Posted on 01/29/2007 2:49:16 PM PST by shrinkermd
This is a bad time to be head of a publicly held media company, and it's an especially bad time to be head of the publicly held New York Times Co. The stock has been staggering for the last five years.
Morgan Stanley is pushing a shareholder resolution aimed at ending the company's dual-class stock structure, which allows the Sulzberger family to control the Times despite owning only a small portion of the stock. (According to the most recent proxy, Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. owns about 5.3 percent of the company's stock.)
Sulzberger has been derided everywhere for weak leadership, and the company has been struggling to maintain editorial quality while hitting earnings targets. (Quality often loses. This week, the Boston Globe, which is owned by the Times, announced it would shutter its remaining foreign bureaus.)
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Elsewhere TIME Magazineis allegedly trying to poach Maureen Dowd, Friedman and a few others. No one wants Frank Rich. Life is tough without pinch to hold your hand.
Why would Pinch want to do that?
When they went public, they got the best of both worlds: huge amounts of money for their shares, plus retention of total editorial control.
It would be neat to see a coalition of conservative minded investors buy the NYT and turn it around. Of course, they would probably have to fire all of the editors and reporters and start afresh.
The basic reason for going private is the ordinary shareholders believe they have nothing to say on how the paper is run and whether it is run for the family or the majority shareholders.
As times toughen, Pinch and the rest of the family will face increasing pressure on this account.
The article was clearly not written by a graduate of Wharton.
"As times toughen, Pinch and the rest of the family will face increasing pressure on this account.
That is just my point. The Class B shareholders have no votes and no power. They can rant and rave until the cows come home, and Pinch will just ignore them.
"It would be neat to see a coalition of conservative minded investors buy the NYT and turn it around. Of course, they would probably have to fire all of the editors and reporters and start afresh."
Just contract out to FR for editors and we take the AP, Reuters and other news services stories and rewrite them for the truth.
I wish to see the NYT continue to decline.
Likewise. It couldn't happen to a more deserving newspaper.
I wish everyone would dump their stock. Maybe he would jump.
Yes, he would buy back all the shared for practically nothing.
Then he'd promise to reform, and do another IPO. How many times can you sell the same company? You'd be surprised.
Had not thought of that one. I guess there will always be someone that will come up with the money.
"editorial quality"?
On par with The Enquirer, maybe. Who are they kidding. I hear the times just reprimanded a staffer named Gordon who was for giving the surge a fighting chance. Times said he went too far.
Post#11 Right on.
Post#11 Right on.
excellent
What I would like to see is for the Sulzbergers' shares to be made public. That is teh only way to save the Times.
I wonder what would happen if someone bought all the non-Sulzberger stock.
If that's what it's been doing, it hasn't been struggling very hard at it.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
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.