Skip to comments.
Embattled dynasty comes out fighting after predators attack New York Times
Guardian Unlimited ^
| December 10, 2006
| The Observer
Posted on 12/09/2006 5:48:50 PM PST by mdittmar
Beset by calls for reform from angry shareholders and a dismal stock price on Wall Street, the beleaguered New York Times Company began to fight back last week, saying it had 'no intention' of dismantling an ownership system that gives the Ochs-Sulzberger family absolute power over the media giant.
For the past century, the family has controlled the company but sharks are circling as the paper struggles to adjust to the internet and achieve market value commensurate with its place as one the world's most influential newspapers.
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.guardian.co.uk ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4thestate5thcolumn; biasmeanslayoffs; deadtreemedia; reutersap; trysellingthetruth
...the paper's managing editor, Bill Keller, struck back. "At a time when serious journalism is being downsized and hollowed out - when most papers don't have a correspondent in all of Iraq,"
We all know that reuters has only 7 non "Iraqi" journalists in all of Iraq.
So just who are these "journalists" that get their headlines splashed across every U.S. newspaper?
posted on 12/09/2006 5:48:51 PM PST
My headline would be "Suckers Tired of Watching Their Investment in NYT Turn to Shit"
My headline: "Irrelevant Business Slowly Destroys Self"
posted on 12/09/2006 5:52:48 PM PST
(Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
And as much as they may like to bash it, few really want to see the paper in the maw of voracious hedge fund managers.
I agree. I want to see the The New York Times in a graveyard.
the paper struggles to adjust to the internet and achieve market value commensurate with its place as one the world's most influential newspapers.
Try to understand this: it isn't "the internet" that is destroying the New York Times. It is the New York Times. And it is no longer one of the world's most influential newspapers. Not in an era when truth is readily available with a mouse click.
THAT is what the Times -- and so many of its fellow travelers -- is having trouble adjusting to.
posted on 12/09/2006 5:54:37 PM PST
I bought NYT recently so I could vote against the bstrds who run it.
Little did I know I could not vote.
The leftists who run it are in the cross hairs of many, however, for varying reasons.
Meanwhile, I'll collect some dividends and wait my turn.
posted on 12/09/2006 5:54:52 PM PST
It's beautiful to watch as this "once stellar" toilet paper manufacturer dies a slow, maggot filled death.
posted on 12/09/2006 5:55:40 PM PST
(doot...doot...video killed the radio star...doot...doot...)
Perhaps the moonies could buy the NYT and actually make money while running it?
Eventually the NYT will reach a level of "hardcore readership" that likes slanted coverage and being lied to by these folks.
I will say that there has never been a better time try to start a conservative straight reporting newspaper, the country needs it and there is a market.
posted on 12/09/2006 6:06:27 PM PST
(We are surrounded, that simplifies our problem Chesty Puller)
Are all shares non-voting shares? What's the point of ownership?
posted on 12/09/2006 6:16:54 PM PST
(From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
Bin Laden will use his millions and bail his US propaganda arm out.
posted on 12/09/2006 6:22:43 PM PST
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
This reminds me of a smoker who is told they have lung cancer, but defiantly refuse to blame cigarettes or quit smoking.And I AM a smoker who knows better.
posted on 12/09/2006 6:27:49 PM PST
(Islam is to Western Civilization what ticks are to a dog.)
"achieve market value commensurate with its place as one the world's most influential newspapers."
That's the problem. Sulzberger's actions are making it a less influential newspaper.
I hope the NYT continues its slide towards oblivion.
posted on 12/09/2006 6:53:51 PM PST
(Everybody was kung-fu fighting)
Insiders like Pinch and Keller are the predators, sucking the life blood out of the NY Times, while the "little people" get laid off and underpaid.
posted on 12/09/2006 7:12:06 PM PST
by Doctor Raoul
(Why is the Viagra car in NASCAR a Ford and not a Stretch Limo?)
what i love about the hypocritical ochs/schulzburgers is that they insist that every OTHER institution should be run democratically, while they run their own propaganda empire as a family autocracy!!
i think they should have to give one tenth of the VOTING stock to each of the historically under-represented groups: e.g., palenstinian terrorists, african-anericans, southron good ol boys, army wives, long island republicans, and all the rest of us who have been excluded from their elitist, racist, and patriarchal empire.
we MUST speak truth to power !!!!
posted on 12/09/2006 7:48:05 PM PST
Time magazine headline, Sulzberger--Will He Listen?
posted on 12/09/2006 8:20:02 PM PST
(They are not killers. Defend our Marines.)
'The Sulzbergers have all the power and, much as one might like to mock Arthur Jr, and much as he may have made some stupid decisions, they're not going to let anyone else buy it.'
Well, this is true. They'll just let him ruin it. Then, there won't be anything left to sell, and they'll all be penniless. Which suits me just fine.
posted on 12/09/2006 9:52:55 PM PST
(Air America: Robbing the poor, and still unable to stay in business)
posted on 12/09/2006 9:57:37 PM PST
(Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
Propaganda is boring!
Truth is fascinating!
posted on 12/09/2006 10:18:23 PM PST
by Savage Beast
("Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly.")
Short it or buy Puts.
I don't if the stock can be borrowed, though.
posted on 12/10/2006 1:50:25 PM PST
(long time lurker)
"As things stand, no amount of stock could give Greenberg control of the firm as a second class of stock concentrates voting power in the hands of the family, descendants of Adolph S Ochs, who purchased the paper in 1896. It is a change the Sulzbergers continue to rule out.
"chief executive Janet Robinson ... was pleased the Times had a dual class structure 'designed to protect these institutions in times of stress'."
What arrogant princes and princesses they all are! What elitist, ossified dinosaurs they are!
With their "ruling families" and "dual class structure" and "concentrating power in family hands" and "protecting these institutions", these people sound like the French aristocracy just before you-know-what happened. These liberals sound positively backward--by their own definition of the term.
I hope the Shareholder Gangs of New York eat them.
It is my understanding that the Ochs/Sulzburger family interest control the voting shares as in class A, and the "buy in " class B shareholders are screwed.
I saw a statement in an investment letter from someone at the NYT, and they want to protect "journalism from outside interests" taking control of their effetist, leftist, cocktail party friends.
May God Bless America.
posted on 12/10/2006 4:32:08 PM PST
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson