Why would the man behind the New York Times be stressed? Well, profits from the paper have been declining for four years, and the Times company’s market cap has been shrinking, too. Its share lags far behind the benchmark, and just last week, the group Sulzberger leads admitted suffering a $570 million loss because of write offs and losses at the Boston Globe.
As if that weren’t enough, his personal bank, Morgan Stanley, recently set out on a campaign that could cost the man control over the paper.
All this may explain why Sulzberger does not talk with the press.
The article focuses on a probable transition from print to internet publishing at the NYT, as though the meltdown of the newspaper publishing industry (which saw 13.5B in market value evaporate in the last two years) is simply the result of consumer preference for faster information delivery – the problem not the product, but the platform.
What isn’t mentioned is that while the New York Times, and other distinguished organs of the mainstream press have been bleeding circulation, another was inexplicably moving in a different direction;
The New York Post today surpassed the Daily News and The Washington Post to become the 5th largest newspaper in America after bucking the national trend and chalking up a whopping 5.1 percent jump in circulation.
Sulzberger makes an open admission;
There are millions of bloggers out there, and if the Times forgets who and what they are, it will lose the war, and rightly so, according to Sulzberger. “We are curators, curators of news. People don’t click onto the New York Times to read blogs. They want reliable news that they can trust,” he says.
“We aren’t ignoring what’s happening. We understand that the newspaper is not the focal point of city life as it was 10 years ago.
“Once upon a time, people had to read the paper to find out what was going on in theater. Today there are hundreds of forums and sites with that information,” he says. “But the paper can integrate material from bloggers and external writers. We need to be part of that community and to have dialogue with the online world.”
And with that, reveals (like so many who argue the false premise that “blogs will never replace the mainstream media”) that he still doesn’t fully comprehend what is happening to his industry.
Those “bloggers and external writers” aren’t an “online world”. Blogs, forums and other resources of the internet are a platform, a pathway for information transmission – but they are tools of the individual, not the collective.
The “external writers” Sulzberger sees are not competitors. They’re his industry’s former subscribers – media consumers no longer interested in recieving politically-filtered news from the bottom end of a one-way pipe, who no longer tolerate interference by self-appointed gatekeepers who view information as their exlusive property to frame, sanitize, analyze, and interpret as they see fit,
It’s not a war, Mr. Sulzberger. It’s a revolt.
Excellent as always , though you left out “ignore or bury ” , as they see fit .
If you want me to watch your news cast, or read your newspaper, quit telling me what or how to think about a subject. Give me the details and let me form my own opinion. They spend too much time trying to change how I think, rather then giving the details of the situation. Why do people go to blogs, because they want the information from a person who thinks like they do!
Well said Kate.
One only hopes that some of the more thoughtful folks at the Times (if there are any) would read this and consider that, maybe, you know, people like to think for themselves on the issues?
Or maybe not. Who knows…
Whenever I want to have a cynical laugh, I tune into the CBC or CTV and watch Lloyd (the corpse … he truly looks embalmed) or the shiny headed Peter Mansbridge, interview their various reporters to get the “facts” on whatever item is in the new.
NOT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PART OF THE STORY … but rather, the story that the reporters who have decided what the story is.
Regarding Lloyd, I saw him last evening and noted his teeth … I think I found the answer to “where the yellow went”. (from the old Pepsodent toothpaste ad.)
No wonder aliens come to check out this planet … it’s just too funny.
See the demise of dinosaur institutions like the New York Times just makes me want to celebrate!
Darwin at work in the media business!
Darwin always works in the end.
“It’s not a war, Mr. Sulzberger. It’s a revolt.”
And a revolution! With guillotines! Just look at how many heads have rolled since Dan Rather.
Now for the Islamist Harooooon and that wackjob Travers at the Star. But why stop there?
“They want reliable news that they can trust.”
And that is exactly why people are leaving the NYT subscriber’s list in droves.
The print media used to give out the news of the day with an editorial comment… then they started putting their view on each news item and that was when truth left journalism.
From there it was a downward slide and the Internet was the edge of the precipice.
I do not see a way back up for them neither is it a big loss, unless you like wrapping your fish and chips in the paper.
Deal or No Deal:
I vote Howie to anchor CTV news and utilize his briefcase staff as reporters.
In order to maintain all possible viewership, male briefcase staff will take over the last half and alternate halves on odd/even days.
