Update: Rupert Murdoch Wants To Destroy The New York Times

[UPDATE BELOW]: Media magnate Rupert Murdoch has never liked the New York Times. In fact, ever since the Times editorialized against his bid to purchase the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch has had "an Ahab-like obsession" with destroying the Gray Lady, according to New York Magazine. And next month he hopes to plunge the final, fatal harpoon into her heart.

The "Raging Septuagenarian" who owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post, among other holdings, has been plotting the "ultimate Times-killer"—an eight-to-sixteen page Wall Street Journal metro section that could challenge the Times in its own backyard as early as next month. Murdoch is reportedly planning to spend about $15 million on the New York City bureau, which has already landed Bloomingdale's and Bergdorf Goodman as advertisers and is being referred to as "Project Amsterdam." "It's a spear-thrust right at the Times, intended to embarrass and bleed the Times," said a Journal editor. "The idea of the New York Times as a burning, sinking ship is something they fantasize about at night."

After buying the Journal for $5 billion in a decision derided by a former News Corp. executive as "the worst deal he ever did," Murdoch has risked alienating longtime Journal readers in a push to transform the publication from a "second-read" business paper to a general interest news source like "an upscale, edgier USA Today," according to the magazine. Though the planned New York City bureau has been characterized as Murdoch's attempt to finishing off the cash-strapped Times, a journalist who interviewed for a position with the new section told Gothamist that there was no talk of the bureau's role as a "Times killer." The source was unsure of how many people would be on staff at the new section, and what kinds of stories writers for the bureau would cover.

When asked about the rivalry between the Times and the Journal, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger dismissed the concept, telling a New York Magazine writer: "Whatever."

Update (4:39 pm): Despite the risk of Murdoch's purported "Times Killer," New York Times shares surged by as much as 9 percent today amidst rumors that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim would purchase the paper, according to Business Insider. Slim already own almost 7 percent of the company and holds warrants for another 15.9 percent after giving the paper a $250 million loan last year, according to the Journal. A spokesman for Slim has denied his boss' interest in purchasing the company, and stock values have slid. "There are no changes," the spokesman said. "These rumors are going to be coming and going all the time."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Ben Muessig in News on March 1, 2010 3:23 PM

Comments [rss]

Ir

I think his wife should love him extra long time so he can die already.

blink

The Times has destroyed itself, no need for Rupert to do his dirty work.

John Clavis

LOL I figured that Rupert's name and the phrase "Fox News" would draw the right-wingers, like flies to shit... seeing all the childish, catty NYT-hating shows I was right.

Sure, the NYT is a worthless enabler of power and privilege, but at least it isnakt an overt tool for authoritarian manipulation of hypertribalist morons the way Fox News is.

Rupert Murdoch has hurt America far worse than bin Ladin ever did.

matty

Where will gothamist get 90% of their content from now?

dwayno

hahaha!

Gothamist_Cynic

Would the NYT be doing better if they never built that new building?

Telephone 280

I remember when I revered and respected the NYT; that was before they began crucifying Giuliani on a daily basis back in the day. Oooh, he was soooo mean! Yet I still seem to be living in a quite civilized post-Rudy city, and I've not been mugged since Koch was at the helm. If it weren't for those retro futon ads, I couldn't tell the NYT apart from the Village Voice. I like Op Ed pages in general, but not when they comprise the entire paper.

NannyState

He'll never live to see it.

Spirit of 76

From now on, whenever I see Rupert's name, I'm going to think of the nickname Howling Mad Murdoch.

snickerdoodle

The NYT is destroying itself just fine without Murdoch's help. When the NYT starts charging for its content early next year, it will be the final nail in the coffin.

Darrell

I would agree, but at the same time fox might end up suing google for news aggregation, but they don't want to remove themselves from google search results because they're afraid that they'll lose traffic.

angry_pickle

Do you mean because NYT content is not worth paying for? Or do you mean charging for online content will kill a paper? WSJ charges for much of its content and it seems to be doing fine.

longacre

WSJ has content that is unique and worth paying for to someone who can use that content to inform their investment decisions. NY Times telling you about an earthquake or what some guy thinks of a movie is hardly unique.

imadick

but now that murdoch is trying, he can claim victory.

David

Rupert Murdoch can shove it.

eyekantspel

we used to call that "competition." It's kind of strange that New York magazine faults some of Murdoch's projects for being unprofitable considering what a difficult time the NY Times is having staying afloat. Instead of asking about the Journal, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger should have been asked if he plans to sell the rest of the paper to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu. "Whatever."

longacre

Exactly. And what does NY Mag know about making a profit? They don't seem to know much about writing either. The lede sentence in that piece makes me want to cut my eyes out.