during our many years of sustained growth." So the centralization begins, with Time Inc.'s 24 U.S. magazines being grouped into "three business units." Each consolidates titles that overlap in terms of audiences, advertisers and -- here it comes -- "the talents and skills of their staffs." But why get so gloomy about downsizing when Moore goes on to assure her troops, including the 600 about to lose their jobs: "Our cash flow is strong." It's credibility that's weak.

Sensible is The New York Times, which may be the first major newspaper to see a light at the end of the tunnel that doesn't belong to an oncoming train. It belongs, rather, to "business verticals," which executive editor Bill Keller praises in The New York Observer. "We've gotten money budgeted to invest in business verticals on the Web site this year -- economics, green business, small business, expanded technology," he says. "Over the past few years, when other newsrooms have been brutally downsizing, we have dominated this story with the best reporting team in journalism."

That may be a stretch, but Keller's editorial pride isn't completely inconsistent with editorial profit. Martin Nisenholtz, the New York Times Co.'s senior vice president of digital operations, used the most recent earnings conference to distinguish between "vertically oriented" and "general news" inventory.

On the Web, he said, vertical "is worth a lot more" and is commanding "mid-single digit increases" from online advertisers on a cost-per-thousand basis. General news, in contrast, anchors "the remnant side at NYTimes.com."

Finally, there's Tribune Co. chief innovation officer Lee Abrams, who continues to demonstrate that for a newspaper savior, he's a pretty good radio man. Last week's "Think Piece," which Abrams penned after visiting the Trib's Florida papers, adds plenty to his comical canon.

Consider such nuggets:

• "Drive readership by super-focusing on a 'hot' theme. It's an old radio trick. Want to force listening? Do a 'Beatles Week.' "
  
• "Print a classic front page from the past. ... How about a page from JFK/Nixon race." Right, that'll perk up the "A.D.D. generation" Abrams seems so intent on engaging.
  
• And let's not overlook: "Headlines of the World. ... What does Pravda say about our economy? These are compelling and amazing." Besides, it's a lot cheaper to rip off ever-objective Pravda than to staff a Moscow bureau.
  
• Oh, yeah: "Star everything."

After being posted on Poynter Online, Abrams' 1,500-word directive elicited many responses. But the one from "Gail" is particularly poignant: "Reverse publishing? Clever headlines? Dude, some of us were doing that. Then we got shitcanned."

Richard Morgan covers media for The Deal.