Posted on 09/03/2008 10:15:40 AM PDT by gondramB
LONDON -- Rupert Murdoch is considering an acquisition of The New York Times , according to a report by Vanity Fair's Michael Wolff, who wrote a profile and interviewed the News Corp. chairman and chief executive. Wolff speaks of watching Murdoch "go through the numbers, plot out a merger with the Journal's backroom operations, and fantasize about the staff's quitting en masse as soon as he entered the sacred temple." The article doesn't directly quote Murdoch on his reported interest. There would be clear regulatory obstacles to a New York Times acquisition in addition to a likely reticence on the Sulzberger family to sell to him. News Corp. also owns MarketWatch, the publisher of this report.
Murdoch wont change the NYT...he will keep them liberal.
Why people think Murdoch is some conservative...when he supported Hillary’s campaign, is a liberal globalist, and lets the ChiComs censor his Chinese media holdings?
This guy started his media empire when a Aussie Labour (Liberals) party PM candidate wouldnt buddy up with him
If Murdock has the funds for that, he should use them to buy out the Saudi Prince who owns a big stake in News Corp, and who gets to call the shots on how Arabs are covered
The Fox article cites Vanity Fair
And here http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/05/wolff200805
Vanity Fair was speculating about Murdoch and the NY Times as early as May of this year.
>>Coming so shortly after Rupert Murdoch’s successful challenge, last summer, to the theoretically impregnable control of the Bancroft family at The Wall Street Journal (about which I am writing a book), Morgan Stanley’s retreat seemed to reaffirm the Sulzbergers’ hold. Quite specifically, the Bancrofts didn’t have what the more than 50 living members of the Sulzberger family have: a voting-trust agreement. None of the Sulzbergers could act alone; an outside investor could not divide the family, as Murdoch had done with the Bancrofts.<<
That is a funny post. Unfortunately it is also true.
Wouldn’t that be wonderful!
Heads must be exploding!
More like Maureen will get the Dog Pound circuit and Lost and Found
Show the intelligence of the NYT reader if they need a paper to tell them it Friday.
“Drain The Swamp”
Flashback to August 12
>>New York Times shares plunge on ratings concerns (May cut dividend - Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)<<
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2060737/posts
Murdoch would do what he did in San Antonio. Owned the San Antonio Light (pro-military paper), bought the Express News and then consolidated the papers and laid off the Light people for the most part.
Murdoch, the Hillary supporter, is a first class Clymer.
Rupe has been trying to buy the NYT for a long time. They wouldn’t sell to him. Don’t know if anything has changed except maybe their desperation.
Wowsers, talk about a paradigm shift if he does!!! I don’t know what New Yorkers would do without their daily dose of liberal tripe from the “old dead lady” if Murdoch acquired the paper and started publishing real, unbiased news.
The NYT could become a readable paper again.
Let's not leave out Paul Krugman.
Alternately, there could be a restoration. It might remain annoyingly liberal in its editorial slant and outlook, but return to respectablity and standards.
I grew up reading the NYT every morning in the cafeteria in high school, and though very liberal, the writing was first rate (as it still occassionally is) and the reporters, editors and editorial writers (in the days before “oped”) had a respect for facts and the readers intelligence, something sadly lacking today.
Boomers have been a disaster for education (especially higher education) and newspapers. Time to pass the torch.
If he throws in a free set of Pinch mugshots I'll subscribe.
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.