New York Times Sells Boston Globe, Takes 93% Loss
RUSH: The New York Times sold the Boston Globe for $70 million. They took a 93% loss. They bought the Boston Globe for over a billion dollars back in the nineties. They sold it for $70 million. They sold it to the owner of the Box Red Sox, a man by the name of John Henry. He was not the high bid. There were two other bidders that bid more. What they wanted here was a headline that said "Red Sox Owner Saves Globe," not, "Globe in Terrible Straits, Barely Staying Alive," blah, blah, blah, which is the case. They wanted the headline: "Red Sox Owner Saves the Globe." And they got it. I don't know what the higher bids were, but they were not chump change higher. I mean, the Times could have made more money. They can sell to whoever they want, but I'm just pointing out that there were higher bidders.
The real point about this, is the newspaper, the print newspaper business continues to plummet, and the people in that business do not look at content as a possible explanation. They've got themselves convinced that the reason they're in trouble is because of the Internet and television. I mean, they're losing ad pages. They're losing the size of the newspaper, that's being cut down. Editorial content, it's all being cut down and it's vanishing, slowly but surely. Well, the shareholders at the New York Times don't have any power because there are two structures in the New York Times shareholders, and the family, the Sulzberger family has the class A shares, and whoever owns the class B shares may as well be homeless.
They don't have any way to impact management decisions, because the family owns all the class A shares, and they own it, and they have it wrapped up. There's nothing the shareholder outrage could do to it. That's just the way the family structured it, and people buy it knowing that. If you buy New York Times stock, I mean, it's an ego buy. It's like going out and buying an earring or two that you want people to see or like adopting a little baby from a foreign country and parading it around. It's the latest accessory.
New York Times stock is an accessory, something you brag about at a cocktail party but that doesn't mean anything to you. Anyway, the last thing they look at is content, but here is the real point. The New York Times every day tells all of us how to run the US economy. The New York Times every day, from Paul Krugman to the news stories to the commentary page, routinely offer economic advice.
The New York Times wouldn't know how to turn a profit in anything, obviously. They're demonstrating this left and right. It's no different than here we've got Obama and Democrats in the Congress -- who have never have done anything in the private sector -- who assume the mantel place of expertise, and everybody simply grants them that. Like, Obama is more fit to run health care than people in that business. You know why?
'Cause Obama cares about people, that's why.
And Obama is more fit to run the oil business and be in charge of energy than anybody in it. You know why? Because Obama is fair, and Obama understands how people hurt, and Obama understands people's pain, and Obama understands that those people are destroying the planet with all their fossil fuels and climate change and all that. And this is how, in a very broad-brush way, it works.
RUSH: Now, look at this headline here. It is from Reuters. Just saw this. It's a Reuters exclusive. "US Directs Agents to Cover Up Program Used to Investigate Americans." What is that? From the article, it says: "A secretive US Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans."
US directs agents to cover up the program that's being used to investigate Americans, DEA program. You think stuff like that might be why there is so little trust? For crying out loud, what a headline: "Exclusive: US --" that's the government, Obama, "US Directs Agents" DEA agents in this case, "to Cover Up Program Used to Investigate Americans."
Cover it up, lie about it.
The Fascinating A-Rod Circus
RUSH: Now, when I went to bed last night, the news was that Major League Baseball was gonna announce the suspensions related to the abuses that took place because of this Biogenics place down in Coral Gables. And among those announcements was to be Alex Rodriguez. The announcement was supposed to be at noon. Well, it's now a little bit after one Eastern time, and no announcement.
Now, here are the basics of this. Without going into all kinds of crazy detail because there's just a couple of salient points about this. The stories all say that Major League Baseball called the Yankees last night and told them that Rodriguez is going to be suspended through the 2014 season, the rest of this season and all of next season. Now, that, in terms of dollars, will add up to $37 million that A-Rod will not earn because he's on suspension. And it's because he's engaged in a number of abuses involving steroids, human growth hormone, PEDs, performance enhancing drugs.
