|
 |
Apr-22-2008Times Chairman Sulzberger Says Company Is Not for Sale(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Times Co Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr told shareholders on Tuesday the company is not for sale, disputing media reports. "This company is not for sale," he said, calling recent media reports suggesting otherwise "ill informed." Speculation over a sale has dogged the company over the years, most recently resurrected as its share price falling close to 20 percent in the past 12 months. Newsweek magazine also recently reported that close advisers of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have urged the founder of the Bloomberg LLC financial news and data service to consider a bid for the paper to safeguard its editorial integrity. [1] T he Big Apple's mayor doesn't want to buy Boston's Boring Broadsheet. Billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg yesterday shot down reports that he might buy the New York Times Co., whose holdings include the New York Times and Boston Globe. "I am not a newspaper person (and) I am not going into the newspaper business," Bloomberg said yesterday after Newsweek reported that the mayor's "closest associates" want him to consider such a deal. Newsweek said friends of Bloomberg, a Medford native who made a fortune founding financial-news service Bloomberg LP before entering politics, want him to buy Times Co. and take it private. "It is clearly a brand that Bloomberg could help preserve and that he cares about immensely," Newsweek quoted a person in "Bloomberg's inner circle" as saying.[2] I am not going to go into the newspaper business." The first rumors of such a deal have been launched apparently by Paul Steiger in his final column as managing editor of the Wall Street Journal in January. The latest rumors came from the April 28 edition of Newsweek, which quotes unnamed sources who claim Bloomberg may use his vast fortune to save the sinking New York Times Co. and make it private. The New York Times Company, which owns several prominent newspapers including its flagship The New York Times, was founded in 1851. It also owns The Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, as well as one New York City radio station, the legendary WQXR, and dozens of web sites. Its shares have recently sunk and rumors having been flying about a possible buyout. Bloomberg, 66, the son of Alexander Bloomberg, a Russian Jewish immigrant and a real estate agent, founded his own financial software service company, Bloomberg L.P., in 1981. His company sold financial information terminals to Wall Street firms and made a fortune quickly, expanding into other businesses. He is allegedly worth more than $10 billion. Bloomberg rejected in February rumors that he wants to run for President in 2008, noting that he will endorse a candidate who takes an independent and non-partisan approach. He also rejected calls to run for the governorship in 2010.[3] Shares of The New York Times tumbled during the day, rumors having been floating about a possible buyout, but ended 5.5 percent higher at the close of trade. This is not the first time that rumors surface of a possible takeover by Mayor Bloomberg. The first time were spurred by comments made by Paul Steiger in his final column as managing editor of the Wall Street Journal in January. The latest rumors came from the April 28 edition of Newsweek, which citied unnamed sources who claim Bloomberg may use his fortune to save the New York Times Co. and make it private. This article is copyrighted by International Business Times.[4]
"I am not a newspaper person." Bloomberg, who before becoming mayor founded the Bloomberg financial news and information service, has been encouraged by people close to him to buy the New York Times Co. 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.[5] REPRINTS NYC Mayor Bloomberg: I'm Not 'Times' Savior By E&P; Staff Published: April 21, 2008 12:40 PM ET CHICAGO New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday dismissed reports he is coming to the rescue of the Ochs and Sulzberger family by merging his financial information company with The New York Times Co. "I am not going to go into the newspaper business, I am not a newspaper person," Bloomberg said at a morning press conference.[6] Mr. Sulzberger was responding to recent reports in Newsweek and elsewhere about a potential alliance between New York Times and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's company, Bloomberg L.P. Some reports have suggested the Ochs-Sulzberger family, which controls.[7]
New York, NY (AHN)- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg denied reports he would buy the New York Times Co. saying he was "not going into the newspaper business," Bloomberg news reported. The mayor was reacting to a Newsweek article saying his "closest associates" are encouraging him to buy Times Co.[8] NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday dismissed media reports that he could be a suitor for the New York Times Co, saying he is not interested in getting into the newspaper industry.[9]