Liberalize that.
So many people go around with their nose in the air telling all and sundry that they read the New York Times. What will they do when it finally goes mams-up?
Reminds me of a Monty Python sketch (slightly modified)…
lowly scribe – “Sir, the peasants are revolting!”
Sulzberger – “Yes. They are, rather.”
… Now for the Islamist Harooooon …
Irwin, funny you should mention him, because I walked right by the Haroonster at lunch today. It crossed my mind to whack him upside the head, but I let it go.
I often see Eric Margolis and Janice Stein in the same area and I get the same thoughts.
Quite right; it’s a revolt. Akin to the famous revolut against ‘taxation without representation’; which is to say, against ‘opinions without factual evidence’.
Sulzberger is treating the Internet as if it were another news source (Reuters, AP, CP etc) and that the Official News simply has to include this news source for its columnists. But that’s not it..
The Internet is a ‘system of information generation’. It operates in a totally different manner than the MSM (press and television/radio). These older systems operate in a linear manner; they collect data, categorize, define and analyze it. And then, they pass on the results to us, the passive recipients of what is now no longer data but is Information. Or, The Truth.
The Internet doesn’t work that way; it is non-linear, which simply means that the collection of data, categorization, definitions, analysis AND receipt of all this – is going on, without direction, all the time. There isn’t any Top Authority…down to the Non-Authorities. Instead, what counts is – the data and the information.
The Internet is made up of individuals acting WITHIN a massive, complex, global information process. But it isn’t really the individual who matters; it’s the data and information.
Someone will post some data; another site will pick it up and categorize it; another site will dispute this categorization; another site will add data; another will challenge the data; several will analyze it; others will challenge these analyses….All of this is extremely rapid; the whole process ignores space; it ignores time.
What emerges from this complex interaction is, actually, the truth. The false data is sloughed off by challenges, the invalid analyses are thrown out; biases are mocked or ignored.
The linear methods of the Press, TV, radio, aren’t built to operate in this complex, open and interactive manner. That’s what Sulzberger doesn’t understand.
Can any of the old systems continue to function? Sure, but I think they have to move back to data and information, and, above all, an acknowledgment of the rights of the individual to make up their own mind.
Thanks Kate … perfectly said.
How many of you have gone to http://www.finn.gc.ca to leave your suggestions for the coming budget. How many have suggested severe cut backs to the cbc. and all things cultural.
I really hope the bankers take over and cut it up for scrap…
I don’t normally say such things on blog posts, but well said Kate. Damn well said!
It is one of those cases of “pride goeth before the fall”. They are so sure they are right in how they do things that they just keep stumbling towards the cliff, refusing to admit that they are going in the wrong direction. They lose money, and then don’t change. They lose more money, and still refuse to change. They teeter on the brink of disappearing forever, and refuse to ask themselves honestly what they are doing wrong.
Just think of all the trees left standing to regulate our climate , Al Gore and his friends must be smiling.
too bad it will take so long . . .
I wonder if by losing more and more money, they will become more and more convinced that capitalism doesn’t work?
You know, I still subscribe to and read a local city newspaper. When travelling I read free (and occasionally buy) copies of the National Post. I refuse to pay for the Globe and Mail, but will read it if nothing else is around (I will not pay for it). I refuse to read the Toronto Star even if it is the only paper available.
Saying that, one of my interests in reading the paper(s) is to find out how certain stories are being framed in the MSM. Frequently, I find these stories within the papers after I read about them via a blog and in the case of Mark Holland’s verbal gaffe’s on Adler and Rutherford, hardly at all.
Question – Who’s Haroon?
Thank God for the internet!
Geez Mississauga Matt, sounds like you’re hangin’ round the even darker side of Toronto.
Good self restraint, though. Don’t think I could’ve done as well.
Like I said thank God the the internet.
I googled “Haroon Journalist” and found out all I need to know.
See, told you I don’t read Toronto Star
Fred: “too bad it will take so long . . .”
I don’t think they are in charge of the timetable … red ink has a way of limiting options.
Alas, those who see themselves as part of the collective never seem to find the will to free themselves enough to understand the individual. News is becoming less of a spectator sport and more of a dynamic discussion between better informed individuals.
Lefty spokes-celeb Whoopie Goldberg was on FoxNews’ “O’Reilly Factor” last week stating that her opinions are “feelings” based. Can anyone just get feelings about issues without considering facts? I see that as similar to building a house without a frame…any ol’ breeze knocks it down.