Major League Baseball, it is said, has overwhelming evidence against Rodriguez, overwhelming. More evidence on Rodriguez than they have on anybody else they've suspended. The other suspensions are 50 games. Now, the way A-Rod has been dealing with this is fascinating. In everything A-Rod has said, he has not denied. He's out there accusing the Yankees and baseball of having a vendetta against him. He and his lawyers have portrayed him as a huge and giant victim.
There were two possible ways that baseball could go here. One is what is rumored to be the way. A suspension that Rodriguez can appeal and keep playing while his appeal is being heard. The other way the commissioner could have gone or could go, still could go because it hasn't gone any way yet, the commissioner the eminent Bud Selig, could invoke the best interests of baseball clause and deny Rodriguez because of the invocation of that particular clause the right to appeal his suspension. The story is that he will not go that route because it is already felt that Selig has a vendetta against A-Rod.
This has all been in the news. None of it's fact yet. It's all speculation that Selig has a vendetta against A-Rod and he wants to avoid that perception, so he's going to choose the option of suspending A-Rod than allow A-Rod to keep playing if he appeals it. A-Rod has said he's going to appeal it. But it doesn't stop there. A-Rod then says that he's gonna sue the Yankees, and he's gonna sue Major League Baseball, and he's not denying any of this.
What he's doing, he's now threatened to sue the Yankees, claiming the team doctors have essentially engaged in malpractice, misdiagnosing and mistreating his injuries since 2009, which forced him to go elsewhere to get better. He's going to claim that Major League Baseball and the Yankees were trying to sabotage his career. This is all being reported as what will happen, that if he's suspended, he's gonna fight back this way. And if that happens, folks, this is gonna be one of the most fun circuses to watch take place that we've had in a long time.
I find it kind of interesting that in all of this speculation -- and Rodriguez talks to the press now and then. He hasn't denied any of this. He just makes himself out to be the biggest victim that there has ever been, and he's the victim of a conspiracy and that Selig, Major League Baseball, and now the Yankees have been conspiring to prevent him from playing, misdiagnosing and improperly treating his injuries which forced him to seek medical treatment elsewhere.
Anyway, this was all supposed to have come down at noon, and it hasn't come down. None of it. No announcements at all. And so A-Rod, who's been rehabbing from hip surgery and a quadriceps injury in various Yankees minor league teams is due to report to Chicago and be in the lineup tonight. The news reports -- this kind of puzzles me. I ought to call somebody and ask 'em 'cause every news report I have read says the Yankees are obligated to play A-Rod if he shows up because he's off the disabled list. He's eligible now pending the suspension.
Well, now, why are they obligated to play him? I interpret that as being they're obligated to put him in the lineup. I would think the obligations simply give him a uniform, his 25 man roster, whatever the number is now, and if the manager wants to play him, fine, why are they obligated to play him? Maybe I'm misreading that, but, anyway, the venom that has gone back and forth in this case with A-Rod and the sports media, particularly in New York, is fascinating to me.
The RNC Will Not Change CNN and NBC with Threatening Letters
RUSH: There's a fascinating story out there today. It is exclusively to Breitbart.com. I've got this three different ways here, but it's all from Breitbart. The chairman of the Republican National Committee... You know, I thought I remembered how to pronounce his name. Is it "Reece" Priebus? It's "Rince" Priebus? It's not "Reece," it's not "Rines," it's "Rince" as in "hair rinse." Okay, Reince Priebus. I'm just gonna read it to you the way the
the reporter at Breitbart wrote the lede.
Here's the relevant passage from what "Priebus wrote to CNN: 'I find CNN's actions disturbing and disappointing. Your credibility as a supposedly unbiased news network will most certainly be jeopardized by the decision to show political favoritism and produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton’s nascent campaign.'" In part, his letter reads to "NBC: 'I find this disturbing and disappointing.
"'NBC cannot purport to be a neutral party in American politics, and the credibility of NBC News, already damaged by the partisanship of MSNBC, will be further undermined by the actions of NBC Universal executives who have taken it upon themselves to produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton's nascent campaign.'" So let me summarize.
The chairman of the Republican National Committee has sent letters to NBC and CNN saying, "If you guys go ahead with your plans to make these Hillary movies, we will not participate in any debates that you moderate in 2016." I assume that this is thought to be an aggressive move. Now, I myself am struggling to maintain my composure here. In other words, "If you guys don't produce the Hillary movies then we will happily show up for your biased debate coverage.