Despite reports to the contrary, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said today that he is not interested in buying the New York Times. Newsweek is reporting that close associates of the mayor are encouraging him to make a bid to acquire the paper, and merge it with Bloomberg News. The mayor made his fortune with his media company. Bloomberg says it's not going to happen. "I don't know why anybody keeps pushing this. I am not a newspaper person," he said.[10] 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.[11] 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).[12] Perhaps his brush with papal royalty went to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg'''s head, but news reports claimed he was considering merging his all-biz news services with the grande dame of daily publications, The New York Times. Newsweek reported that some of the Mayor'''s aides were advising him that the merger would be to his strategic advantage. The Times is under pressure from hedge fund firm activists Harbinger Capital Partners and Firebrand Partners to spin off some of its holdings and concentrate on Internet and other digital media. A proxy fight was avoided when The Times agreed to seat two of the hedge funds''' nominees on its board.[13] The New York Post reported on Monday that some members of the Times's controlling Ochs-Sulzberger family would be receptive to the idea of a protector. Bloomberg, who founded financial news and information service Bloomberg LP before becoming mayor, has been encouraged by his close associates to make a bid for the Times and save it from shareholder anger, Newsweek said in its April 28 edition.[14] The New York Post reported that unnamed sourced said "some members of the Sulzberger family, which controls the Times, are concerned about the paper's vulnerability after a wave of shareholder assaults and are looking for a protector to fend off further attacks." The paper said that aides to the mayor are encouraging him to consider a merger between Bloomberg LP and the Times Co. The Times Co.' s annual meeting is Tuesday.[6]
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.[15] The mag's piece in turn sparked a newspaper industry news boomlet as other publications rushed to find out whether Newsweek's claim that liberal Democrat Republican New York mayor Michael Bloomberg might give the New York Times Company a cash infusion to "protect the brand." Not so, says Bloomberg, who denied the claim that he was trying to get into the newspaper biz or purchase a share in Times Co.[16] 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. It isn't hard to guess which role Murdoch will play in this fight. Caricatured as the heir to Hearst's brand of yellow journalism, he was pilloried in much of the "respectable" press when he made his $5 billion, $65-a-share bid for Dow Jones last spring. Journalistic purists bellowed that he would sully the Journal with a mix of sensationalism and self-interested editorializing.[16] 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.[17] Aides to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are reportedly urging him to considering merging his financial information firm Bloomberg LP with the beleaguered New York Times.[18] New York City mayor Michael Rubens Bloomberg, who is also the founder of financial news and data company Bloomberg L.P., has denied rumors that he is pondering a takeover of The New York Times. "I don't know why anybody keeps pushing this.[3] NEW YORK - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is also the founder of financial news and data company Bloomberg L.P., denied reports released Monday that he is interested in buying The New York Times. Get stories by e-mail on this topic.[4]
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg denied reports Monday he's interested in buying The New York Times, according to Reuters. "I am not going into the newspaper business," he told reporters at a news conference Monday.[19]
I've been dragging my heels on addressing the day's big news -- a report that some in Mike Bloomberg's circle are urging him to buy The New York Times -- because, although it would certainly be big if it happened, it's not exactly news. That Bloomberg's hangers-on would be encouraging him to do anything that extends his -- ie. their -- influence past December 2009, when his term as mayor ends, is to be expected. Bloomberg himself dismissed the talk during a press conference on routine city business today, in language that was relatively committal, at least compared to the flirtatious way he used to bat away questions about his presidential aspirations. "I am not a newspaper person," he said.[20]
"I am not going to go into the newspaper business," Bloomberg said at a press conference on Monday, addressing press reports. The Times's sliding stock price and steady decline in ad revenue has sparked anger among its outside investors, some of whom have publicly blasted its executives for poor performance. New York Times, publisher of the namesake paper and owner of the Boston Globe and About.com, is holding its annual shareholders meeting at its New York headquarters on Tuesday.[1] NEW YORK -- The New York Times Co. on Tuesday denied recent speculation that it might be sold to or merge with Bloomberg L.P. or another media partner. "The company is not for sale," Publisher and Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. told a crowd of several hundred shareholders Tuesday at the company's annual meeting in its lavish new skyscraper headquarters in midtown Manhattan. Acknowledging the presence at the meeting of his father, former Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Sr., and his cousin and fellow board member Michael Golden, Sulzberger said his family would continue as owners.[21] 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. 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.[20] 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.[22]
