Troubled Times and missing news

The New York Times company is under fire from dissident investors for a lackluster return on their dollar.

Hassan Elmasry, of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, led a symbolic no-vote protest at the annual shareholders meeting. More than 42 percent of Class A shares were represented by the dissident shareholders and more than half these dissidents were not part of the Ochs-Sulzberger family which controls the board.

Some may say that the Times' troubles are all about technicalities of the media market.

But then again, consider the news that the editors, who are controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family, regularly bypass, such as a great deal of heavy-duty stuff about 9/11. The educated public is becoming increasingly skeptical of the Times as a reliable source. Also, so much news is buried or ignored these days that the news columns have become boring.

Recall John Kerry's recent disclosure that he had inside information that World Trade Center 7 had been felled by controlled demolition for safety reasons. This is shocking, in that the NIST claims it has no knowledge of such a controlled demolition and is trying to come up with an alternative scenario that, from what we know at present, would have done Rube Goldberg proud.

Go to the Times search engine and try to find that story. Nada.
No follow-up. No questions of the senator, the NIST, others in Congress, the FBI. Zilch.
That's a pathetic result for a NEW YORK newspaper, in particular.

Now suppose you are Elmasry or another investor who lives and works in New York and who personally knew a number of colleagues who were killed on 9/11, wouldn't you be hopping mad? Though these investors may feel that they can't talk about the editorial content, surely at least some of them must be thinking about the Times' role in shielding a certain group from inspection of its 9/11 activities.