I’d rather develop solid opinions from good confirmed information. Solid opinions give us the freedom to withstand storms of disinformation that mislead, defraud and enslave. Blogs are so much more than a news service. Blogs are an expression of democracy in action and a tool that supports freedom for the individual.
Whoopie and her devout lefty followers have as much between their ears as the cushion that shares her name.
Say something nice about the New York times, Tex.
“Well, their crossword puzzles are good. Oh, and a Sunday edition will last a whole month in the little shack out back” đ
It seems to me the problem is that people go into journalism with an agenda these day, to change the world, rather than to report the news and let others change the world. Noam Chomsky made a good observation–the reporting in the Wall Street Journal is the most factually reliable. Why? Because capitalists need accurate news. Factual accuracy is the agenda there. I would not put all newspapers into the category.
Capitalism is the great leveler, the free market that the NYT’s vilifies via Paul Krugman, the dumbest economist on the planet. The WSJ’s revenues are increasing, why is that?
These arrogant journo elite just don’t get that it is content that counts, and, only content. Books still sell, so, it isn’t the dead tree format.
FOX has killed CNN, again content.
Here’s where stupidity is at its most obvious with these MSM morons, we elected Bush twice, examining that demographic, a smart media person would figure out that more than 50% of Americans are conservative, so, let’s just for our revenue sake give that large segment what they want. Instead, the idiots are prepared to fall on their swords as we walk away in droves from their lefty agenda driven products. How business stupid can you get.
I just wish good people like Kate could make serious money for all of her smarts and effort, but, that’s coming as advertisers will eventually go where the eyeballs are. The internet story is still unfolding.
I got a newsletter from , I think, Newsmax that said Warren Buffet is thinking of buying the Times. Has anyone heard anything of that? I still wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot – no, make that a 100 foot pole.
Of course, all this wonderful stuff is predicated on the internet remaining a relatively unfettered commons. Now what do you think that requires? Chiefly, American dominance in the undergirding industry (declining), a willingness among American regulators to keep their fingers off (telecomm?!), no balkanization of the internet (hello, China!)…and the beat goes on.
A major battle for the mind of man has been won, but the war is far from over.
Martin B, thanks for a good laugh. That was wonderful!
The vanishing of the Times will be a good thing, and that’s too bad. I come from a newspaper family, the Telly in Toronto, and as it was so well put by RobC. Editorials are one thing, but to editorialize on every article, put your slant on every bit of news, brings that media to the levels of Moscow.
I buy and read one or two papers every day, plus the net blogs and when a good one is gone, it’s a loss..the Times is not one of the good ones.
By the way, a pal that makes the paper that the Newspapers use, tole me that the paper is considered TOO TOXIC TO WRAP FOOD IN. That’s straight from the horses mouth as it were.
Pat
The injection of opinion in various ways, ranging from ignoring or downplaying important stories to including opinion in purportedly repertorial pieces, has certainly bothered me. It’s bothered me all the more because it’s been coupled with an astonishingly arrogant attitude that “we’re the professionals and nobody else can do what we do.” There are things that are difficult. Neuroscience and subatomic physics are among them; journalism is not.
There are things that are difficult. Neuroscience and subatomic physics are among them; journalism is not.
Amen to that. We are talking about a crowd that are basically stylists, not that different from hairdressers. Like the decline in education, thanks to teachers that have no core knowledge in the subjects they teach, journalists own nothing that couldn’t be burned to the ground in an instant.
History has overtaken these sad creatures because we are now expecting them to think and they can’t.
People/organizations who have been successful at one stage of a technology rarely succeed at the next stage. It wasn’t the vacuum tube companies who made money from the transistor, nor the integrated steel companies who profited from the ninimill. So, even without political bias, the print media would be having big problems. The political bias makes it worse. So does the shallowness of much coverage.
I think it would take a very astute and clear-minded executive to make a success of a major newspaper today, and such people seem to be in fairly scarce supply in the industry.
“I really don’t know whether we’ll be printing the Times in five years…”
considering the state of the NYT as it is now ( a political filter of infrmation ) I would say this will make a lot of trees rejoice that they will escape sensless slaughter for such a lost cause.
