New York magazine’s anticipated profile of Arthur Sulzberger and the New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) is out sans bombshells. The bottom line from the lengthy piece by Joe Hagen: no one in the family, including Arthur, is thrilled with the way Arthur is running the company, “no one seems to really have a better idea,” and, so far, dividends and pride are keeping the family trust intact. As for the next leader? Of the 27 members of the fifth gen, Arthur’s son, Oregonian reporter Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, seems to be a good bet with cousin Carolyn Greenspon, the first of the fifth on the board of trustees, offered as a possible catalyst. (Perhaps the best bit is a chart detailing the generations of Sulzbergers that could come in awfully handy if the clan does turn out to be like the Bancrofts or the Pulitzers.)

From the article: “It is significant that none of the members of the fifth generation of the Sulzberger family, given the chance, chose to express even a sliver of unhappiness with the company’s management. The reaction is very different from that of the fifth generation of Bancrofts, many of whom were happy to stoke conversations about a sale of the Journal in the press. ... The family’s dedication to journalism is ‘a noble, familial thing that courses through their veins,’ says a family friend. ‘And anyone who strays from that gets slapped down pretty quickly.’ A sale could make the Sulzberger descendants wealthier, but what they would lose is invaluable to them.”

But cut the dividend—which was raised 31 percent last year and now provides about $25 million to the Ochs-Sulzberger trusts—and that might not matter. The company is making less than it’s paying out and analysts have argued that a cut makes sense. The suggestion is that so many members of the family who aren’t involved in the company rely on the income, a major cut could cause a revolt. That could also explain why putting the NYT into a real trust and removing it from the public markets doesn’t come up.