Gawker
Oh no, now you've gone and encouraged Michael Bloomberg again: Newsweek reports that "the mayor's confidants and closest associates are, in fact, encouraging him to explore the idea" of buying the Times. And to bolster their case they've no doubt assembled clips of others saying the same thing in the press over the past few months, including Vanity Fair columnist Michael Wolff, shouting head Jim Cramer and former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger. Despite frightful working conditions at Bloomberg's financial information company, his buddies imagine him shielding the Times newsroom from intense financial pressures:
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.
It's not like Bloomberg would run the Times like some sort of non-profit. If that were the case, Rupert Murdoch probably wouldn't have even made the pretense, in the same Newsweek story, of claiming to be intimidated by Bloomberg: "I wouldn't look forward to going up against him," said the News Corp. chief and Wall Street Journal owner.
[Newsweek via PaidContent]
Comments
I believe it's Bloomberger. Ask Dennis Duffy, the subway hero.
i imagine this would subtract from the money earmarked for his foundation.
But could he hold off the Snatch Buckler and his Alabama Hedge Fund? I don't really care, I just wanted to use those words in a sentence.
@ragepotato: Actually, I do care. A story like this one makes me think that we need the NYT in its present hands.
@ragepotato: Hear, hear. If the NYT is ever compromised, I'm finally going to move to a real country.
@nanotalent: Right. After watching ABC decide to wallow in pig shit this week, I have renewed respect for the Gray Lady.
Who would want a newspaper?
@saxon212: Bloomberg, Murdoch, and people who have just finished crapping in an alley.
I'm thinking about thinking about buying a new watch.
Although, I'm sure I won't have enough time.
@VirusWithShoes: Commie!
@VirusWithShoes:Fuck off.
@VirusWithShoes: @VirusWithShoes: @VirusWithShoes: Somehow, as usual, you're right.
@ragepotato: Enabler!
@VirusWithShoes: He was always so charming! He would sing songs, comment on Gawker, drink a fifth of Oban, and then punch me square in the face! He made me feel special!
@ragepotato: Amanda?
No, it's Brandye, you slutty, insensitive fuckstick!
@ragepotato: Ah - I remember you now, especially when you called me by your pet-name for me again - slutty, insensitive fuckstick. Sorry, honey.
I knew someone would eventually come along and pull that tractor off of you.
@ragepotato: I thought that Brandye would be a hilarious Oklahoman name, but in retrospect it makes me look like a windowlicker. Apologies to you. And Amanda.
@VirusWithShoes: The whole tractor thing is a distant memory. Tad, who pulled the thing off of me, has become a faithful husband. He also thinks that the fact that my legs were made into mulch is quite sexy. Hope you've found love, too. No worries.
@ragepotato: mashed spud? yum
The building is their most valuable asset, and it would not have been built without the City's use of eminent domain to grab the land and the use of Liberty Bonds (you know, the ones that were supposed to help rebuilding in downtown). So, after doing all that for the Times, he's going to turn around and buy the company? It makes me nostalgic for the day's when politicians were just whores, not pimps.
doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest for the mayor of a city to buy the city's largest newspaper? this should be illegal.
I find the Bloomberg newswire to be the best in the English speaking world. I have no idea how much of that is from Mike's direction, or if there is just a demand, from the business reader, to cut to the chase.
I can not imagine a place, for example, for William Kristol at a Bloomberg owned times.
As for @ragepotato, it is clear that story is years late, and the Times ran the propaganda many times in the first place. Why not admit, several years after the fact, that they made mistakes and helped start a war which has killed a million Iraqis? It will bring them back to life, dontcha know?
@8Millionth: I'm not anywhere near enough of a fanboy to defend the Times for its role in getting us into this humanitarian catastrophe (and you're right in pointing out that NYT employs the biggest war-promoting blowhole on the planet).
But Barstow's article does bring to light the collusion of the media, the Pentagon, and businesses which got us into Iraq in the first place, and how they, to this day, manipulate us into staying there. It's not the typical "gotcha" crap, and it's too subtle and complex to be distilled into a newswire. It's the kind of reporting that might just keep us out of Iran.
It's good to think about thinking about buying things. It saves money...
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?