I guess it's too early to celebrate the end of the Sulzberger dynasty?  However, there is now one thing for sure, the investors have reminded the editors of the NYT and by proxy the other MSM outlets, they, the investors expect a return on their investment and to mislead the investors that you are not doing anything else besides the business model they invested in is called a violation of fiduciary trust.  A commercial newspaper, cable or TV reporting the news is not a propaganda outlet.  It's one thing if you waste your own money, it's fraud when you waste (use it inappropriately) other people's money without their express permission. 

BTW-Claiming you're running a commercial enterprise to get tax breaks (write offs) and sidestep campaign contribution limits ($2300) by giving free and positive space to only one party is a violation of the law.  Air America, NYT, Tribune Companies, you're on notice.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

The New York Times said of Attorney General Gonzalez last Friday:

We don’t yet know whether Mr. Gonzales is merely so incompetent that he should be fired immediately, or whether he is covering something up.

If Pinch was a man of principle and not politics, he too would resign. After all he has taken one of the greatest franchises in publishing history and driven it straight into the ground.

But Pinch and the Times are not about publishing. They are not about principle. They are there to push a left wing agenda. 

There is no way that Pinch or his family will ever let themselves be held accountable so long as they control voting rights to the shares.

Such votes are essentially symbolic since the Ochs-Sulzberger family controls most of the voting stock.

Sad to say Matt but . . .  these institutional shareholders might not like little Pinch's management style, but most of them like his politics.  A lot of Upper West Side limousine liberals are voting their shares against Pinch, but if they were in charge there wouldn't be much change in the news or editorial pages.

There is a time, that often occurs in an established business, when they realize that what they’ve doing is no longer successful, and find that their market share is decreasing at an unmanageable rate.

If they come to the realization soon enough and do what is necessary to get the business back in the black, more often than not, the business can be saved.

Enter The New York Times.

Here we have a puzzle, rapped in an enigma that has no desire to save itself. And the question is, why?  The answer, unfortunately, is not a business one, but a political one.

For decades, the NYT has been openly socialistic and, as some have said, communistic in its editorial leanings pandering primarily to those living in the Northeast corridor.

Readers, finally realizing that the NYT did not speak for them,  are leaving at unprecedented numbers, which  has made Wall Street, the Times primary investor, very unhappy.

So, there you have it. Rather than do what it takes to re-establish a successful business by  ratcheting back its editorial tendencies to demagogue, and start speaking for all the people instead of those elite few, the Sulzberger family has decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Pinch, Punch, Slam, or whatever the hell his name is, recently said it himself, “he doubts the New York Times will be in existence in five years”.