Despite its best efforts, the New York Times Company continues to find itself plagued by wave after wave of investor complaints spurred on by the fact that the company's shares have fallen from near $50 to just under $16 since 2004.
First it was Morgan Stanley's audacious attempt to end the Times's dual-class share system which enables the radical leftist Sulzberger family to continue running the paper into the ground by giving it almost-exclusive control of the NYT Co.'s board of directors. Now comes news that two large Times investors are nominating their own members of the company's board, without prior approval from Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger:
A pair of investors disclosed plans Monday to name their own slate of four directors at The New York Times Co., saying the current board hasn't acted aggressively enough to meet the demands of the rapidly changing media industry.
The investors, Firebrand Partners and Harbinger Capital Partners, laid out their position in a letter to Times' Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson. The letter, dated Sunday, was disclosed in a regulatory filing Monday. [...]
Firebrand Partners's founder Scott Galloway said in his letter that he and Harbinger had no intention of changing the Times' two-class share structure, which allows the Sulzberger family to maintain control of the company.
But Galloway added that the current board, "while impressive in stature, has not been effective in inspiring the requisite bold action this media environment demands."
Galloway said in his letter that he wanted to meet with Times managers to discuss an "optimal capital structure" for the company and to find a way to transform the Times "from a low growth company to a robust firm that is both the newspaper of record and the most trusted starting point on the Internet."
Imagine that: Actual capitalism instead of crony capitalism at America's self-proclaimed "paper of record." Three cheers for Firebrand Partners and Harbinger Capital Partners.
Hat tip: DrewM.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Rupert Murdoch was in the room
January 28, 2008 - 15:59 ET by Lame CherryAll of this stems from Rupert Murdoch taking the Wall Street Journal and moving it to his media electronic empire.
Investors know that ad rates were cut and that they are sitting on a sinking ship that Murdoch is poking holes in daily all due to Pinch's asinine policies.
It takes allot to have thee paper of record and so boink it up with lies, liberals and fake stories to promote world communism that people laugh at you.
Might be funny on the outside, but inside the investors are seeing a million dollar stock now worth a few hundred thousand.
With God's help, I could inform the Times exactly how to fix the situation, expand and become the media of record again...........but when Frank Rich and Mo Dowd are your premier loons things are not going to change by hiring Billy Kristol.
Business and media is so simple if these liberals would stop screwing around with it like it is a Greek tragedy and start running it like a bank.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
NYT is acting like the Feds
January 28, 2008 - 16:22 ET by JayTeeBureaucrats will not change unless acted upon by an outside force, Govt. Agencies do not look at Profit when making decisions, and it looks like the NY Times is emulating a Federal Bureaucracy
-- Management or administration marked by hierarchical authority who are not Elected officials --
One wonders how the current NYT stock Graph Figures have escaped the view of current Management ? Maybe the Paper is being managed according to a Political Agenda, as opposed to Return to the Stock holders ?
I think the Stock holders are trying to kick butt and take names in order to Save the Paper.
It's a good Monday. HEH!!!
January 28, 2008 - 16:25 ET by drillanwrFirst, Teddy and the Kennedy Klan backing "Osama"
Then Rush's delicious "Bull" Clinton remark(s)
And now this update on the floundering "pinko-gray lady"
What?
January 28, 2008 - 20:48 ET by heldmywThe New York Times has investors?
These investors are revolting?
What a surprise!