One glaring ommision is that more people get their daily news from the printed media or television than read blogs for their take on todays events.In fact a majority of the public do not even really know what a blog is,let alone access them.Another is that a lot of bloggers opinions are really aimed at others with the same beliefs or are just partisian rants.Many blog rolls are like a bunch of winos sitting around sniffing their own farts.The real threat by bloggers to the MSM as stated by SDA is that the unfiltered version (truth?) is out there for those who seek it and as demonstrated by many bloggers will change how the MSM does it’s reporting.
That said I believe the real strengh of the
The New York Times is a de facto appendage of the Democratic party. IMO, many people didnât realize that until after the fall of the USSR, because even Democrats were wary of commies, and the geopolitical spread between the parties wasnât always noticeable.
But I remember when I lived in NY reading the Times on the way to work every morning that there were daily front page rants about how dumb President Reagan was. That he fell asleep in meetings. That his silly comments about the âevil empireâ were like something a religious zealot would say. Reagan saved us despite the NYTs. So will Bush and Giuliani.
The New York Times hates Republicans. But Republicans whom Iâve known for years didnât even realize it until recently.
It wouldnât matter except the NYTs has for decades driven the headlines across America, so its multiplier impact is enormous. Ditto the CBC, it drives the headlines across Canada, small outlets canât afford to collect news beyond a small radius. How can conservative outlets compete with the billions the CBC spends, we even have to pony up a billion of taxpayer money just keep it afloat. .why? It does not reflect our views or values, why must I pay for it?
The Globe and Mail is pretty much the same as the NYTs. They also hate conservatives. They place a few brave writers like Margaret Wente to deceive us into thinking they are balanced, they arenât.
But we are at the beginning of something akin to Martin Luther and the Reformation. This time the Reformation is the democratization of the media and the figurative smashing of some icons like the New York Times and The Globe and Mail ⌠and please give us a majority so we can close the CBC.
What was that song Dandy Don Merideth used to sing at the end of Monday Night Football games? Oh, yeah:
“Turn out the lights, the parties over….”
What was that song Dandy Don Meredith used to sing on Monday Night Football when the game became a rout? Oh, yeah:
“Turn out the ights, the party’s over….”
Liberal media has reduced us to a gossip nation.
Gossip is front page news. Look at the death of Anna Nicole Smith. We’re going to be hearing about this for weeks.
Meanwhile, the world is in jeopardy – Islam, the most fascist and idiotic ideology ever – traditionally praying on the least intelligent and poverty striken, is now considered culturally equal, not just as one of the three big faiths and the ‘fastest growing’, but as a viable political and legal future.
There was a time that a newspapers slant was kept to the op/ed page. Now, it’s every page. There was a time that credibility mattered. Chivalry, decency, reason and role meant something.
At least leftists are supporting abortion with their own uteruses.
Faster pussycat! Kill! kill! kill!
Twenty years ago, when I was in NYC for an extended period on business, the papers that everyone bought were the Daily News and the Post. They covered the NEWS – not an agenda. It certainly seems that the trend has continued…….
And what’s really interesting is how desperate the NYT is getting. On Sunday two weeks ago, a sample copy of the NYT was delivered to every house on our street – in a suburb of Dallas. Apparently the folks in NYC aren’t buying enough copies, so the NYT is having to look elsewhere for subscribers. They’d do better to strike a deal with Charmin to provide recyclable material…….
It was not the New York Times who referred to Ronald Regan as “Ronnie Ray-Gun”- that award goes to a band called ‘Country Joe & The Fish’.
(Check out his explanation of the ‘Manifest Destiny of the United States’- cut short when the wifey emerged from stage right, gently took his hand, and led him away from the microphone!?!)
Ronnie was already suffering from Alzheimer’s at the time, ( not that anybody would have noticed).
Does it matter whether they print on paper or on the net…not one bit.
A fart is just a fart whether in an elevator or in bed. Open the door or throw the covers to one side the same results happens…..clean air and everyone forgets the fart happened.
The only difference is the New York Slime’s likes everyone to know a flatulence has happened whether any good comes from the revelation or not. Then insist it’s fart is relevant.
Iâm new to this site but it certainly got the highest recommendation for Kateâs wit. I agree on this article about the ârevoltâ of âmedia consumersâ from the traditional, conventional news media that is bought and paid for by the corporations.
