|
 | 
Apr-21-2008Bloomberg says not getting into newspapers(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
Newsweek is reporting, though details are very sketchy and preliminary for now: it reports that Michael Bloomberg's friends are encouraging him to explore the idea of a Bloomberg-New York Times (NYSE: NYT) merger. The reasoning: the proponents of the merger are appealing to the mayor's sense of "civic-mindedness," arguing that he is best suited to take the publishing company private to " help protect the brand " in the wake of relentless shareholder assaults on NYT, and competition from the broadened focus of Wall Street Journal under News Corp. [1] "I am not a newspaper person." Bloomberg, who before becoming mayor founded Bloomberg LP, a financial news and information service, has been encouraged by people close to him to buy the New York Times Co (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research ) and save the company from shareholder assaults, according to a recent report in Newsweek magazine. Bloomberg could take the company private and "help protect the brand" with his estimated $11.6 billion personal fortune, Newsweek said in its April 28 edition, quoting an unnamed source.[2] New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the latest suspect in the lineup of prospective buyers for the newspaper, Newsweek Magazine is reporting. Bloomberg is reportedly being advised by those in his inner circle to make an offer on the paper when his mayoral term is up at the end of 2009. "It is clearly a brand that Bloomberg could help preserve and that he cares about immensely ''' and could pay a competitive price," said a source close to the mayor in an interview with Newsweek.[3]
According to the New York Post, Mayor Bloomberg may be just the financial savior the New York Times is looking for. Bloomberg aides are reportedly urging him to consider merging financial-information giant Bloomberg LP with the Times, which is under pressure from shareholders to revive ad sales and unload assets to boost its sagging share price. As strange as it sounds, Newsweek is reporting that Vanity Fair staple Michael Wolff wrote a piece on the difficult state of the Times for VF's May issue in which he suggested that the mayor provide the monetary relief the Times needs and now Bloomberg may be considering it.[4] The fight could escalate in unknown ways if billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ends up acquiring the Times. As Newsweek has learned, top associates of the onetime information executive are encouraging him to do just that. In Newsweek interviews last week, a member of Bloomberg's inner circle confirmed that the mayor's confidants and closest associates are, in fact, encouraging him to explore the idea of a Bloomberg-New York Times merger, reports Senior Writer Johnnie L. Roberts in the April 28 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 21).[5] More interesting for media watchers might be the end of the fourth paragraph, where Newsweek reports: " The fight could escalate in unknown ways if billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ends up acquiring the Times. As NEWSWEEK has learned, top associates of the onetime information executive are encouraging him to do just that." Really? We suppose this is more feasible than Bloomberg running for a third term, and it would certainly given him a challenge.[6]
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Monday he is not entering the newspaper business, after media reports said he could be a possible suitor for New York Times Co (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research ).[7] NEW YORK, April 21 (Reuters) - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday dismissed media reports that he could be a suitor for the New York Times Co (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research ), saying he is not interested in getting into the newspaper industry.[2]
NEW YORK, April 20, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- When readers open their Wall Street Journals Monday morning, they will discover a newspaper fashioned to the tastes of the man who revolutionized media markets from Australia to North America. With its increased focus on politics, international news, culture and sports, Rupert Murdoch's reconceived Journal represents nothing short of a formal declaration of war on that most venerable of journalistic institutions, The New York Times, Newsweek reports in the current issue.[5] The press excitement is partly fed by the wrestlemania-ish notion of a Bloomberg-run media empire tackling Rupert Murdoch's media kingdom. Murdoch himself has made no secret about giving the Times a run for its audience with the beefed up political news now appearing in his Wall Street Journal.[8]
Newsweek has a feature on Rupert Murdoch and his desire to take on the NY Times with his new purchase, the Wall Street Journal.[6] Bloomberg declined to comment on the matter. It is not the first time the idea has been put forth. Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger raised the prospect of a Bloomberg News-Times marriage in a January column marking his departure from The Journal, which is published by Rupert Murdoch.[9]
