TCS Daily


National Enquirer-N.Y. Times Merger "Dead"

By William S. Smith - February 25, 2008 12:00 AM

(SATIRENEWSSERVICE). American Media Corporation (AMC), publisher of The National Enquirer, today revealed that its Board had voted to terminate the company's agreement to acquire the New York Times. "Because of recent actions by the Times, we no longer believe that the two newspapers represent a strategic fit," said Hildebrand Johnson, Jr., an AMC spokesman in an early morning conference call. "It's over."

In a hastily called press conference, Edwin "Pinch" Sulzberger, Editor of The Times, attempted to calm nervous investors who had begun dumping the stock on news of the announcement. "This deal is not dead yet," said Sulzberger. "I think we can save it because it simply makes too much sense."

Newspaper industry analysts and investors had praised the proposed deal which was announced four months ago. Famed newspaper investor Warren Buffet explained, "Over the past twenty-five years, AMC has moved the National Enquirer away from loony conspiracy theories, off-the-wall character attacks, plagiarism, fraudulent or unsourced stories, an over-emphasis on sex and the persistent use of overheated prose. Stated simply, the Enquirer has moved toward a more professional journalism. During the same period, the Times has moved in the opposite direction. It seemed to AMC that the two papers had, in effect, converged. Rather than compete, AMC determined that the two should join forces."

According to industry sources, AMC planned to combine the Times' valuable sports and entertainment sections into the National Enquirer while moving the news and opinion sections into another AMC supermarket tabloid publication, The Weekly World News - which Sulzberger once famously called "The New York Times' twin regarding accuracy and relevance".

An AMC spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained the company's abrupt decision. "The management of the Times breached a critical covenant during the interim period between the announcement of the merger and the close of the deal. This covenant required the Times to 'cease engaging in shoddy journalistic practices and pseudo-clever, hyper-partisan political reporting that discredit and dishonor serious journalism.'"

The spokesman stated, "the Times continues to breach this covenant every single day."

Democratic Activist and AMC Board member Harold Dimsky cited another reason for the board's vote: "The Times has a history of providing decisive help to Republican presidential candidates by consistently failing to challenge Democratic candidates on issues and character while reporting the most speculative and inconsequential allegations about Republicans. Because the The New York Times is primarily read by Democrats, this negligence leaves these susceptible readers with the completely false sense that their selected candidates are electable. In fact this negligence leaves the Democratic candidate untested and unaware of serious challenges to his or her campaign narrative.

"This abuse of basic journalistic fairness," continued Dimsky, "has resulted in catastrophe for our party, saddling it with unelectable, badly flawed candidates while providing the other party's candidate with challenges that show their capacity to lead."

Dimsky cited as examples the willful neglect by the Times of the gaping holes in John Kerry's Vietnam service narrative, the Times' stunning lack of challenge to the current, preposterous Obama-as-Christ-like-rock-star campaign and, most recently, the Times' tabloid-like slanders against Republican John McCain.

"Their attack against McCain just drove uncommitted Republicans straight into John McCain's camp," said Dimsky. "This constant, irresponsible journalism in aid of Republican candidates is the main reason I voted to kill this deal."

Categories:

5 Comments

unrealistic piece
The National Enquirer has entirely too much pride to be associated with the New York Times. ;)

I thought...
that dragging the Weekly World News into this was totally uncalled for! What would Bat Boy say?

Too true!
As I said, real unrealistic satire! ;)

Not quite fair to the Enquirer
The Enquirer, unlike the other supermarket tabloids, is careful to publish only verifiable stories. (Unlike the Times, too.) However, this has caused the Enquirer to emphasize celebrity gossip, sex, and overheated prose. Since their subjects are usually less arresting than those of competitors not limited to the truth, they have to "spice up" their product to sell it.

It should also be noted that over the last few years the Enquirer has broken several genuinely important stories, notably Jesse Jackson's ******* child. What important stories has the Times broken?

TCS Daily Archives