This also is exactly what is happening to Conventional Medicine that is bought and paid for by commercial interests, mainly pharmaceuticals. The revolt is no less strong as a result of the freedom that the internet has brought. People are now exposed to Alternative Medicines which doesnât have the financial clout of the drug companies or the âpolitically- filteredâ financial muscle to influence the âself-appointed gatekeepersâ with their false propaganda.
Recently CBS news gave valuable airspace to an author ridiculously slamming Natural Remedies and Herbs as being âineffective and dangerousâ. Iâm a researcher and talk about sham journalism. My background is health-care, first in pharmaceuticals then I saw the light and in natural health and the more you research the more you realize that Kateâs comments absolutely apply. Thank goodness for the internet, that levels the playing field for information until the governments try to take it over, no doubt for the protection us âpeasantsâ.
The Monty Python reference by Wonder Woman is bang on, except one thing, the more educated a person is the more they are leaving the Medical Establishment âclap-trapâ as one physician put it. The key is to be more self-educated by researching and not accepting the âself-appointed gatekeepersâŚ[of] informationâ. The revolt is happening in so many areas including health-care because âwhat counts is the data and informationâ as ET pointed out that isnât tainted by self-interests.
I actually just recently wrote about this information because of being dismayed by the constant false propaganda and the CBS news report triggered me to annoyance big-time.
Dennis C
I thought I would weigh in with some comments.
I think that papers have always been political and that they have always tried to get their ideas across and influence people, mainly through the Op-Ed pages.
The NYTs has a long tradition and I think it has always been liberal/democratic. The Post is much older. You can actually go all the way back and see them reporting on things like Abraham Lincoln’s speaches in New York (this was even when Lincoln was still a Whig and the Republican party had not even been founded yet). Also many of the US east coast papers were actually founded by political parties and/or politians (the Post was founded by Whigs and Whig absolutionists).
The issue is honesty. There is no problem having a certain slant but if you are deliberately lying then there is a problem. I think that the NYTs is trying to be honest.
Also, whether the NYTs migrates to an Internet only format is irrelevant to it’s political views.
At lot of people (including me) love the tactile nature of papers. You can buy the Saturday NYTs and (aside from getting a good upper body workout by doing a couple of curls with it) read all the theatre reviews, fashion stuff, book reviews, homes and architecture, the city itself, and just look at the cool advertisements about really rich stuff.
Also Mississauge Matt, I love the term “the Haroonster”. Now if we could only come up with a loving term for everyones buddy Eric.
I don’t think you guys are going to find the new emerging landscape much to your liking. The far right has its echo chambers on the internet but they’re being dramaticaly outclassed in every imaginable respect by the progressive netroots.
I submit the theory that the NYT, et al, are actually putting into action that which they so stidently advocate: reducing their carbon footprint both by eliminating the need for energy consumed in the production and distribution of a bulky physical product, and by allowing more of their active CO2 sequestering agents to remain standing in the fields and on the slopes. Nobly, fewer and fewer of their employees are to be found on the roads pressed in the daily commute.
I salute this voluntary and selfless gesture by an important and visible industry.
ccoon âI think that the NYTs is trying to be honest.â
If it were honest it would have at the top of the paper what it stands for â which is Democrats.
I donât have a problem with Pinch Schulzberg choosing to do everything that he can to get Democrats elected and for people to hate Bush. Many of his shareholders are disserting him and heâs lost about $3.5 billion in market capitalization over the last 3 years.
The problem has been the naivety of the general public who bought into the idea that the NYTs is politically balanced and âtrying to be honestâ. It isnât balanced, nobody is. Thatâs just a fact of life, we all have our likes and dislikes, and they may change over time as some of us digest new facts. But we all have our biases based on our experience and information.
But the state owned CBC is different than the privately owned media. It is not OK for the CBC to promote its biases, which are utopian, because as a taxpayer I have to pay for its views which I do not share. For example, I see today in the NP that the Quebec bureau chief for the CBC Radio-Canada is going to run for Boisclair whom he has been defending vigorously lately at Radio-Canada with my tax subsidy. Radio Canada has always been a cesspool of separatists. Why do I have to subsidize that? Also, why do taxpayers have to provide funding to the Bloc that wants to break up my county? We’re nuts to allow this to continue.
Itâs time we started to put a much higher standard on who is âtrying to be honestâ and who has an agenda.
Jose,
You try so hard and still..
If the “progressives” were so outclassing the right what are you doing here? And yet you still come tilting at windmills breathlessly espousing all that is incorrect.
enough