I don't even know where to begin in trying to figure out this story I lifted from The Fat Guy. I'll give it a shot though. These days, nobody really wants to read this rag, so its losing money like a drunken sailor in a Bangkok whore house. It's hemorrhaging cash to the extent that in the last five months it's stock value has lost more than fifty percent of its worth, just within that span of time.
Naturally, to many this would be an opportunity, so up pops a Mexican billionaire by the name of Carlos Slim, who is reportedly the second wealthiest man in the world. Worse, this seems to be a trend, with oligarchs from all over the world buying up cash strapped American companies.
What this means in this particular case, of course, is that the New York Times editorial policy might conceivably reflect the views and opinions of this Mexican foreign national who is as of now majority stockholder. In other words, not a hell of a lot would change. That's the sad part. The Times has lost a large percentage of its readership due to the understandable perception among many that it is biased in its news coverage, to say the least.
So now, what happens? Somebody comes along to make sure the paper gets to stay in business retching up the same daily bilge, as though it will somehow influence people, given an extra lifeline of support. Why else buy this fish-wrapper, but as a propaganda device? He sure as hell can't be thinking he's going to make a decent profit, and so far as I know this would not qualify as charitable donation. Well, I guess it could amount to a tax write-off to some extent, but hell now.
Below are some excerpts from the Yahoo News article-
The $250 million investment by Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim could provide some synergies with his telecommunications holdings in Latin America, analysts say.
The Times, which also publishes The Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune, has been trying to conserve cash as advertising revenues continue to slide. Newspaper publishers across the country are hurting amid the economic downturn and as advertisers shift spending online. The Times slashed its quarterly dividend by 74 percent in November and plans to raise $225 million from its new, 52-story Manhattan headquarters, either by selling the building and leasing it back or borrowing against it. It also put its stake in the Boston Red Sox up for sale.
Slim is part of a crop of emerging-market billionaires, from Mexico to Russia, who are on a shopping spree now that the recession has slashed the prices of some of America's best-known companies.
The Times announced late Monday the financing agreement with Slim's companies Banco Inbursa and Inmobiliaria Carso for $125 million each. Times President Janet L. Robinson said the cash infusion will be used to refinance existing debt and will provide the company with increased financial flexibility.
New York Times shares slipped 8 cents to $6.33 in morning trading Tuesday, the first trading day after the company announced the deal.
Slim and members of his family purchased 6.4 percent of the company's publicly traded shares. The Times said the value of Slim's investment has since fallen to $58 million from $128 million.
Note how the Times is losing so much money they are considering making up the shortfall by selling their stake in the Boston Red Sox, probably one of the few enterprises they are involved with that has at least the potential to be profitable. Now that is determination.
Oh well-so many American products are made overseas, I guess its just a logical progression that anything with the by now rare slogan Made In America should be run by CEOs from anywhere but. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can in many cases be a positive trend if it bolsters the economy and saves American jobs, and should not be viewed with undue alarm.
Regardless of that general idea, however, when foreign nationals purchase the so-called "newspaper of record" I would think that should be cause for at least some concern over the prospect of conflict of interest, not only in the editorial pages, but in potential for continued slanted news coverage for which the paper is more renowned than anything else. Just imagine how heads would have turned if it turned out that the New York Times of the nineteen sixties, seventies, and eighties was really controlled by Soviet nationals with connections to Pravda or the KGB after all.
That has in fact long been a suspicion, one that was well-founded, though unproven. In this case, maybe it won't be that bad. Maybe Slim will turn the paper around and make it profitable again, as unlikely as that seems.
The question is, why bother?
4 comments:
The NYT has its own agenda. I wouldn't call it liberal or conservative.
It helped Bush to start the Iraq War. The accusation of liberalism, is to intimidate it. In response they hired Bill Krystol, who was 95% wrong in about every column he wrote. He had in his contract, no editor can proof check his work.
Carlos Slim might just want a New York connection. He owns Univision.
I think the accusation of liberal bias is directed no so much at their editorial policy, it's more at the perception that they slant their hard news coverage to favor certain politicians and promote certain issues. For example, a negative story about a Democratic politician might be buried a few pages back with just a few paragraphs, while a similar story about a Republican politician suddenly becomes front page fodder.
That's generally speaking of course, once a news story breaks wide open then they cover it, because they have to. It was Judith Miller who pushed the Iraq invasion, but the Times editorial policy was against it, I think, which of course was well within their rights.
I'm not taking any sides, because I never read the Times anymore, and never read it to a great extent to begin with, so its hearsay. I do think its instructive to note the state of the paper's finances, and bear in mind, their readership has been steadily declining for years. Nor can you put that down to the same decline in newspapers in general and blame it on the internet and 24 hour cable news. The Sunday Times should on its own be sufficient to make it a profitable enterprise. There has to be another explanation, and I think its simply way too many people no longer want to read it because they don't trust it.
Of course that's true for many on the left as well as the right.
By the way, newspapers have never been objective, they started out as propaganda arms of first one political faction or another. The so-called policy of objective journalism is a relatively recent innovation and is more of a business model than anything. Objectivity is an artificial commodity and we are approaching the end of its limited shelf life, I think.
Nobody really wants it, and for a journalistic entity to adopt such a position impresses no one. People have become more discerning with the availability of a wider range of choices, and they see through the facade now of the Times and others.
When someone comes in and buys up a media company, they usually expect to make back their investment. What this means is that the already debt-ridden company gets more debt to pay off and now has someone who doesn't know what they're doing in charge. So, don't expect miracles if this happens- this sort of deal has eventually killed off many media companies, particularly record labels.
As for the bias claim, it might be true, but I suspect the real problem here is that less and less people read any newspaper these days. Increasing numbers of people get their news from sites like Drudge or Huffington- which really goes against the idea that they don't like bias with their news!- and less and less read the morning paper. They're all in serious trouble- the Times is just the largest one to fall.
Rufus-
Nobody really minds the editorial position of the papers, even if they disagree strongly, but the problem is the news coverage and how it is allegedly slanted.
The people that read Huffington or watch Olbermann etc., do so precisely because of the slant, and frankly I enjoy reading the editorials of newspapers more than the hard news, which is seriously lacking. For the most part, what you read in your average morning paper is already old news by the time you start reading it, and you've probably seen a far more concise account or could from another source. What you read in most papers is pretty much the basics of the story.
The Times though is one of those papers with a reputation for in-depth reporting, and it's Sunday edition alone should keep it profitable. Who knows, maybe Slim will turn it around, but I wouldn't count on it. I'm assuming he didn't become the second richest man in the world from sheer dumb luck, so he must know what he's doing on some level.
If his intention is to make a profit here, though, he's got to know that is going to be one tough nut to crack.
Post a Comment