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.)[22] 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.[23] The New York Post reported that owners of the Times were concerned over the "vulnerability" of the paper" after a wave of shareholder assaults," Bloomberg news wires said.[8] The New York Post reported that some members of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, which has controlled the Times since the 1800s, fear "the paper's vulnerability after a wave of shareholder assaults."[2] 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. The Ochs-Sulzberger family has controlled the Times since 1896, a structure it has preserved with a second tier of voting shares, but many holders of its publicly traded shares have accused the company's executives of not managing it properly and have sought more power over its future strategy.[9]
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.[23] The comments come after intense speculation Bloomberg could join the ranks of billionaires who have the financial heft to rescue a deteriorating U.S. newspaper business. The Times arguably may be the crown jewel of U.S. journalism, but it is dealing with a steady decline in ad revenue at its flagship paper and other papers such as the Boston Globe, a slump that has hit the entire industry. The Times's financial performance and sliding share price has sparked anger among its outside investors, some of whom have publicly blasted its executives for poor management.[14]
Shares of New York Times, publisher of the newspaper of the same name and the Boston Globe, were up 3% early Monday. They shed most of the gains after Bloomberg's statement.[5] 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.[9]
Newsweek is reporting that members of Bloomberg's "inner circle" are urging the Mayor to consider a Bloomberg - New York Times merger. The Mayor's office has declined to comment on this, however Bloomberg has said on a number of occasions that he plans to focus on his philanthropic enterprises once he leaves office and one imagines that in the face of Rupert Murdoch's predatory ambitions more than a few people would consider a Bloomberg-led Times to easily fit that description, especially if he continues at his current annual salary of one dollar.[24] 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.[12] An excerpt from the excellent Newsweek piece that started it all is below the fold. This week the Murdochian Era of the Proper Newspaperman has its debut. When readers open their newspapers Monday morning, they will discover a Wall Street Journal 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, Murdoch's reconceived Journal represents nothing short of a formal declaration of war on that most venerable of journalistic institutions, The New York Times. Not since William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal challenged Joseph Pulitzer's New York World in the late 19th century has there been such a clash of newspaper titans. As was the case when Hearst took on Pulitzer, Murdoch-the son of an Australian journalist-still believes newspapers are the most influential media for shaping the public discourse, even in this new-media century.[16]
The much-anticipated Wall Street Journal print redesign is launching tomorrow, as this long Newsweek story writes about, including positioning it as Rupert Murdoch's full frontal assault on the New York Times ( NYSE: NYT ).[25]
Interesting media news this Monday as Newsweek takes a look at the coming war between the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.[16]
Newsweek has a feature on Rupert Murdoch and his desire to take on the NY Times with his new purchase, the Wall Street Journal.[17] 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.[23]
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.[26] I am not going to go into the newspaper business." This isn't the first time the idea of a Bloomberg takeover of the Times has been floated. Paul Steiger brought up the idea in his final column as managing editor of the Wall Street Journal in January.[10]
The merger of Rupert Murdoch'''s News Corp. and Dow Jones, as well as Thomson Corp. and Reuters, may keep up the pressure on international news media to merge or die. In his weekly press conference on Monday, the Mayor was aglow as he recounted the past week'''s events: the historic visit of Pope Benedict XVI coupled with lovely spring weather. When it came to the rumors about a merger with The Times, Bloomberg was his usual succinct self. '''I am not a newspaper person,''' His Honor said. [13] 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.[26] 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.[12]
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."[15]
Some members of the Sulzberger family, which controls the Times, are looking for a 'protector' to fend off further attacks, the Post reported. Bloomberg aides believe he can take the company private and 'help protect the brand,' according to Newsweek magazine.[18]
Newsweek reports that Bloomberg's top associates are encouraging the New York mayor to acquire The New York Times.[27] 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.[26]
