NYT: have they gone begging?

Is it just me, or does this look like somebody is begging through a proxy for a bail-out?

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/01/might_google_buy_the_new_york.html

I've been following Google for years because of my consulting work; I've not run into anything recently that suggests firm interest by Google into the acquisition of any news organization, because news is not their core competency. That's why this piece comes across as an initial plea for help, a kind of cold call on deep pockets.

The other funny bit is that the plea is made by a conservative writer, John Ellis. He writes for RealClearPolitics; this piece in RealClearMarkets is his first for this sister outlet. He doesn't mention in this piece that NYT has picked up some of RCP's content. Is he worried that there will be one smaller or one fewer news outlet picking up his own work? NYT is already one of Google's content partners; why buy NYT rather than any of the other partners, assuming Google shifted its business model and moved to content production?

The timing is also shaky; Google will be participating in an auction of the 700Mhz spectrum next week. This is the bandwidth over which television is now broadcast and will be vacated in 2009. Is floating this bit NOW an attempt to ask Google to rethink its capital outlays in advance of the auction?

The whole thing smells off; Google is not known as a conservative company, tending to be more agnostic about platforms whether software or ideology. It's also been under fire from Republicans what is alleged to be indifference to consumer privacy (yes, isn't that rich, considering which party brought you domestic spying in the last 7 years). Why Google?

The last little bit that suggests there might actually be something to this weird little cry-for-help via proxy is in the fallout after NYT signed Bill Kristol as their neo-conservative on the op-ed board. The feedback from NYT readers and bloggers alike has been tense; Kristol has done little to change their opinions, either, in his short tenure. Gabriel Sherman, contributing as guest at The New Republic, closed his assessment of Kristol's hiring and his work to date, saying,

Ultimately, Sulzberger's selection of Kristol has left many at the Times uninspired by his leadership. "Right now, in terms of the economic anxieties of the newspaper business in general, and the Times in particular, there's a concern that we should be doing things that are exciting and thinking about tomorrow's readers," one senior Times staffer said. "Kristol is a long, long, long established voice. There's no surprise or resourcefulness of enterprise in the choice."

Um, yeah...is Sulzberger so desperate for an infusion of fresh and radical thinking at NYT that he's hoping a fresh and radical company like Google will buy him out?

I doubt it; any guy who thinks Kristol was an improvement to NYT's brand that would bring in dynamic readers and attract savvy young contributors is too clueless by half.