<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Sulzberger's gambit: what it means for the Globe</title><link>http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/medialog/archive/2008/03/19/sulzberger-s-gambit-what-it-means-for-the-globe.aspx</link><description>According to Fortune&amp;#39;s David Leonard, Pinch Sulzberger&amp;#39;s decision to appoint two hedge-fund dissidents to the NY Times Company&amp;#39;s board was a stroke of genius . If Harbinger and Firebrand had had to fight for their board seats, Leonard reasons</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2007.1 (Build: 20917.1142)</generator></channel></rss>