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."[11] 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.[12]
Any criticisms, good or bad, will have to wait several more months. Even more interesting to hear from the top of the News Corp ladder, however, is that Papa Murdoch is most definitely following through on his promise to go straight after The New York Times in a battle for breaking stories and both national and international influence. Which means that the WSJ and NYT are going to be seeking more and more computer screens to inhabit in the years ahead, regardless of how well their respective paper-based circulation efforts go in the foreseeable future. You know, that swift loss in revenue for The New York Times reported quite recently? Yeah, things are definitely going to have to pick up for the Sulzberger team, because regardless of how well the WSJ does in the near term, financially speaking, Murdoch pledges to throw enough added investment into the operation to achieve his goals. If that means his providing the paper'''s online operation with a hefty boost out of pocket, so be it. He may default on a conservative political line, but his spending for things he hold dear - and the WSJ is most precious addition made to his extensive media-rich keychain - is quite liberal indeed.[28] Update 18:01. One unfortunate thing about this article is that it repeats a mistake that liberal journalists often make when reporting on Murdoch--disparately labeling him as "conservative" while failing to do so for his ideological opponents like Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., lead owner of the New York Times and Ted Turner, Murdoch's vanquished rival formerly of CNN. Newsweek writer Johnnie Roberts mentions Sulzberger 11 times in his story but only once mentions that Sulzberger and the Times lean left. Roberts is similarly unfair when discussing Murdoch's battles with Turner, not once bothering to mention that Turner is a liberal--much less the raving socialist that he is. Roberts litters his piece with repeated references to Murdoch being "right-wing" and the Journal being known for its conservative editorial page. Both of these statements are true (though I question how far to the right Murdoch actually is), however, a fair reporter would have either not made them as repeatedly as Roberts does or made them more frequently when discussing Sulzberger, the Times, CNN, and Turner.[16]
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.[12]
The subject of a Bloomberg merger was first broached by Michael Wolff in the May issue of Vanity Fair magazine. 'It's the most logical idea in the newspaper business,' Wolff told the New York Post.[18] New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says buying papers doesn't interest him.[2] New York Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman, who has a fortune of $2.3 billion, is also a possible bidder. They would be buying from billionaire Sam Zell. He acquired Newsday, a Long Island, N.Y., daily, and plenty of other papers with his buyout of the Tribune Co. (nyse: TRB - news - people ). His second term will end in 2009, and he is legally prevented from running again. He's already ruled out a run for president of the United States. Bloomberg considered launching an independent bid for the Oval Office, but the ascendance of John McCain hurt his chances for success.[27] The mayor, however, already pronounced himself "too old" to work for someone else. Rumors have floated for months that the media mogul mayor would make a play for The New York Times, especially after he handed his fortune to money manager Steven Rattner, who has close ties to the newspaper. The mayor flat-out denied he has any interest in The Times - or any other print outlet. "I'm not going to go into the newspaper business," he said.[29] Edward Atorino, who follows Times Co. stock for the Benchmark Co., called the idea of a Bloomberg-Times deal "preposterous. He's the mayor of New York and his company is thriving in electronic publishing, not print.[2] The New York Times Company, on the other hand, is showing clear signs of struggle. It has been focusing on newsroom efficiency whilst cutting staff, and has been pushing for strong growth in online advertising through a joint project with Tribune, Gannet, and Hearst, called quadrantONE.[28] 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."[12]
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.[11] As shares of The New York Times (NYT) continue to sink, rumors having been flying about a possible buyout.[19] NY1 En Espa'ol For all your New York City news in Spanish, watch NY1 Noticias on Time Warner Digital Cable channels 95 or 801, and Cablevision channel 194 ' plus see a news summary page at NY1noticias.com.[10] 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.[22]
