• gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m not really sure what the New York Times has to do with this. WaPo is owned by a billionaire trying to hedge his bets if Trump wins and decides to take vengeance by breaking up Amazon.

    NYT is fully independent.

    • TJA!@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      3 days ago

      Not sure what you mean with fully independent, but Wikipedia says "Though The New York Times Company is public, all voting shares are controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger Family Trust. "

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s owned by a wealthy family, and it’s reflected in what they choose to report, and more importantly what not to report.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s not even true. It’s a publicly traded company which means it’s owned by the shareholders. Over 90% of those shares are held by financial institutions, meaning diversified investors.

        I don’t know how you could believe such a bald faced lie, and if you don’t believe it then that’s even worse.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          The New York Times Company is majority-owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through elevated shares in the company’s dual-class stock structure held largely in a trust, in effect since the 1950s;[118] as of 2022, the family holds ninety-five percent of The New York Times Company’s Class B shares, allowing it to elect seventy percent of the company’s board of directors.[119] Class A shareholders have restrictive voting rights.[120]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Organization

          What you’ve written here is very misleading, bordering on incorrect, but does this distinction even matter? Both a singular billionaire and a collective of rich owners will manage the business to enhance their personal wealth, not for the common good of ordinary people. If Trump creates an incentive structure where businesses are penalized for going against his will, I think both types of management are rationally going to choose to obey him.

          There needs to be a completely different type of management structure if we want leaders in the press to weigh things like the health of our democracy in their decisions.