More to the point, Mike Bloomberg personally is not, and never has been, a newspaperman. If he were to get into a serious battle with Rupert Murdoch, then he would likely lose, just because that's what happens to people who get into a battle with Rupert Murdoch. I also suspect that Mike Bloomberg likes having the option to sell Bloomberg LP - something which would, if it ever happened, allow him to ratchet up his philanthropy to a whole new level. If he bought the New York Times, the Sulzbergers would want assurances that he wouldn't simply turn around and sell it as part of the combined company.[10] If the Sulzberger family was amenable - and that's a big if - then Bloomberg could certainly afford it: the New York Times Company has an enterprise value of $3.7 billion, which is less than the value put on the 20% stake in Bloomberg LP held by Merrill Lynch. (The other 80% is owned by Mike Bloomberg personally.)[10]
The idea of Bloomberg-as-rescuer has been bandied about before, the Washington Post points out, by the likes of Jim Cramer, Michael Wolff, and others. With the clock ticking on Bloomberg's political career his mayoral stint ends next year, although he could still seek higher office the New York Daily News notes that it remains unclear where he will "devote his managerial prowess and $11.5 billion fortune." For the record, the Times tells us the company's controlling Ochs-Sulzberger clan still believes in its current capital structure as the best way to keep the paper independent and full of editorial integrity.[8] "I am not a newspaper person." Newsweek in its April 28 edition cited Bloomberg as a potential rescuer for the Times, which has suffered shareholder scorn over its performance in the past few years. The New York Post in Monday's edition reported that some members of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, which controls the Times, may be interested in finding such a rescuer.[7]
For Murdoch, quoted in the story, Bloomberg-NYT is a natural fit, as the mayor has pledged to remain a force in national public life after leaving New York's city hall at the end of next year. The prospect of competing against the combine isn't that appealing to him: "I wouldn't look forward to going up against him," Murdoch told Newsweek, citing his "great respect for Bloomberg's business abilities."[1] Murdoch, for one, sees a natural fit between Bloomberg and the Journal's uptown rival. Bloomberg, he notes, has pledged to remain a force in national public life after leaving New York's city hall at the end of next year.[5]
New York Times CEO Janet Robinson said last week that the Times is prepared for the confrontation with Murdoch. "The New York Times," she told analysts, "has had broad coverage for 156 years now, and from that perspective we are far advanced in the type of journalism we create and the type of advertising we bring into the paper."[5] Murdoch's New York Post not only endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in New York's primary, but it also criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton, with whom it was assumed Murdoch was now friendly. Why did Murdoch turn cold on Clinton? "She's been a good senator for New York," he told Newsweek recently. "It doesn't mean she'd make a good president." While he lauds Clinton's "terrific mastery of details and issues," Murdoch says, "I'm against a lot of her big national issues." He says he's worried that the senator will make the United States more of "a dependency society" like the United Kingdom was before Margaret Thatcher, of whom he was an ardent supporter. "Government should not be too big," he says. Interpretation: Clinton, despite her centrist message, remains too liberal for Murdoch.[5] The New York Post reported on Monday also that some members of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, which controls the Times, want to find a protector. It cited unnamed sources. A Times spokeswoman, repeating a position frequently attributed to the Ochs-Sulzbergers, said the family believes the company's current capital structure is the best way to protect its editorial independence.[2]
A source with close ties to the billionaire media magnate told the magazine that a friendly Bloomberg News -New York Times merger appealed to the mayor's sense of "civic-mindedness." "It is clearly a brand that Bloomberg could help preserve and that he cares about immensely. and could pay a competitive price" for, the source said of The Times.[9] Through a spokesman, Bloomberg declined to comment. According to the source, the proponents of the merger are appealing to the mayor's sense of "civic-mindedness," arguing that he is best suited to take the publishing company private to "help protect the brand" in the wake of relentless shareholder assaults. "It is clearly a brand that Bloomberg could help preserve and that he cares about immensely. and could pay a competitive price" for, says this person.[5]
Citing a member of the mayor's inner circle, Newsweek said merger proponents believe Bloomberg is in the best position to take the company private and "help protect the brand."[4]
Has been less than three weeks since the last prediction that Bloomberg would buy the Gray Lady. A source tells Newsweek, " is clearly a brand that Bloomberg could help preserve and that he cares about immensely ''' and could pay a competitive price." Last year, Newsweek put Bloomberg on its cover, touting the mayor's 2008 presidential chances ( it turns out they weren't so good !).[6]
