I wonder what Mr. Greenfield would say about the NYT Magazine now. A good story would be why it has changed from the important magazine it was to the insignificant and raggy insert it has become.
1
how is this news? the back stabbing that brought the NYT to where it is today.
Interesting behind the scenes look at The Times.
What's notable is all of these men (always men) were exceptional newspaper men, giants of their time. It was an era when The Times and printed media dominated the news business (along with the major TV networks). And the best and brightest gravitated to old media.
Today, not so much. The Times may still be the "paper of record," but it competes with the Internet, cable news, and everyone with a smartphone. Today's news is more democratic, less reliable, very diffuse, lacking the small number of reliable, unquestioned sources of the past. Who goes into the news business any more? The brightest young talent goes into finance or Internet startups. I guess this is progress, mostly good, with some bad.
What's notable is all of these men (always men) were exceptional newspaper men, giants of their time. It was an era when The Times and printed media dominated the news business (along with the major TV networks). And the best and brightest gravitated to old media.
Today, not so much. The Times may still be the "paper of record," but it competes with the Internet, cable news, and everyone with a smartphone. Today's news is more democratic, less reliable, very diffuse, lacking the small number of reliable, unquestioned sources of the past. Who goes into the news business any more? The brightest young talent goes into finance or Internet startups. I guess this is progress, mostly good, with some bad.
Great yarn! And a wonderful aggregation, shall I say, of material from memoirs by amost everyone. I'm sure the NY-DC tensions remain, to a degree, but this comes at a time when the Editor is a former Washington Bureau Chief. So that may help. And yes--that was a pretty spectacular recovery by Greenfield.
Fascinating to read about the intriguing, behind the scenes politics of the Old Gray Lady.
2
As an old white boomer, I couldn't help but notice that there is not one female mentioned in this entire 'epic' scenario of yet one more power struggle among the rich, white, and males of The Fourth Estate. Not one.
8
Times have changed. The composition of the staff is very different now than it was back then, when women were essentially excluded from editorial positions. It wasn't until the lawsuit a few years later that things started to open up.
3
That was the 1960s and 1970s. Elisabeth Bumiller just succeeded Carolyn Ryan as Washington Bureau Chief for The Times last Tuesday.
Because this happened almost 50 years ago.
The 1970s was a time when newspapers stood up to govt. without flinching, even though their leadership had obvious fears about how the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate investigative stories would impact the future of the newspapers and other ancillary business interests, like the ownership of television stations and other media. One reason that the men of that era in top positions at the Times are considered at least sideline historic figures is that the events themselves were so earth shaking.
We are in a vastly different era today. The public spirt of the 1960s and '70s was to question almost everything about institutional power and particularly the govt. This undoubtably influenced newspaper editors and reporters, many of whom were somewhat jealous of the energy and dedication of anti-war protesters and others calling for social change. It was like a big wave that kept on coming. Surely a new era was being born?
A new era was coming to life, but not in the way imagined. Instead of a fundamental change in American politics, the movements of that time aroused fear, suspicion and doubt across the country, which in turn provided opportunity for backlash, a counter spin that continues.
We need newspapers and a media world generally where people are willing to stand up and be counted. As traditional media faces deep doubts and new media, in many cases, still too weak to have great influence, the public interest is being poorly served in comparison with that earlier period.
We are in a vastly different era today. The public spirt of the 1960s and '70s was to question almost everything about institutional power and particularly the govt. This undoubtably influenced newspaper editors and reporters, many of whom were somewhat jealous of the energy and dedication of anti-war protesters and others calling for social change. It was like a big wave that kept on coming. Surely a new era was being born?
A new era was coming to life, but not in the way imagined. Instead of a fundamental change in American politics, the movements of that time aroused fear, suspicion and doubt across the country, which in turn provided opportunity for backlash, a counter spin that continues.
We need newspapers and a media world generally where people are willing to stand up and be counted. As traditional media faces deep doubts and new media, in many cases, still too weak to have great influence, the public interest is being poorly served in comparison with that earlier period.
20
They used the tip of the iceberg, reporting on the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, to expose that the emperor had no clothes. Led the way for the public to understand that Iran-Contra and other CIA/NSA actions never authorized by Congress are as emblematic of American "exceptionalism" as US role in defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. However, when it came to reporting on the Kennedy & King assassinations, most mainstream media, including the Post & Times, happily cooperated with the CIA, including CIA document 1035-960 instructing media on how to counter any criticism of the Warren Commission. 50 years later, even former Warren Commission staffers now admit that the CIA and FBI repeatedly lied and misled them.
Good story with a moral - there is life after defeat.
6
Very inside, very interesting, always looking to learn about the personalities who have given the paper it's identity over the years.
But....
Why this article now? Did I miss something?
But....
Why this article now? Did I miss something?
10
Elisabeth Bumiller was named as the new Washington Bureau chief for The Times last Tuesday, 9-8.
RML asks, "Why this article now?"
My best guess is that, just as most of the concerned players in this 47-year-old vignette have either left the scene or just don't much care anymore, it'll take another, perhaps extended, period of time before RML's question will be answered.
Let's see, 2015 + 47 = 2062, and I won't even be 130 years old by then. Hope RML makes it!
My best guess is that, just as most of the concerned players in this 47-year-old vignette have either left the scene or just don't much care anymore, it'll take another, perhaps extended, period of time before RML's question will be answered.
Let's see, 2015 + 47 = 2062, and I won't even be 130 years old by then. Hope RML makes it!