Posted on 01/08/2009 8:26:10 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Virtually all the predictions about the death of old media have assumed a comfortingly long time frame for the end of print . . . But what if the old media dies much more quickly? What if a hurricane comes along and obliterates the dunes entirely? Specifically, what if The New York Times goes out of business—like, this May? It’s certainly plausible. -- End Times, by Michael Hirschorn, The Atlantic, January/February 2009 [emphasis added]
The prospect of the disappearance of the New York Times within a matter of months will bring wildly varying reactions in different quarters. Those gleefully anticipating its demise should know that Hirschorn goes on to conclude that the odds of the paper going away in May are "relatively slim." He anticipates a number of scenarios that would permit the paper to survive, including:
* sale of its share of its $600 million HQ, designed by the prestigious Renzo Piano * sale of its ownership interest in the Boston Globe and/or other subsidiaries including About.com and the Boston Red Sox. * sale of the paper outright to potential buyers such as David Geffen, Michael Bloomberg, Carlos Slim or even . . . Rupert Murdoch.
Still, Hirschorn doesn't entirely discount the possibility that the Times could actually go bye-bye. As he observes [emphasis added]:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
If true, I’d like to have a party.
Seriously.
My bet is someone appears by the end of Feb...offers ten cents on the dollar...and NYT is taken over by some guy from the Middle East (a Saudi). The staff lingers for six months trying to figure out what happens next.
A shutdown of the NYT is unlikely.
A more probable scenario is a managed bankruptcy if they are unable to renegotiate the terms of their debt.
The more exciting possibility is that Murdoch will be able buy the NYT at a fire sale price by making an attractive offer to the do-nothing heirs of the Sulzberger family.
Part of the problem with the NYT’s finances involves the outrageously high payments made to these heirs by the legendarily incompetent “Pinch” Sulberger.
“Pinch” has been able to retain control of the NYT by making ridiculously high payouts to the Sulzberger hiers. Murdoch has the assets available to overturn the two-tier share structure of the NYT by bypassing management and amking an offer directly to the Sulzberger heirs.
Watch for special marketing pushes touting discounts for bigger or longer term ads buys and subscriptions. That is usually the last gasp.
The Murdoch who supported Hillary?
FYI
I don’t know about Murdoch’s support of Hillary but I do know that every time that Murdoch has taken over a major paper he has steered in the direction of a Center-Right editorial policy.
When Murdoch took over the NY Post he transformed it from populist, left-wing rag that was bleeding circulation into the only conservative voice in the N.Y. media market (R.I.P. the sorely missed NY Sun). The same pattern was seen in acquisitions made in the UK and Australia.
Murdoch would undoubtedly see the lopsided editorial drift at the NYT as a huge business opportunity and he would orchestrate a hard right turn for the “paper of record”.
Center-Right = RINO
I pledge to immediately buy a one year, seven day a week, subscription if Murdoch buys out the current regime.
MoDo out. Andrea Peyser in.
Tom Freidman out. Sean Delonas in.
Wouldn’t it be wild if the NY Times became the leading conservative paper in the country?
Who would Katie and Company get their marching orders from then?
Excerpt:
On June 5, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, gave her presidential bid $2,300. A few weeks later, his son, James R. Murdoch, chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in London, gave $3,400. Altogether, NewsCorp/Fox executives gave at least $40,000 to the Clinton campaign.
In July 2006, the elder Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton’s Senate re-election campaign, raising many eyebrows among Democrats. The Financial Times, which first disclosed the event, noted that Murdoch was a part of the “vast right wing conspiracy” named by Hillary Clinton as determined to destroy her husband’s presidency.
She explained her willingness then to accept Murdoch’s support to the FT: “He’s my constituent and I’m very gratified that he thinks I’m doing a good job.”
The NYT leaked several national security-related new stories that have greatly impeded the the War on Terror. The NYT should have been prosecuted by the DOJ for high treason.
Murdoch ownership of the NYT would be the equivalent of an earthquake in the media world. The caterwauling of the NYT Editorial Board would be heard all the way to New Jersey if it were to happen.
Murdoch has always been somewhat cynical in his political support. I don’t like or support Hillary but the Republican challenger was so weak he had almost no chance of winning. While Murdoch’s behavior was not admirable in this case it is least understandable. The Federal Government has so much power over the media business through the FCC it would be imprudent for someone like Murdoch who has so many media properties not to have access to policy makers.
The big picture is that the media landscape in the U.S. would be altered in a massive and a good way if Murdoch took over the NYT. Thousands of newspapers and electronic media outlets take their editorial cue from the NYT. A profound rightward shift in the editorial policy of the NYT would effect in a good way the entire national media fabric.
That is beyond naive. You must not have heard the alarm go off. Obama has already been elected. Fox News joined in the false reporting. Murdoch is at one with the corruption.
“The press is the only tocsin of a nation. [When it] is completely silenced … all means of a general effort are taken away.”
- Thomas Jefferson
The Murdoch tocsin responds to money and power, not truth.
Their day can’t come soon enough for me. Music to read this thread by...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhIOWQhP0o0&feature=related
You are right.
Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, and Rahm Emmanuel are all in a room plotting how to stick it to the Conservative Movement.
Please.
Don’t forget your tin foil hat.
Same old “you’re a conspiracy nut” accusations to divert attention from the truth.
Those fellows are about getting and staying rich. The truth means nothing to them.
“Those fellows are about getting and staying rich.....”
I should not be a crime in this country to make money so that argument is vacuous. Do you work for free?
If you are unable to rationally distinguish the editorial content of Fox News versus the NY Times I truly feel sorry for you. During the election Fox News was the only MSM outlet that gave substantial coverage to the Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers scandals. The NYT, by contrast, acted as a de facto propaganda organ of the Obama campaign.
This conspiratorial mindset that has infected some parts of Conservative movement will consign Conservatives to the political wilderness for many years to come. When managing a political coalition the single mandate is to reward your friends and punish your enemies. Preeminent to the successful implementation of this mandate is the ability to recognize who your friends are.
A NYT under Murdoch’s management would be a great improvement but for the mere fact of no longer having to contend with magnification of every Conservative scandal and misstep. As much as Conservatives rightfully deprecate the NYT it is very important media outlet. The NYT sets the editorial tone for about 80% of the MSM. To move such an important outlet to a position of mere political neutrality would be a huge step forward.
Yeah, and traditional values will do the same. And don't forget Ann Colter (how embarrassing). And John Hagee, ick, don't speak of Christians...
Getting rich by spreading "fair and balanced" instead of "true and factual" is nothing to be proud of. Murdoch has created his own Fairness Doctrine to keep the federal government off his back. That's not the free press Thomas Jefferson valued.
If you are unable to rationally distinguish the editorial content of Fox News versus the NY Times I truly feel sorry for you.
The only difference between the editorial content of Fox News and the NYT is that Fox doesn't hate America. That's how Murdoch has gotten his grateful audience - then he serves up that same old liberal propaganda with raped and murdered women thrown into the arena for the masses.
I should not be a crime in this country to make money so that argument is vacuous. Do you work for free?
I never said anything negative about getting rich in America. I said that is all Murdoch and the others care about. They prostitute themselves for their riches.
Disclaimer: 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.