New York Times: Real Estate Conglomerate or Media Outlet

THE New York Times is evidently unafraid to make an ass of it self if it can add even incrementally to the growing hysteria against the West Side stadium project.
The entire battle is increasingly ugly. Yet the Times' coverage is so flagrantly one-sided, the paper might as well be on the payroll of Cablevision's James Dolan.

Most recently, the Times' uncritical embrace of the "$600 million" counter-offer for the rail-yard site by Cablevision's Madison Square Garden is the stuff of house-organ propaganda.

On Saturday, a Page One headline ridiculously stated, "Owner of Garden Outbids Jets for Site of Proposed Stadium." In fact, Cablevison's "bid" is so vague and conditional as to amount to little more than a notion.

In the real world, a "bid" entails highly specific documentation of precisely what will be paid when, how it will be financed and on what conditions — none of which Cablevision has made clear.

Worse still are the Times' editorials against the stadium deal — which flagrantly ignore striking similarities to the Times' own recent purchase from the state of the land for its new Eighth Avenue headquarters.

The Times insists that the proposed Sports and Convention Center is a giveaway to the Jets that puts taxpayers at risk. Yet the Times got its own site at what some called a "sweetheart" price that may well cost taxpayers in the long run. And that deal — which brought the paper significant tax breaks at a time of fiscal municipal strain — came in a process that excluded outside bidders.

The now-rising Times headquarters (in which the Times is partnered with developer Forest City Ratner) is a good project, and worthy of certain risks and sacrifices by the state and city. But that doesn't mean that the Times' deal doesn't remain open to serious legal, ethical and fiscal questions.

In fact, Times editorialists have amnesia about the issues raised about the Times/Ratner arrangement to buy a long-term lease on Eighth Avenue[...]

Steve Cuozzo is a frequent critic of the NYT, and for good reason. The Times is a real estate conglomerate first and foremost. They have real estate interests throughout the City, and have a building to fill in Midtown. They opposed rebuilding downtown after 9/11 because it would interfere with their Times Square tower. They now oppose West Side Development for similar reasons.

Now, there are credible and real reasons to debate the building of a West Side Stadium, or the WTC plans as delivered, but without disclosing conflicts of interest, the Times muddies the waters.