±±¾©Èü³µpk10

Goldmark is the third senior manager to leave after the buyout, which was agreed to only reluctantly by the Washington Post. He said his dealings with the New York Times had been "very disappointing".

In a damning statement, Goldmark said: "I was not quite ready to go, but the New York Times has asked me to go. This means I am the last publisher of the International Herald Tribune as an independent newspaper with its own voice and its own international outlook on the world."

Goldmark's position will officially no longer exist. However, the New York Times Company released a statement today saying that Richard Woolridge, president and chief operating officer of the International Herald Tribune, will assume business leadership of the title immediately. Woolridge reports to Janet Robinson, senior vice-president of newspaper operations for the New York Times Company.

Following the sale of the Post's 50% stake, it was revealed that International Herald Tribune editor David Ignatius was to join the Washington Post to write comment pieces for the newspaper, with his departure reported to be less than harmonious.

Last week, Dow Jones said that the European and Asian editions of the Wall Street Journal would now carry news and features from the Washington Post, in a deal that follows the Post's loss of its stake in the International Herald Tribune.

The Herald Tribune had been the Post's only international outlet for its content, a role that will now be fulfilled by the WSJ.

Statement given by Goldmark to the staff of the International Herald Tribune

"There is a code in the corporate world. Under that code you are expected to leave it murky as to whether you are resigning or being fired; you are supposed to go quietly; you are supposed to say everything is OK; and you often pick up a nice fat cheque at the door.

But on this and other issues of importance to me the New York Times and I did not see eye to eye, so I am going to break that code today. Believe me, I will pay dearly for this, both financially and in other coin.

But I gain something beyond price that is also very important. And that is the freedom to talk frankly and clearly, with you here this morning and elsewhere, and to say some things that should be said.

The Times has been very clear recently that the job of chair and CEO of the IHT as it exists today will no longer exist. I can see that this is so, and so can you. The earliest and most fundamental change they announced is that editorial will report exclusively to New York.

This means I am the last publisher of the IHT as an independent newspaper with its own voice and its own international outlook on the world.

There are many issues on which the New York Times and I have disagreed over the past few months, but this is the fundamental one: the end of the IHT as an independent newspaper, with its own voice and its own international outlook.

This is a great loss. The world needs more independent voices, not fewer. And at a time when the world is growing to mistrust America, it needs thoughtful voices and independent perspectives that see the world whole and are not managed from America. So while for me it is a difficult and a sad moment, in the history of the paper it is more than that: it is the end of an era in international journalism that will leave a big hole, just when we need it most.

The past three months have been difficult for me, and my dealings with the New York Times have been personally very disappointing. I have argued strenuously to preserve the international outlook and voice of the IHT. At the same time, I have worked like a professional to try to make the transition to full ownership of the IHT by the New York Times as successful as possible. You know me well enough to guess that I was never shy about telling them what I thought.

Nor was I shy with both the Times and the Washington Post over the past five years. I argued privately to them that the IHT could not succeed in the long run under the old 50-50 ownership structure, and that they should restructure the company. Several alternative structures would have been workable, and the actual outcome -- the agreement under which the New York Times acquired 100% of the IHT -- was one that met the test of creating a powerful, global and independent news organisation. There was no long-term economic future for the IHT under the old structure. So what has happened gives all of you and the enlarged New York Times a good, strong shot at the future.

Do I wish this were being done in a way that preserved the independent voice and character of the IHT? Yes. Could it have been done this way? Yes. But that die has been cast. What is going forward is the global New York Times. Is it nevertheless important that the global New York Times succeed? Again, the answer is yes. It is too important to fail. The stakes are very high. In the largest sense, we all need the New York Times to succeed -- because independent journalism is the oxygen of democracy, and it is one of the few navigational markers we human beings have as we set out to cross the deadly minefields of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and environmental deterioration.

And I want all of you to succeed. Many of you have come to see that an enormous professional opportunity now lies before you. You are correct in that perception and with your new colleagues at the New York Times you must try to make the most of that opportunity.

I want to thank you for the brave, gritty and professional job you have turned in over the past five years during which I was privileged to lead the IHT. We had some tough times and we faced some rough problems. We will leave it to the history books to pass the final verdict on the quality and usefulness of what we did together. But I want to acknowledge today the spirit, the resourcefulness, the tenacity, and the good humour that you brought to our common adventure, and the sacrifices many of you made along the way.

I will think of you often, about the race we have run together, and about the small miracles we pulled off and the critics and skeptics we confounded together."

If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .