Posted on 08/14/2006 10:18:06 AM PDT by abb
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060814roco02
Must read...
(Excerpt) Read more at VanityFair.net ...
Broken link.
That link takes me to a "domains for sale" page.
Ping
Heh - wouldn't THAT be a kick? But it's supposed to be .COM, not .NET.
What the article actually says is that it is all Bush's fault.
Or maybe you shoot at the generals, not the lieutenants.
"The Times's current predicament—its share price has fallen by 50 percent since 2002; almost 30 percent of its shareholders protested the company's slate of directors at the annual meeting this spring—gets closer and closer to that of the Knight-Ridder papers, forced into a sale..."
I would like to see its management fired at all levels. Editorial staff as well. That would be a good first step.
"Here's the identity crisis: when the president is attacking it with all the media available to him, can the Times count on this new reader, and the advertisers who are courting him, not to doubt it?"
I don't recall the President attacking the NYT. And the notion that the President commands any other media outlet or the advertisers is simply too ridiculous for words.
The NYT's troubles are its own creation.
LOL! What a freakin joke. How many times has Bush commented on the NYT through his spokespeople, once or twice?
Lol, if he's going to get blamed, he really should take credit...
"it was under Raines's watch that Blair wrote his fabricated stories—had the publisher's absolute support until the day he didn't and was fired..."
Who would have guessed at the time that the Jayson Blair fiasco would be one of the high marks of journalistic integrity and credibility at the NYT for the next 5 years?
This is like sitting in on a private conversation among utterly deluded leftists. Who tell each other all the right things.
Their hate for ordinary Americans outside of their little group is something they usually try to keep a secret.
There was a Thomas Sowell book I read once, "The Vision of the Annointed." Says it all...
"The activist shareholders are—not dissimilar to the Bush White House—waging a press campaign against the Times. The dissidents—only Morgan Stanley Asset Management, with 5 percent, has taken a public stand, but Bruce Sherman's Private Capital Management, which forced Knight-Ridder into a sale, is one of the Times's largest shareholders—are claiming that the B shareholders, presiding over scandal, are being reckless with the Times's brand and with their stewardship of a national treasure."
The shareholders need to hold their feet to the fire.
I found this article quite disappointing given Wolff's reputation as the ultimate insider. The facts are mostly well known and his commentary is a tissue of cliches.
Thanks for the great excerpts.
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.