the New York Times Company
I don't know how the New York Times can run an entire Page One story about Mitt Romney's hair--some would end the sentence right there, but not me, I'm actually interested in Romney's hair--without mentioning Edwin Jones. It's like running a story about the invention of the steam engine without mentioning James Watt, or about the start of World War One without mentioning Archduke Franz Ferdinand, or about the causes of the 2008 financial crisis without mentioning subprime mortgages. The New York Times Co.
Earlier this week, the Boston Globe ran what was virtually an epitaph, a very long epitaph for itself. The author blamed the paper's owner--the New York Times Company--for most of its troubles. There was a lot of nostalgia for the old publishing family, the Taylors, who sold the newspaper to the Sulzbergers. (The Times is actually a public company dominated by the family because of two classes of stock, one with power, one without. The Sulzbergers own the controlling stock.
On January 25, the New York Times endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton. At the time, the 1,100-word editorial stood out for both its tepidness and early appearance, coming near the front-end of the primary season. The piece ran in the paper the Friday before Super Tuesday, instead of in the Times’s symbolically-important Sunday edition.
IT WOULD BE hard to find three families who have supported democratic principles around the world with more resolve than the Sulzbergers, the Grahams, and the Bancrofts. The first two scarcely need introduction. The Sulzbergers, of course, control The New York Times Company; Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the family’s current sovereign, is both chairman of the board and publisher of its most prized asset, The New York Times.