Their ad rates are a matter of public record. The fact that the ad rates aren’t a secret is what started this entire controversy in the first place. If you believe that MoveOn didn’t know they were getting a preferential rate, then I have a bridge for sale that I’d like to offer you. Everyone involved in this deal has been lying from the start, and now it has come out in the wash. MoveOn is trying to persuade the casual observer that it did not demand special treatment for its attack ad, and was just one more advertising customer. The New York Times is just trying to put an acceptable face on it to prevent every advocacy group in the country with which they disagree from demanding the same rate discount. As for the New York Times’ reputation, there hasn’t been one to lose since the mid-70s. And due to the ownership structure of the newspaper, there isn’t a damn thing shareholders can do about it.
True. And this goes a long way toward explaining the NYT stock price. Let's see: circulation is down, ad revenue is down, the print industry as a whole is down, the price of a share is going down, and the ownership structure of the company makes it so that a shareholder can't have any real input into how the business is run ...
Why would anyone own such a stock?