TIMES IN CRISIS; SEEKS EXPERT HELP WITH SHAREHOLDER REVOLT (Jayson Blair, Judith Miller scandals fal

NY POST ^ | April 27, 2006 | JANET WHITMAN

[Liz]

Facing shareholder dissent and getting flak for bloated executive pay deals, The New York Times is frantically searching for crisis p.r. experts as the company gears up for a public battle over the future of the newspaper giant.

Chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. and other top management have been criticized for putting off the concerns of Morgan Stanley portfolio manager Hassan Elmasry and for a share price that's plummeted 50 percent since 2002.

Soon after Morgan's attack last week on The Times, the publisher's spokeswoman, Catherine Mathis, was phoning Knight Ridder spokesman Polk Laffoon seeking advice, sources familiar with the matter said.

In addition to fallout from the Jayson Blair scandal and Judith Miller's controversial imprisonment, The Times' business has been suffering.

The paper lost nearly 20 percent of its readers in the five boroughs between 2001 and 2004, as it pushed to reinvent itself as a national publication. Its daily circulation in New York City fell to 260,526 copies from 320,682.

Despite the sagging stock performance and job cuts across the company, Sulzberger and CEO Janet Robinson were awarded hefty payouts. Robinson's 2005 restricted stock award jumped nearly fivefold from a year earlier to roughly $2 million. Sulzberger's stock award nearly doubled to $817,500.

Morgan Stanley's investment arm, a longtime shareholder of The Times with a 5 percent stake, blasted management for the executive compensation and for failing to address the company's woeful stock price. It also called for an end to The Times' two-tier stock system, which it said "fosters a lack of accountability."

[DustyMoment]

TIMES IN CRISIS; SEEKS EXPERT HELP WITH SHAREHOLDER

Here's a thought - the Times might be doing better if they tried practicing honest, responsible journalism instead of agenda-driven tripe that pushes the leftist point-of-view.

[bkepley]

Sulzberger must be a pretty dim bulb anyway to think that the NYT can go national with a paper that reflects only New York thinking. They don't know squat about "fly over country".

[Salvey]

The good news just keeps pouring in.

[Quick Shot]

You have a good point. Would honestly love to see an interview of Sulzberger giving his impression of the mid-western hicks, and southern rednecks. His bigotry would be quite revealing.

[razorback-bert]

The Old Grey Mare ain't what she used to be.

[Liz]

That will come as a "big surprise" to these types.

[mo]

What the heck else could anybody expect form serial journalistic malpractitioners?!!!!

[Socratic]

They are trying to get us Midwestern hicks to subscribe. Three times in the last three months the NYT has phoned to ask if I would like to subscribe to their rancid rag. I have declined and gave reasons for my decision. The poor telemarketers seem so dejected. They must be having a rough time making this sell.

[FreedomPoster]

I get the direct mail offers here in ATL. I've got an empty return mail envelope in my outbox right now. I'm on "Do Not Call", so I guess that's why I don't get the opportunity to tease their telemarketers.

[auboy]

NYT in a pinch. Who'da thunk it?

[JohnLongIsland]

pinch is doing a great job leading the slimes to its proper place down the gutter, give the man a raise.

[mkjessup]

"I stand ready to come to the assistance of the New York Times, bringing with me all of my many years of experience in dealing with the media, and as you can see, I don't always have to wear camouflage clothing, I think I clean up pretty good, eh? Like this Armani suit? Who says there isn't life after Saddam? LOL!"

[SauronOfMordor]

It also called for an end to The Times' two-tier stock system, which it said "fosters a lack of accountability."

What idiot buys stock in a company where the marketed stock does not allow any control over the company? (Th Sulzberger-family-owned class of stock controls the board of directors).

Same deal with the long-term prospects of people who bought google stock

[Jhensy]

I still look at it from time to time (we have copies at my office), and one thing I've recently noticed is they often don't even bother putting opposing viewpoints on topics in their Letters to the Editor section anymore.

If the topic is, say, global warming, you get six letters all toeing the party line that it's real, undebatable, absolute fact unopen to questioning. No dissenting views, although millions and millions of US citizens cast the proper critical eye to it. Same with Iraq, Katrina, whatever the hot button issue.

Look, the Times was always liberal, but they at least did the right thing in terms of balance so they could be considered the "paper of record". They just don't care anymore apparently. To not put an opposing viewpoint on a topic in the letter section is unbelievably petty and childish (and way out of line with their tradition). It's also fatal to their reputation.

We are seeing the results of that.

[Puddleglum]

Oh, shadenfreude!

[wolfcreek]

The only thing that's gonna save NYT and other Liberal rags is a big ol' dose of 'Fair and Balanced' reporting.

[appeal2]

Or Al Qaeda

[Mo1]

Hey New York Times ... was it worth it ?

[Graymatter]

"Knight Ridder spokesman Polk Laffoon..." That is some name.

Doesn't quite rise to Dickensian level, though. I'm seeing Bugs, Daffy, Foghorn Leghorn, and the rest of the Looney Tunes crew.

[TheForceOfOne]

The easy way out of this problem for the NY Times is to simply change its attitude and present the news in an evenly balanced manner and saving all opinions to the Op-Ed section.

All too often the NY Times mixes political opinion with the news and skews the facts. They also beat the drum too loud and too often on issues they believe will hurt the president or the war on terrorism which plays badly on the American public, who unlike the days of Vietnam, now have an alternative media aka the new media as a method to filter the news presented by the MSM in order to get at the truth of what is really happening.

We lost the Vietnam War based on public opinion shaped by the MSM, which was and still is antiwar under any circumstance, even if it means the safety and future of America, as we know it today. They all to often, with or without knowledge of the affects of their biased reporting, lend aid and comfort to our enemies which should be noted in some part as responsible for more military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan because our enemies repeat the words of our Liberal media and use it as a moral boost to stay and fight another day.

The paper wears its Liberalism on its sleeve, which does not play well to a nation turning conservative after decades of a MSM monopoly less the Internet/24/7 instant media.

Another issue or problem for the NY Times or any other print newspaper is the evolution of technology and electronic devices accessible to a nation on the move with less time to sit and read a paper. The convenience of obtaining news 24/7 almost anywhere at anytime will continue the decline of "static" print media, which is dated and rehashed repeatedly before the paper has the ability to delivery the information to its customers.

We are getting close to a time when we can watch any show on TV whenever we want, from the point of live viewing or repeat at our own discretion. We have TIVO, but soon it too will become outdated with new technology. Cable TV viewers are close to a time when we can choose just the channels we wish on our cable bill. We may reach a point when we only pay for viewing time by the minute per channel viewed.

Those media outlets with the foresight to see how the market is reacting and where technology is heading will end up ahead of the curve and in front of the market. The NY Times and other print media need to focus on the product presented to the public, in a way which will appeal to the broadest audience possible. If the can do this in the Internet age they will survive, otherwise they will remain the unwanted dinosaurs of yesteryear out of touch and soon out of circulation. IMHO