Thank you for your column. As a long time subscriber to and reader of the NY Times - over 40 years - I was perplexed by the shift in political coverage recently which I found biased and sensationalized with 'sensational' words in headlines that weren't needed. You've explained that with this comment - 'the campaign coverage channels Politico’s scoopy aggression'.
To put it bluntly, I do not like the new tone one bit.
I come from a long line of journalists and muckrakers and understand deeply the value of good objective journalism. I worry that the NYTimes is slipping from that standard and it saddens me deeply. I do hope that the 'politico' spin on campaign coverage can be turned off quickly and the NYTimes reporters return to the objective, comprehensive, rigorous campaign coverage they have been known for.
16
I cannot begrudge the NYT for its great digital successes.
Here in Chicago we are experiencing the ebbing of the Tribune, which is now in the clutches of an avaricious hedge fund.
What I wish for — probably pie-in-the-sky — is that a Jeff Bezos type — will do for the Tribune what he has done to resuscitate the Washington Post, whose fortunes are soaring.
I have been reading the NYT since the 1950s and look forward to doing so each day.
But we need to stanch the outgoing tide of our great daily newspaper more than ever.
4
NYT made a good move offering bulk subscriptions to libraries and, in turn, to their patrons free of charge. Ever since I found out this was possible through my library, I've been reading NYT more than ever
8
The NYT is not without faults, but it’s survival and continued growth is heartening. I think it provides great value and great graphics. It is good at long form pieces or series, and is becoming competitive at the “instant news” of competitive sites. This is a very broad range of news and information forms and sources. What I would like to see is better access via digital to the rich range of previous stories and other content. Two examples are stories about particular countries or topics, and better organization of the Watching and TV reporting.
3
I've pondered cutting my subscription several times recently. I'm of the so-called "far left" wing of the Democratic Party, and while I will read any intelligent columnist whatever their political stripe, I'm highly disappointed that the Times doesn't deem it necessary to employ one single true progressive voice in their op-ed pages.
If I have to put up with Bret Stephens and David Brooks, it seems to me that I could have one defender of my values to read - just one person to swim upstream against the tide of older moderates who poo-poo the progressive movement, and Bernie Sanders in particular.
It doesn't seem like a very cogent business decision to turn off, and often downright insult, so many of their subscribers, especially so much of the younger demographic. While it's good news that The Times is doing well now, there's not much future for this paper without speaking to the next generation.
10
I think the Washington Post provides some competition. I keep thinking I should downsize to one paper, but can’t decide which. I love your comments section! Also subscribe to local paper. We want and need depth news we can trust. Good luck.
6
Any judgment of the size and scope of the NYT should take into account that it is now a national and even international newspaper of record. This is unique.
In the UK, there have always been lots of national papers but very few notable local papers. Until USA Today came along, no paper in the US aimed at the full national audience. Instead, high quality papers thrived in many cities for over a century.
In the UK, the broadsheet newspapers uphold for professional standards but they don't aim to be THE paper of record. Each one is the organ of a different strand of the political spectrum. And at least before toxic polarization, many Brits liked reading more than one.
In the US, mainstream newspapers have tried to be more apolitical. In the end, that has made them more alike and easier to supplant.
Bravo to the NYT. Rather than bemoaning lack of competition at the national level, let's hope more localized digital papers open up, like the Texas Tribune.
3
Oh ww! How did the Times become so digitally successful these last few years?
1
This has got to be one of worst ideas put forth in the NYT in a very long time. I commend the NYT for publishing it, but on its surface the argument is sorely missing. The NYT exists in a global media landscape in which readers have almost unlimited reach for information at their finger tips. The idea of any kind of monopoly in that setting is way off the mark. What we need in the NYT is what we need: a strong innovative player in the U.S. dedicated to openness and finding the facts to educate the population. Nothing is wrong with that. Every nation on Earth needs one!
The fact that the NYT provides such an open platform for learning and exchange of ideas is priceless!
