Why is Henry Blodget Fixated on the New York Times? Perhaps a Conflict of Interest?

November 17, 2008 by Drama 2.0  
Filed under Archive

Henry Blodget’s Silicon Alley Insider has spent a lot of time discussing the New York Times’ woes lately:

If I didn’t know any better, I might assume that Blodget’s curious new pastime is calling “Titantic” on one of the world’s most storied newspaper companies.

A reader, however, tipped me off to an interesting fact that hints at the possibility that Blodget’s fetish for New York Times S&M may be more than just a pastime: in July 2008, Silicon Alley Insider raised some funding and part of it came from individuals associated with dissident New York Times shareholders.

One of SAI’s investors, Kohlberg Ventures, is run by James Kohlberg. Kohlberg is a member of the New York Times board of directors. He was elected to the board as part of a New York Times move to ward off a proxy battle led by Firebrand Partners and Harbinger Capital Partners, whose funds had purchased 19% of the Times’ stock.

Another SAI investor, Allen Morgan, was also listed on the slate of possible directors put forth by Firebrand Partners and Harbinger Capital Partners.

Interestingly, both Firebrand Partners and Harbinger Capital Partners have “advised a heavy investment in Internet properties” for the New York Times. Convenient.

While I won’t go so far as to suggest that there are hidden agendas driving SAI’s recent fixation on the New York Times, given that some of SAI’s investors are intimately involved with the New York Times, shouldn’t Blodget and crew disclose this fact when they “report” on the New York Times?

If Henry Blodget is going to pretend that he is still a Wall Street analyst by digging through and analyzing the New York Times’ SEC filings, perhaps he should do his readers a favor and pretend that he has a modicum of journalistic integrity by disclosing the fact that his investors have ties to the New York Times.

I know it’s probably a lot to ask for, Henry, but given that after all these years you still only have about as much positive karma as Dick Fuld, you might want to start considering the fact that if you don’t reform yourself, you’re probably going to look as foolish in your next life as you look in this one.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • ThisNext
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Tired of lame celebrity sites?

If you're tired of all the celeb sites that are heavy on the gossip but short on the T&A, the hottest celebrity tapes and photos are one click away with your Drama 2.0 Show Premium Membership.

The best part of the deal: it's 100% FREE. So what are you waiting for?
Claim yours now!

Comments

2 Responses to “Why is Henry Blodget Fixated on the New York Times? Perhaps a Conflict of Interest?”
  1. Duncan says:

    I can see the potential conflict and the dots you have drawn, but could it simply be a case that the NY Times is fucked, and Blodget is reporting on that?

  2. Drama 2.0 says:

    Duncan: it could very well be, but journalistic ethics require that potential conflicts be disclosed regardless of whether or not those potential conflicts have actually influenced reporting.

    The act of failing to disclose a very clear conflict creates the appearance of possible impropriety.

    It seems that in “new media” the standard is “I don’t have to disclose this potential conflict because it didn’t influence me.” That, unfortunately, is not the point.

    I, of course, wouldn’t expect somebody like Henry Blodget to understand anything related to ethics, disclosure, etc.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...