"But if you do, if you produce these Hillary movies, we're not showing up! We're not gonna sign off on you moderating any of our debates." Now, maybe some people might find this good, or admirable or whatever. I actually think that the chairman of the RNC could send this letter and simply say, "We're not going to participate anymore in debates moderated by your journalists."
Don't make the Hillary movies part of it. Okay, so they cancel the Hillary movies. It's okay then to let NBC's biased moderators and journalists savage Republicans in debates? My point is, the GOP/the RNC ought to pull out of all of these debates that show up on MSNBC, on NBC, on ABC, or CNN. There's nothing to gain! You know, for my whole life I've been hearing, "Well, Rush, it is what it is.
"The media bias is what it is, and the Republican guy running for president, if he's gonna act like he's afraid of NBC, then how's he gonna deal with Al-Qaeda? If a guy's gonna act like he's afraid of Wolf Blitzer and CNN, how's he gonna deal with being president?" That's not the question anymore. The question is: Why should the Republicans actively participate in something designed to defeat them?
Why should the Republicans actively, willingly, happily participate in debates moderated by people who want to make sure people at the end of the debate do not like them and will not vote for them? "Well, Rush, yes, that's true. The Republicans, but they have to go there because that's the nature of the game. That's the media; you can't change it. These Republicans, they gotta go in there and they gotta show that they can deal with that!
"They gotta go in there and they gotta deal with these media people and they gotta beat 'em back!" Well, I don't disagree with that as an operative philosophy, but the debate format may not be the place to do that. There have been random occasions where it's happened -- and if you'll recall, the Republican who takes out after the media in those debates gets unending standing O's.
Remember Newt? Newt Gingrich, I think it was in the South Carolina primaries debate, almost... Well, I don't know how close it really was. But he almost reignited his presidential campaign by throwing something right back at a biased moderator. It's a curious thing, and I don't know that anybody has the ultimate, total right answer. 'Cause if you don't show up at the debate, then the way that is reported is, "Republicans refuse to participate in debate moderated by NBC journalists!"
That starts news coverage of Republicans as cowards and all this. I understand that. But at some point if you have candidates who are not gonna push back against it, who are going the accept the bias and the stacked deck, then it's a problem. But where this is really rooted in problems is something that I learned early on when I first started getting national media attention, interviews and so forth.
I made a very big mistake, and it was based on an assumption born of naivete. The mistake I made was that I could convince a journalist he was wrong about me, or I could convince a journalist he was wrong about the way he or she was looking at the story. I learned that's not possible, 'cause that's not what it's about. The left-wing journalists are not there to be educated or informed. That's not their purpose.
They're there to impugn and demonize and defeat. That's one of the reasons I don't do this anymore, because there's nothing really to be gained. I remember the first two, three, maybe four years, I'd do these interviews, and I'd actually go into them thinking that I had a chance to persuade the reporter that they shouldn't be liberal. They were wrong about something, be it me or something else.
Then when it was over, then I would watch it, and I'd analyze my performance within that context. It was always wrong. I learned you can't. You can't change their minds. You can't persuade them. That's not why they want to talk to you. They don't want to talk to conservatives because they're really interested in them. They don't want to interview conservatives because they're fascinated by what they're saying.
"Wow, there might be something to learn here!"
It's not that at all. Their purpose is to impugn and besmirch. You see it wherever it happens. You see it in debate. You see it in sit-downs. There are exceptions but for the most part in the mainstream media this is what you're talking about. It's not a level playing field. So the chairman of RNC said, "Look, if you guys do this Hillary stuff, you're giving her four hours miniseries commercial. Screw that!
"You do that and we're not showing up at your debate." Well, let's not show up at the debate anyway. Because they're gonna do the four-hour Hillary infomercial whether they do a movie about her or not, or whoever the Democrat candidate is. Anyway, it's interesting to think about. I saw this, and I know that this is the RNC getting aggressive. This is the RNC standing up for themselves. This is the RNC getting tough. This is the RNC out now fundraising.