8
I've been a proud non-promotion subscriber for a decade or more, and see it as a small monthly payment for keeping our democracy.
13
This whole article is a thinly veiled excuse to gloat over the Times’ doing well.
5
Filling David Carr's chair is a big ask. Best of luck, and welcome, Ben, to the best bargain one could ever pay for, the daily New York Times.
7
The election of Donald J. Trump was the best thing to ever happen to the NYT.
13
Yes, i know there is a "wall" between news and advertising departments in all (well, many) media, but does this claim of incremental readership and influence seem just a bit directed to advertisers?
1
What a great opportunity for us to tell the Times how much we love it! This comments section is basically a bunch of product reviews, almost overwhelmingly positive, if the Times’ marketing team ever needs it. While standing in line at my local supermarket in London this evening, I noticed the only non-UK newspaper in the shelf was the NYT which reminded me of this article which I had read in the morning. Along with all the comments from people around the world, it really is proof of how relevant and powerful the NYT is - not just in the US but globally. Lastly, thank you NYT for the amazing journalism, the important stories from all around the world, the fashion shows, recipes, health advice and so much more (I could go on and on) and for doing it all in a balanced way in this day and age.
6
Seems an effort between hubris and insincere self depreciation.
4
Its out of the NY Times hands. If not want the NY Times it would be another organisation. This is the edge of capitalism looking for ever more finer margins.
Lets hope the journalists and editorial staff can hold the line when the inevitable cash squeeze comes from the people in charge of the money start looking for more margin.
2
The loss of local papers is good for the politicians but bad for the voters. Limited or no coverage of city hall is bad for the people on the street but helpful to those politicians operating behind OZ’s curtain.
7
I am glad the Times is on solid footing. I am sad that so many local newspapers have disappeared. The absence of ethical, truthful local reporting threatens our democracy more than the rise of any national paper. Politics is local as are corruption and abuse. The dearth of local and regional investigative reporting (which is expensive and time consuming) that meets the requirements and standards of ethical journalism (factual reporting and fact checking) bodes poorly for all of us. The Times has collaborated with investigative reporting outlets (Pro Publica comes to mind) and I hope it will continue to do so with regional and local outlets that could benefit from such collaboration. If we don’t know what’s going on in our backyards, we are ignorant. Ignorance us not a virtue to those who relish truth, fact, science, justice, etc. Keep up the good work NYT. More important than who’s the latest pop icon (we can find that elsewhere)—help us find out who’s polluting our waters and buying influence in our state houses. All the NEWS that’s fit to print.
6
I subscribed to the NYT because I don't mind small inline advertisements. I will not revisit and avoid sites that use animated ads, popups, slide ins, banner ads, or ads that cover content.
IMHO, that is a major component of NYT success: they get my subscription AND get to count my eyeballs on some (small, unobtrusive) ads because they aren't obnoxious like the majority of digital sites.
8
If the New York Times has no true competition, it's because no other organization that I'm aware of truly has tried to compete with the two things that, taken together, are unique about it. One is the degree to which its coverage is comprehensive. There are lots of things that don't get mentioned in The Times, but not even the BBC covers so many countries, so many types of subjects and has the same mix of longer and shorter journalism. The Times isn't perfect in that regard, but it looks as though everyone else has given up (and not many organizations were trying in the first place). The second thing is that The Times makes a serious, if certainly imperfect, attempt to keep its journalism accurate. The imperfections can be striking. With fewer editors and quick deadlines, we see a lot of sloppiness. Coverage of STEM subjects is barely literate (but the same is true of nearly all news organizations that aren't specialists). I could go on about the imperfections, but it remains true that, to some extent excepting the BBC, no one else is or has been trying to do what The Times does. I would love it if more organizations would find the means to do so. In the meantime, we should treasure what we have.
6
I've witnessed the time turn from relatively-objective journalism to sensation culture war blogging in less than five years. Now they even have sitcoms on Hulu, but what can you do? Obviously nothing. Posting an article like this about themselves is about as big of a flex imaginable. The public will eventually notice that there is little substance within the hollow shell this organization has turned into. It's devotees will remain, hungry for gossip and Fox News-style affirmation, but the credibility it built over generations is gone and its reputation won't last. Whatever sells.