A''presidential contender? No. A publisher of The New York Times ? Hmm. Mayor Bloomberg has been encouraged by advisers in his inner circle to consider making a bid for the Old Gray Lady after he leaves office, Newsweek magazine reports.[9] Shares of the New York Times, publisher of the newspaper of the same name and the Boston Globe, were up 3 percent earlier on Monday before shedding most of the gains after Bloomberg's public response.[2] For now, the Bloomberg-NYT combination is more of a trial balloon than anything concrete. Prior to this, Jim Cramer, Paul Steiger and Michael Wolff have all proposed that Bloomberg "save" the New York Times.[1]
While it's not a new idea, most media outlets present company included are all abuzz over the idea, and it has been reported that aides are whispering to Bloomberg he should merge Bloomberg LP, the financial news organization he created, with the Times. The new smolderings come as the paper's parent company feels pressure from dissident shareholders to spark advertising sales and dump assets to bolster its share price.[8] Bloomberg makes money from subscriptions; the NYT makes money from selling advertising. Bloomberg's occasional toe-dips into consumer-facing media have never taken off, and even the highly-respected and enormous Bloomberg News operation is financially largely irrelevant to the fortunes of its parent. It's not there to make money, it's there to give Bloomberg a bit more credibility, and to be one more way in which Bloomberg's clients get better content than anyone else. Certainly Bloomberg has very little interest in non-subscribers reading its content, which is one reason the Bloomberg website is so atrocious.[10] In the past, rumors have circulated that Carlyle Group was looking at a possible Bloomberg takeover, but that didn't pan out. Last week in NYT's earnings call, CEO Janet Robinson was asked whether the company felt any more heat from WSJ, as a competitor, since News Corp (NYSE: NWS). took over its parent company, Dow Jones: "It's clear that the WSJ is positioning itself quite differently, broadening into the international and political arena." She added that the NYT has a headstart: "(We have) had broad coverage for 156 years."[1]
As shares of The New York Times (NYT) continue to sink, rumors fly about a possible buyout.[3] I've joshed in the past that the best owner for the New York Times would be Google.org. That almost certainly won't happen.[10]
Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., has been positioning The Journal in recent months to compete more directly with The Times on a variety of topics, rather than just business coverage. [9] To that end, owning the Times would help immensely, Murdoch reasons. The prospect of competing against a Bloomberg-owned Times appears to rattle him. "I wouldn't look forward to going up against him," Murdoch told Newsweek, citing his "great respect for Bloomberg's business abilities."[5] Murdoch told Newsweek that Bloomberg would be a formidable adversary. "I wouldn't look forward to going up against him," he told the magazine. Bloomberg's term as mayor ends next year, and it remains unclear where he will devote his managerial prowess and $11.5 billion fortune.[9]
Clinton's camp rejects the view. "I don't know what evidence he has to that effect," Harold Ickes, a Clinton strategist, told Newsweek on Friday. "I don't know what he would look to in terms of her policies that she's proposing that he could draw that conclusion." As for the Post's nod to Obama, that appears to have been a calculated attempt by Murdoch to do his part to prolong a great horse race. "I said, 'Let's make a race of it'," he said.[5]
Aren't there any laws prohibiting someone from owning more than one newspaper in a city? I know Murdoch and News Corp got some special dispensation for their TV stations, but this is getting a little ridiculous. One man should not control so many media outlets, unless he's Kim Jung Il, Mohammar Khaddafi or Vladimir Putin. [6] Roberts also looks at whom Murdoch will support for president and whether The Wall Street Journal, which hasn't endorsed a candidate since Herbert Hoover, will do so now.[5]
Bloomberg is a well respected moderate and his business news could make the Times even better. [6] Maybe Bloomberg's new charitable foundation might consider buying the Times, although I wouldn't recommend it.[10]
SOURCES
1. The Murdoch Effect: BloombergNew York Times Merger Thoughts?; Civic Duty To Save NYT - washingtonpost.com
2. UPDATE 2-Bloomberg says not interested in newspaper business | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
3. Is Bloomberg Looking to Takeover the New York Times?
4. MinOnline :: Breaking News & Views :: Mayor Bloomberg May Help Save the Times
5. NEWSWEEK: Murdoch: Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal Set to Challenge New York Times; Bloomberg Associates Encouraging Mayor to Buy the Times
6. Gothamist: Newsweek: Bloomberg Considering Buying the Times
7. Bloomberg says not getting into newspapers | Reuters
8. MediaFile » Blog Archive » UPDATED-Might Bloomberg buy the New York Times? | Blogs | Reuters.com
9. Advisers urging Bloomberg to buy New York Times
10. Why Bloomberg Won't Buy the New York Times - Finance Blog - Felix Salmon - Market Movers - Portfolio.com
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON THIS SUBJECT:
Please WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open...
You might want to EDIT the default search query below:
Get more info on Bloomberg says not getting into newspapers by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
