Bloomberg Buying 'NYT'? Don't Hold Your Breath

I've been dragging my heels on addressing the day's big news -- a report that some in Mike Bloomberg's circle are urging him to buy The New York Times -- because, although it would certainly be big if it happened, it's not exactly news.

Speculation about Bloomberg using his vast wealth to secure the Times's future has been in the air at least since January. That Bloomberg's hangers-on would be encouraging him to do anything that extends his -- ie. their -- influence past December 2009, when his term as mayor ends, is to be expected.

Bloomberg himself dismissed the talk during a press conference on routine city business today, in language that was relatively committal, at least compared to the flirtatious way he used to bat away questions about his presidential aspirations.

"I am not a newspaper person," he said. "I know nothing about the production of a newspaper. I know something about reading it. Sometimes I like it. Sometimes I don't. I buy it everyday retail. But I am not going into the newspaper business."

Felix Salmon has some thoughts on why Bloomberg would be wise to keep his word on this one:

[T]he companies simply aren't much of a fit. Bloomberg makes money from subscriptions; the NYT makes money from selling advertising. Bloomberg's occasional toe-dips into consumer-facing media have never taken off, and even the highly-respected and enormous Bloomberg News operation is financially largely irrelevant to the fortunes of its parent....

I also suspect that Mike Bloomberg likes having the option to sell Bloomberg LP - something which would, if it ever happened, allow him to ratchet up his philanthropy to a whole new level. If he bought the New York Times, the Sulzbergers would want assurances that he wouldn't simply turn around and sell it as part of the combined company.