Joyce for News Mayor Bloomberg has given definitive no's to being President, vice president, head of Johns Hopkins University or seeking four more years as mayor by having term-limit law overturned. We may not know what the future holds for Mayor Bloomberg - but New Yorkers are getting a pretty good idea of what he doesn't want. The mayor, who insists he plans to spend his time giving away his billions when he leaves office next year, ruled out two more rumored jobs on Monday: newspaper publisher and university president.[29] Nielsen Business Media is looking for a Website Producer. Mayor Michael Bloomberg may be about as far as you can get from a recent college grad looking for their first job, but that isn't stopping the media from offering up their own variation on career counseling. With a little less than nine months to go before his time in office comes to a close the rumor mill regarding the Mayor's future is beginning to kick into high gear.[24] The businessman-turned-politician has an estimated 11.6 billion and long experience in the media business. Newsweek's source told the magazine that Bloomberg's friends hope the mayor's "civic-mindedness" will convince him to help the Times Co. stay above day-to-day balance-sheet concerns.[2] 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."[12]
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.[26] 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 !).[17] Term limits prevent Bloomberg from running for another four years at City Hall. Anonymous sources "close to the mayor" said he's interested in exploring whether that can be overturned.[29]
There have been several reports that Bloomberg might be a suitor for the Times Co., whose stock has tumbled in the past two years, and which had to make peace with a big dissident minority shareholder who began a proxy battle over seats on the board of directors.[6] According to the Newsweek report, Bloomberg aides are appealing to the mayor's "civic-mindedness." If he owned the Times, Bloomberg would have a major voice in the Big Apple and the country.[27]
Fond of the daily news coverage delivered by The Wall Street Journal, but unimpressed by the visual presence of the paper'''s online offering? Well, you'''re going to have to wait '''til autumn to see any major changes to the website'''s layout. According to information gathered for a report published in this week'''s edition of Newsweek, WSJ.com is slated to get done up fresh sometime in Q3 2008.[28] 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.[12] Acquiring the venerable Wall Street Journal and then dethroning the nation's newspaper of record? Now that's something to bring a man respect.[16]
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. [26] Murdoch presumably knows it would be idiocy to destroy the Journal brand (this is a flamethrower who appears to know the difference between scorching something and giving it sizzle). The new Journal is as respectable, restrained and readable as it has ever been-but with a broader world view designed to appeal to audiences well beyond its traditional, pin-striped base. To understand why the 77-year-old Murdoch has been itching for this particular fight, look no further than the mogul's three passions: print, power and respect. Using his knowledge of the first (he started his empire when his father bequeathed him Australia's Adelaide News when he was 22), Murdoch achieved the second. As for respect? Well, that's been more elusive, bestowed only grudgingly by those who simultaneously respect, detest and envy him. Murdoch has assembled one of the globe's biggest media empires, a conglomerate valued at $60 billion that will one day pass to his six children and seems destined to be run by his younger son, James.[16]
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.[17]
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."[11] 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.[22]
Bloomberg is a well respected moderate and his business news could make the Times even better.[17] Maybe Bloomberg's new charitable foundation might consider buying the Times, although I wouldn't recommend it.[22]
One thing'''s for sure. These two nationals (well, internationals, technically) are not going away. They have decades more life left in them. How they perform in a market whose customers now request information from multiple sources and in multiple display forms (print and video) and are less inclined to tout loyalties to one brand or another, is something which only time spent in direct competition will tell who among the two will win and who will win big. News Corp has shown its capability to achieve the latter designation. I imagine its fair to say that this will be a battle among giants that many will recognize as virtual equals quite soon - especially online.[28] Thomson Reuters competes with Bloomberg in providing financial news and information.[5] Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms.[9]
Forbes.com said Bloomberg, the world's 65th-wealthiest person with a net worth of $11.5 billion, is the latest among the world's richest people being lured to the troubled newspaper business. [8] Despite their troubled state, newspapers keep luring some of the world's most successful businesspeople. Their next catch could be billionaire Michael Bloomberg.[27] Bloomberg was the latest suspect in the lineup of prospective buyers for the newspaper, according to Newsweek Magazine.[19] "I am not going to go into the newspaper business," Bloomberg said when asked by reporters at a press conference to discuss city affairs.[9]
Some see Bloomberg, whose mayoral term expires next year and who recently ruled out running for president as an independent, as the perfect Times savior.[2] One benefit of buying into a troubled industry is a bargain price. Bloomberg would receive a substantial discount if he did pursue the Times.[27] The Times has been under attack from dissident shareholders unhappy with the company's share price.[18] As shares in The Times company have dropped precipitously in recent years, speculation of a takeover has increased.[26]
