KEY POINTS:
These are difficult days for the New York Times, the paper that enjoys an enviable reputation for journalistic excellence but finds itself fighting a never-ending battle with shareholders wanting to oust its senior executives.
Last week, veteran journalist John Burns flew back from Iraq, where he runs the
paper's Baghdad bureau, to deliver an impassioned speech to investors at the invitation of the publisher, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger.
Burns addressed several fund managers at a private gathering, shortly before the paper's parent company, New York Times Co, held its stormy annual general meeting.
The AGM was the scene of another shareholder rebellion, with investors voting against the re-election of the directors, including Sulzberger, who also chairs New York Times Co. Nearly 42 per cent refused to vote for the proposition, hijacking a ballot that was once a formality but has now become an annual opportunity for investors to express their displeasure at how the company is run.
Pulitzer prizewinner Burns' speech was designed to convince the rebels that their concerns are misplaced.
His theme, say sources at the paper, was the importance of investing heavily in editorial, even though group profits are falling and circulation of its flagship paper has stagnated. Despite a nationwide sales drive, circulation has risen by only 20,000 in nine years.
Other papers have seen their sales fall, but advertising at the Times has collapsed, and its commercial future looks cloudy.
Burns talked about the Baghdad bureau, a hugely expensive and labour-intensive operation, but one that has uncovered a string of stories in recent months. His message was simple: good journalism is expensive but it underpins the Times' reputation as the best newspaper in the US.
That is a lesson that has not yet been absorbed by some shareholders, according to senior editorial figures. They characterise the fight between Sulzberger and the rebels, led by Morgan Stanley fund manager Hassan Elmasry and billionaire investor Bruce Sherman, as a battle for the soul of the paper.
The fact that the New York Times is a bastion of liberal values gives the tussle added piquancy. This is a battle of ideas as well as a straightforward disagreement over strategy.
Sherman and Elmasry insist that the profit motive must prevail over a desire to serve the public good by producing ground-breaking journalism. If Sulzberger survives, it will prove that the two can coexist, as his father, Arthur "Punch" Sulzberger snr, insisted it would when he decided to float the company.
But Sulzberger snr could not have foreseen the industry upheavals ahead, or the huge pressure they would place on newspapers' business models. Like most titles in the Western world, the Times is struggling to come to terms with the challenge of the internet.
Between 2000 and 2005, about 18 per cent of all broadband households in the US stopped their newspaper subscriptions, says investment bank Citigroup, which estimates that by 2010 that figure will rise to 35 per cent. If broadband penetration rises to Scandinavian levels overall US newspaper circulation could fall by a further 2.7 per cent.
The growth of the internet has forced the company to invest heavily in its online product, but the digital arm accounts for just 8 per cent of advertising revenue and 3 per cent of overall group revenues.
Citigroup predicts profits will continue falling at least five years, by which time the money from online advertising may be enough to plug the hole created by falling ad revenues at the paper.
Morgan Stanley and Sherman do not believe Sulzberger can manage that transition, although they seem to have few ideas about how it could be better handled.
They deny wanting to break up the group, which also owns the Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune, but believe the family should relinquish their iron grip on the company, if only because it is suppressing the share price.
They are campaigning to change the complex ownership structure, which gives the Sulzberger family the power to block takeovers. That breeds management complacency, they say.
Sherman, a secretive figure who has amassed billions by investing his wealthy clients' own fortunes, is under intense pressure to justify his newspaper investments.
He waded into the industry at the start of the decade, seemingly impervious to warnings that there were difficult times ahead, building a stake in Philadelphia Enquirer owner Knight Ridder. When its shares plummeted, he forced it to sell to rival group McClatchy. Now Sherman is agitating for similar corporate action at the Times, anxious to make a return on his investment and preserve his status as a financial whizz kid.
The irony about Burns' speech is that Sherman and Morgan Stanley's Elmasry would concur with much of it. They agree it is essential to continue investing in journalism, but say there would be more money to do so if Sulzberger and the rest of the board were not guilty of profligacy.
They pay themselves too well, the rebels claim, and lavished money on an opulent new US$850 million headquarters in Manhattan, designed by Renzo Piano (the Times claims the true cost is nearer US$600 million).
Furthermore, cost-cutting at the Boston Globe has resulted in job losses, and the paper recently axed its foreign bureaus. That is hardly consistent with Burns' pious pronouncements about the importance of foreign news, the rebels scoff. They believe that Sulzberger and his chief executive, Janet Robinson, should step down.
After last week's AGM, the company said it "will continue to pursue its plan to reduce costs, improve financial performance and deliver improved returns to shareholders, and continue investing in its business and high-quality journalism".
But if the Times can be targeted by investors, few other publicly quoted papers can feel safe. The global nature of the investment industry means any of them could attract the attention of opportunistic fund managers.
US investment company Tweedy Browne, which prompted Conrad Black's fall from grace by uncovering his alleged misconduct at Hollinger, also has a stake in Trinity Mirror, owner of the London tabloid the Daily Mirror. It complained about the paper's anti-American editorial stance for years, and led calls for ex-editor Piers Morgan to be sacked after he published fake pictures of soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners.
Now Trinity Mirror has another aggressive American investor on its share roster. Harris Associates, a secretive fund manager based in Chicago, is its largest shareholder, with a 12 per cent stake.
In a rare public utterance last year, the man who looks after Harris' international holdings, David Herro, said he saw the company as a good investment opportunity.
That may be so, but he made similar comments a generation ago, when Harris Associates took a stake in advertising group Saatchi & Saatchi.
A few months later its founders, Charles and Maurice Saatchi, were ousted - victims of a shareholder coup orchestrated by Herro.
Trinity Mirror may soon realise what the New York Times has already discovered: investors only ever care about the bottom line.
- OBSERVER
