July 20, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:John Ellis says short the
John Ellis says short the New York Times. I tend to agree. Particularly, I think that Punch Salzberger suffers from a misconception common to those who inherit empires: that the rule of the emperor is a law of nature.
Salzberger and Raines think that they can use the New York Times as a platform for their political views without degrading the value of the platform. They are, I imagine, encouraged in this by the fact that everyone they socialize with is either liberal, or has a lot of experience not riling liberals with their political opinions. They thus believe that the Times can move significantly to the left without alienating readers or losing its reputation.
But while the Times has a large bank of goodwill and respect built up, that is not an inexhaustible well. I've already subsituted the Sun for local news, the Washington Post for national, and while of course I am remarkably conservative for Manhattan, I know more and more people who feel that they can skip the morning ritual of reading the Times. Their business coverage is uneven. Their political coverage is nearly editorial in tone and content. And their editorial pages are only readable if you occupy the same political space as the editors. Contrast this with the outstanding mix at the Washington Post. Hell, even the Wall Street Journal does a better job of giving space to the opposition, and their news reporters actually lean liberal.
I think that unless this course is reversed, the Times will end up as the voice of the middle-left still mourning the demise of the Big Government Democrats; a high-end Village Voice. At this, Raines and Salzberger will no doubt do a good job. But it will no longer be The Paper of Record. And the platform will be useful only for preaching to the converted.
Posted by Jane Galt at July 20, 2002 07:34 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links