NYT as plaything of rich libs

Jon Fine of the Business Week blog writes a friendly, even sympathetic note of advice to Pinch Sulzberger, scion of the New York Times' ruling family, the Ochs-Sulzberger clan. Fine is worried over the possibility that the family might lose the ability to run the paper while owning just over 10% of its equity:

The kind of relationship the Sulzbergers have with the Times is unique, these days-that almost aristocratic way of growing up steeped in the stewardship of a family institution. This bonded your brood deeply with the paper, unlike Dow Jones' (DJ ) Bancrofts. But consider what happens to your family if some stranger offers, oh, 35 a share for the company. (A 42% premium over late-July's stock price, that.) Because, thanks to News Corp. (NWS ) and Dow Jones, we now know someone could.

Fine thinks that on balance the best course would be for Sulzberger to find angel investors willing to "save" the Times (implicitly from Murdoch) and make a tender offer for the publicly-held shares and take the company fully private:

...remember the institution: Yours remains the only one around that could, plausibly, enlist a few very rich dudes to accept less-than-stellar returns so their obits can say they saved The New York Times.

He's probably right. But of course the missing piece of information is ideology: these would be wealthy leftists rescuing another wealthy leftist so his newspaper can remain leftist. Admitting that the left has a symbiotic relationship with the plutocracy aimed at dominating the national media would be an inconvenient truth. What we would have is an explicit plaything of the rich used to reinforce left wing ideology in the American media.

So Fine, like nearly all the denizens of the MSM, pretends that left wing journalism is simply "good" journalism and politics has nothing to do with it.
If he really believes this, it is delusional. I suspect he does and it is.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky
Jon Fine of the Business Week blog writes a friendly, even sympathetic note of advice to Pinch Sulzberger, scion of the New York Times' ruling family, the Ochs-Sulzberger clan. Fine is worried over the possibility that the family might lose the ability to run the paper while owning just over 10% of its equity:

The kind of relationship the Sulzbergers have with the Times is unique, these days-that almost aristocratic way of growing up steeped in the stewardship of a family institution. This bonded your brood deeply with the paper, unlike Dow Jones' (DJ ) Bancrofts. But consider what happens to your family if some stranger offers, oh, 35 a share for the company. (A 42% premium over late-July's stock price, that.) Because, thanks to News Corp. (NWS ) and Dow Jones, we now know someone could.

Fine thinks that on balance the best course would be for Sulzberger to find angel investors willing to "save" the Times (implicitly from Murdoch) and make a tender offer for the publicly-held shares and take the company fully private:

...remember the institution: Yours remains the only one around that could, plausibly, enlist a few very rich dudes to accept less-than-stellar returns so their obits can say they saved The New York Times.

He's probably right. But of course the missing piece of information is ideology: these would be wealthy leftists rescuing another wealthy leftist so his newspaper can remain leftist. Admitting that the left has a symbiotic relationship with the plutocracy aimed at dominating the national media would be an inconvenient truth. What we would have is an explicit plaything of the rich used to reinforce left wing ideology in the American media.

So Fine, like nearly all the denizens of the MSM, pretends that left wing journalism is simply "good" journalism and politics has nothing to do with it.
If he really believes this, it is delusional. I suspect he does and it is.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky