Submitted by Anonymous Source on Sat, 10/22/2005 - 2:13pm.
You know, this could be one of those instances where a corporate-owned newspaper is better than a family-owned one. If your newspaper's owners are in, say, New Jersey, they probably don't own a whole lot of property locally, and even if they did, there probably wouldn't be people making daily coverage decisions who stood to gain from the sale of said property. I'm not making any accusations about the Bakers here (the Weekly's item is extremely thin and speculative), but the fact is, if a deal like this did happen, there would be legitimate questions. There are Bakers all over the R-G masthead. They'd better be damn transparent about it.
You know, this could be one of those instances where a corporate-owned newspaper is better than a family-owned one. If your newspaper's owners are in, say, New Jersey, they probably don't own a whole lot of property locally, and even if they did, there probably wouldn't be people making daily coverage decisions who stood to gain from the sale of said property. I'm not making any accusations about the Bakers here (the Weekly's item is extremely thin and speculative), but the fact is, if a deal like this did happen, there would be legitimate questions. There are Bakers all over the R-G masthead. They'd better be damn transparent about it.