Well isn't Arthur Sulzberger just dear. After the world's second wealthiest man — Mexican billionaire, and Friend of Bill, Carlos Slim — snapped up a 6.4 percent "passive" take in the New York Times Co., becoming the company's third-largest non-Ochs-Sulzberger shareholder, the Times chief said in his annual State Of The Times speech that he was essentially delighted to have Slim on board, that he was "aware" Slim was buying up such a large stake, and that it was a "good thing" to have him on board (those are a source's words, not Sulzberger's). Indeed it is! Because Slim just bought himself a 6.4 percent stake in shaping the coverage of his telecommunications, oil, retail, tobacco, mining, and banking and insurance businesses. Oh happy day.

Reporting on one of their own, the Times reports: "Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company, and his wife, Gail Gregg, have decided to separate, they said in a statement issued Friday.

"Mr. Sulzberger, 56, who is also publisher of The Times, and Ms. Gregg, also 56 and a painter and writer, said the decision to end their marriage was amicable.

"'We have made the difficult decision to separate after 33 years of marriage,' their brief statement said. 'We are fortunate to have the love and support of our two children, other family members and close friends and colleagues. This is a private matter and we will not discuss it further.'"

Arthur Sulzberger is doing his stand up routine again. You know, that one where he insists the New York Times Co. is not for sale. [NYT]

"There is no more important question in American journalism than the future of the Times" argues Howell Raines in a lengthy Portfolio column. Well, maybe, but Raines is a little bias: he used to be the executive editor at that newspaper! Unforch, he already used up all his insider-y anecdotes in a 2004 Atlantic article, which means he's only got the financial well-being of the paper to yammer on about.

Quite clearly, he's not hopeful. Whether it's Rupert Murdoch or some hedge fund guys doing the ruffling, Arthur Sulzberger's feathers are about to catch some wind, says Raines. And what about those restless members of the Sulzberger clan, who have witnessed their investments base-jump into mediocrity in just the past couple years? "An extended family raised to expect that their children would be invulnerably rich across future generations is looking at the prospect of being, by New York standards, sort of rich." And the prospects of peasantry can be quite convincing, especially if (when?) Murdoch pulls his cheque book from his jacket pocket. [NYO]

With a pair of private equity firms trying to buy their way into running the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger has other problems to tend to. Namely: Keeping his business and editorial units from throwing each other under a bus.

After last month's news that 100 newsroom jobs would be lost to budget cuts, business staffers rejoiced; finally, they thought, the staff slashes are equaling out, since they'd been taking the majority of the hits.

In one scenario, the coming editorial axings aren't just about pleasing shareholders, but mending relations between the two sides: Seeing their newsroom brethren experience some bloodshed will be therapeutic for the business unit.

And not that we don't believe Sulzberger has the capacity to fire people just to calm tensions, but, well, we don't.

On that note, you have until tomorrow to accept or decline a buyout offer.

I SEE YOUR FOUR, I RAISE YOU TWO Just one day after New York Times Co. investors Harbinger Capital and Firebrand Partners nominated four members to the board (after increasing their stake in the company to 10 percent), Arthur Sulzberger responded … by nominating two of his own to replace a pair of outgoing seats. [Portfolio]

• Apparently unsatisfied with the legal battles waged against his brother, daughter and son, Sumner Redstone also plans to slap his wife with divorce papers.

• Bourne Ultimatum rakes in $70.1 or $69 million in its opening weekend, depending on how much you care.

• Rupert Murdoch promises: "I won't meddle any more than [NYT publisher] Arthur Sulzberger does." In other words, we're all screwed.

CONTINUED »

At ABC headquarters in D.C., mysterious "white, powdery" substance turns out to be aspirin; Related: In moment of inspired genius, Lindsay Lohan's legal team unveils new "Tylenol" defense.

• CBS to pay Imus an undisclosed settlement. In exchange, the ousted radio D.J. will agree to "shut the fuck up."

• Ron Burkle still exploring the idea of adding Star and The National Enquirer to his "crappy supermarket tabloids" repertoire.

• Yeah, we're going to out on a limb here and say that Business Week's Jon Fine thinks Arthur Sulzberger should go private.

• Baghdad Diarist unimpressed with Weekly Standard and New Republic for being unimpressed with him: "It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq."

Arthur Sulzberger doesn't have time to answer Michael Calderone's silly questions. Michael, who's filed items about Rupert Murdoch's bid for Dow Jones for weeks in the New York Observer, got in touch with the New York Times chief about the paper's multi-bureau investigative team dedicated to exposing all of Rup's secrets. Why, Michael asked, such the man power? Retorted Sulz: "Are you serious?"

CONTINUED »