Dear
Huffington Post: Just because you run long long long sentences like [and about] the New York Times doesn't make you the New York Times. Also, this column makes no sense; the Times never had a problem "transforming" itself when it was the flagship in a chain of otherwise undistinguished papers, battening off their profits. Anyway, I stopped reading at "synergies."
Quote:
The paper that Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Sr. worked to transform from a Manhattan-based operation into a national operation through satellite printing and regional editions his son Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. now works to turn into a truly global news content company through an emphasis on digital subscriptions and new Portuguese and Chinese language editions oriented towards cosmopolitan elites in emerging markets.
***
By putting the New England Media Group up for sales, the New York Times Company and its new CEO, former BBC General Director Mark Thompson, has implicitly acknowledged that searching for a way forward for the Globe and the Telegram & Gazette, important as that is in itself, is an unwelcome distraction from the company's primary objective of moving the flagship title forward by building the national and international audience.
***
It is no longer clear that the Times has much in common with these titles, or that the synergies sought when they were bought in 1993 (in joint advertising sales, for example) matter very much anymore. It is, however, clear that these titles do not have the resources or the brand to cater to the global audience the New York Times itself seeks, and that they are now probably losing money or at best breaking even.
Login
FAQ
Search
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/styles/subsilver2/imageset/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")