The New York Times is an arch liberal newspaper that operates on a 19th century business model. It provides wall to wall leftist opinions dressed up as news.
This is a recipe for disaster in today’s world.
The blogosphere does a far better job at reporting news than daily newspapers.
And in a world in which radical Islam is a clear and present danger to western civilization, the editorial slant of the New York Times is simply not rooted to reality.
One of the most wretched writers on staff, Israeli correspondent Steven Erlanger, is a disgrace to the profession. His dispatches are nothing more than propaganda for Hamas. That the editors of the New York Times allow a jihad apologist to continue in such an important post is symptomatic of an organization that has not the least notion of what constitutes decent journalism.
Pinch Sulzberger and his family rule over the New York Times like medieval lords. And like medieval lords they are doomed by the march of free enterprise and free thought.
Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest shareholder in New York Times Co., sold its entire stake today, according to a person briefed on the transaction, sending the stock to its lowest in more than 10 years.
Click here to go to Seraphic Friend Dirty Harry’s Place.
Ariel Chaim Avrech, ZT'L, May His Righteous Memory be a Blessing.
12 Comments
Kishke:
Various corporations do support certain causes because it’s good PR. But when it cuts into profits, well, all bets are off.
I do not believe the shareholders of the NY Times are happy with the red ink in which the corp. is swimming. That’s not why people become shareholders. They do it, well, to make money.
It’s also not just a question of ideological leanings, it’s response to the internet, to bloggers, to the new media. The NY Times and their management style are, as I said, medieval.
Too, they rely on a business model which is out-moded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s a lot that goes on in big business that’s about ideology over profits, from the causes a corporation chooses to support to the slant it puts on news (in the case of media companies). So long as it’s public knowledge, the shareholders have no cause to complain. The Times’s leanings are certainly public knowledge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kishke:
I don’t think it’s fine. And I’m sure their stockholders don’t think so either. The New York Times are presumably a business. They are supposed to make a profit. Just like Air America has failed miserably because of their leftist ideology, so too the NY Times is failing.
Sick businesses can and should be fixed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David and Robert,
while i agree with you, that it appears to be ‘business’,
consider,
especially in light of Robert’s latest post about Islamic directed financial pressure,
and some bio about Elmasry:
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=-267796
he is affiliated with Human Rights Watch,
and it might be interesting to know, if any of his portfolios or financial advice advocate investment in those companies that boycott Israel
i don’t know
i have no love for the NYT,
and, again, am not displeased that their stock is decreasing,
am just ‘wary’ if Elmasry might have had some other not-strictly-business long range goals for the NYT …
(fwiw,
i would much rather be wrong about this and have you both be right …)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They put ideology above profits.
As does any true believer. Which is fine. The problem is their particular warped ideology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exdem:
With all due respect, I’m with David. My understanding is that Morgan Stanley wanted to break down the firewall of A & B shareholders so the company could be restructured to be profitable.
It’s business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David:
In today’s NY Times article about this whole flap, the NY Times writer closes his piece saying that the Sulzbergers have won the fight by “putting journalism above profits.”
This is a lie.
They put ideology above profits.
Much like Communists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kishke:
You’re right. Thanks for the correction.
Except when it comes to sports scores, the internet beats daily papers by a mile!
Note: the blogosphere provides important corrections to the MSM. Witness the reevaluation of the Al Durrah affair, driven entirely by the blogosphere.
And we don’t let the wretched Erlanger get away with anything. It makes a difference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
exdemexlib….I don’t understand. Why are you assuming that there was anyting wrong in Elmasry’s challenge to NYT management? Elmasry has a responsibility to *his* investors, and has both the right and the duty to challenge management of companies in which is invested if he believes that they are not cutting it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
” … Pinch Sulzberger and his family rule over the New York Times like medieval lords. And like medieval lords they are doomed by the march of free enterprise and free thought.
]
Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest shareholder in New York Times Co., sold its entire stake today, according to a person briefed on the transaction, sending the stock to its lowest in more than 10 years. …”
while i absolutely detest the NYT, and nothing would make me happier than it closing its doors forever,
[except maybe a hostile takeover by Hamodia
i think something was missed here,
check this story on the Bloomberg financial site:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY9iww4X.01g
=====[ begin quote ]=====
Hassan Elmasry, managing director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, unsuccessfully challenged the Sulzberger family’s control of New York Times Co. through super-voting stock that gives them a board majority. Shareholders owning 42 percent of the company, parent of the namesake newspaper and Boston Globe, withheld support for directors at the publisher’s April annual meeting.
“This guy has been speaking for a lot of people who are too discreet to speak up and challenge management,” said Porter Bibb, a managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC in New York and a former New York Times Co. executive.
=====[ end quote ]=====
the Sulzberger family appears to have stood up to pressure to Elmasry’s demands,
i don’t know the details of Elmasry’s ultimatum to the NYT,
but i doubt that it included making it a more balanced and truthful paper …
the Sulzberger family needs to do Teshuva,
(as we all need to,
a point we should remember when we pass judgement),
but i think they were on the ‘good’ side on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am not a lawyer, but am pretty sure that the executive management of a company has a fiduciary responsibility to *all* of their shareholders, not only to those of a class with special voting privileges. Sooner or later, the question is going to be asked: are there media organizations that have violated these fiduciary responsibilities by unduly emphasizing the personal political opinions of their executives at the expense of good business judgment?
It will be a difficult line to draw–obviously, media organizations have, and should have, the right to express editorial opinions. But it does seem likely that the line exists somewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The blogosphere does a far better job at reporting news than daily newspapers.
I agree with everything but the above. Few blogs report news; they either comment on the news or link to MSM sources.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0