Shares of the Times rose 40 cents, or 2.1%, to $19.59, in Monday trading.[27] At noon, Times Co. stock (NYSE: NYT) was trading at $19.44, up 25 cents, or 1.3%, from the opening.[6]
Times Co. recently gave board seats to dissident shareholders who want the company to sell off non-core assets, including the Globe and a minority stake in the Boston Red Sox.[2]
Together, the hedge fund firms own about a 19% stake in the newspaper. A spokeswoman for The Times said that the Sulzberger family, which owns the newspaper, believes that the current dual-share structure is the best way to protect its editorial independence and integrity.[13] "The risk you run is that you are not best at anything." The same critics also warn that "it's never a good time to have to confront someone like Murdoch, who doesn't care about making money on a particular product," says newspaper analyst John Morton.[12] The umbrella, as we reported, has now started appearing on all WSJ Digital Network sites, which includes WSJ.com, Barrons.com, MarketWatch and others. As for Murdoch's own involvement in WSJ, if you had any doubts, here it is: "Rather than entrust the job of all this to subordinates, Murdoch has been devoting half his time since acquiring Dow Jones ( NYSE: NWS ) to reshaping the paper. He has become a regular and jarring presence in the Journal newsroom: ever since he appeared unannounced on Easter--to, as he puts it,'set an example'--top editors have been dragging themselves into the Journal's headquarters across from Ground Zero on Sundays."[25] A culture section is under development for a fall debut in the Journal's weekend edition, and Murdoch has added a weekly sports page. The op-ed section, famous for its erudite and influential espousal of conservative ideology, will grow to three pages from two. Rather than entrust the job of all this to subordinates, Murdoch has been devoting half his time since acquiring Dow Jones to reshaping the paper. He has become a regular and jarring presence in the Journal newsroom: ever since he appeared unannounced on Easter-to, as he puts it, "set an example"-top editors have been dragging themselves into the Journal's headquarters across from Ground Zero on Sundays. "What sets Rupert apart is that after he's made a major acquisition, he goes in and works it and gets it running the way he wants it to, and then leaves managers in place," says Arthur Siskind, senior adviser to Murdoch.[16]
The mayor is a longtime defender of term limits, and his spokesman definitively said Bloomberg would leave - on schedule - at the end of 2009. [29] Good news! The Gray Lady has been quite the Old Maid lately. It's about time she got overhauled and groomed for the future. I hope he has some good ideas for that. I hope those ideas include not getting women to tart themselves up in order to be liked by the boys. Maureen Dowd is such an affront to feminism, and she's quickly becoming an relic of the hot-flash crowd. Old people are a readership that a newspaper should be built on. (They don't hang around long enough!) I say that, not being a spring chicken myself.[17]
SOURCES
1. New York Times is not for sale: Sulzberger Jr | Reuters
2. Bloomberg denies interest in buying Times - BostonHerald.com
3. Bloomberg Is Not Interested in The New York Times
4. Bloomberg: Im not a newspaper person - International Business Times -
5. Bloomberg says he's not interested in NY Times - USATODAY.com
6. NYC Mayor Bloomberg: I'm Not 'Times' Savior
7. Free Preview - WSJ.com
8. Bloomberg Not Buying New York Times | April 22, 2008 | AHN
9. Bloomberg says not interested in newspaper business | Reuters
10. NY1: Politics
11. The Murdoch Effect: BloombergNew York Times Merger Thoughts?; Civic Duty To Save NYT - washingtonpost.com
12. NEWSWEEK: Murdoch: Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal Set to Challenge New York Times; Bloomberg Associates Encouraging Mayor to Buy the Times
13. HedgFund.net: Public news from HedgeNews
14. UPDATE 3-Bloomberg says not interested in newspaper business | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
15. MinOnline :: Breaking News & Views :: Mayor Bloomberg May Help Save the Times
16. Times Scrambles as Murdochs Journal Prepares Assault | NewsBusters.org
17. Gothamist: Newsweek: Bloomberg Considering Buying the Times
18. Newsmax.com - A Bloomberg-New York Times Merger?
19. Report: Mayor Bloomberg Denies Interest in New York Times
20. Bloomberg Buying 'NYT'? Don't Hold Your Breath - Media Blog - Jeff Bercovici - Mixed Media - Portfolio.com
21. New York Times Co. is 'not for sale' - Los Angeles Times
22. Why Bloomberg Won't Buy the New York Times - Finance Blog - Felix Salmon - Market Movers - Portfolio.com
23. MediaFile » Blog Archive » UPDATED-Might Bloomberg buy the New York Times? | Blogs | Reuters.com
24. mediabistro.com: FishbowlNY
25. Wall Street Journal Paper Redesign: Launching Tomorrow; Broader Focus | paidContent.org
26. Advisers urging Bloomberg to buy New York Times
27. Will Newspapers Tempt Another Billionaire? - Forbes.com
28. WSJ.com Set For Autumn Redesign, Murdoch Readies For War With NYT
29. We know what Mayor Bloomberg doesn't want to do next
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 Times Chairman Sulzberger Says Company Is Not for Sale by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