5
As a subscriber to my local newspaper for over 40 years I finally discontinued my subscription 10 years ago. I read my newspaper every morning with my coffee. The acquisition of the newspaper by out of town chains was the start of its downfall. With classified ads and print ad declining, the paper cut costs by eliminating local journalists. Gone went state and local political reporting. Gone went investigative reporting. Sports reporting remained fairly robust for local college teams but coverage of major league sports for nearby Boston and New York disappeared. Instead most of the news was reprint of articles from national organizations. Those I could easily read on the internet. I do pay for news from multiple national newspapers and other sources. I recently tried subscribing to my local paper’s digital subscription. The technology used was not useful and articles were partially obscured by pop up Google ads. The articles were mediocre local coverage plus reprints from Associated Press and some other sources. I canceled my digital subscription. I think there are local readers would would pay for good local journalism. Local tv news seems to be based on the weather and local crime. No more real journalism. National tv is often very superficial with little real in-depth reporting.Mediocre journalism will not survive. Good national print journalism like The NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg will prosper. Democracy vitally needs good journalism.
6
Corporatization and condensation of news sources in general, and newspapers in particular, has been an overarching and problematic trend for some time. Cable news and social media are eating smaller players' lunch.
However, don't blame the NYT for figuring out ways to survive. They are existing in a Darwinian environment due to bad policy, but that is business reality. Not fair to blame the paper for evolving to survive.
Uncool to make a splash by highlighting the current success of the NYT without highlighting their very recent financial distress, and the overarching context of consolidation in the challenging ecosystem within which they are fighting for survival.
NYT has missed the target on a number of major issues, including WMD's in Iraq. That said, in their defense, they are generally credible and fact based given information available in the moment. The editorial section is labeled as such, and they are a necessary backstop on blatant mis-truths AKA lies continually spewed by Fox and the White House that dwells entirely within the false reality bubble of the Foxhole.
4
The same people who lament the loss of mom-and-pop shops in favor of Wal-mart are ironically applauding the New York Times for squeezing smaller operations out of the news industry. As much as I love NYT, I much prefer a variety of options of perspectives who aren't all paid by the same small handful of individuals.
1
" the opinion pages reflect the best and worst of The Atlantic’s provocations. "
The worst more than the best. The Op-Ed pages have become excuses for triumphalist racialism, identity politics, intolerance and virtue signaling. Demonization of perceived PC-incorrect opponents.
The politics of the Bubble.
7
The NYT is certainly not a "monopoly" on MY laptop. It's not even the first in the list of 25 bookmarks I have under my "News" category; that would be The Washington Post. Five of the total are paid subscriptions, but the total costs less than $50 a month. All the others are still free, although they come with lots -- sometimes way too many -- pop up ads. I expect this will all shake out in the coming years, but I see no way that the NYT will drive all other journalism -- and hard-working journalists -- out of business.
4
I’m a digital subscriber from the U. K. And really rate the Times. It beats the living daylights out of the U. K. shocking newspapers which are basically rags owned by billionaires with skewed agendas. We are lucky to have the Times.
6
When people lament here, they lament the loss of their mom and pop local news. Perhaps I am jaded, but I am not much interested in what happened locally in Demoins. Simce I could read I read the Times (maybe why so early but I think my Dad's influence had a lot to do with it). Being brought up in Manhattan, I had another great source of knowledge, the Public Library system. Without getting too much into the merits, I have over the years lamented the steady decline of both these great institutions.Bit by bit they have been partitioned and sold off to the highest bidder, usually some Wall Street titan. It isn't that which bothered me so much but how much was put into gilding and how little into what made these morsels so valuable to begin with. Then I have to think about the shrinking federal budget under each successive Republican Administation. I remember John Ashcrofts words about needing to keep them barefoot and pregnant. That translated to me as keep them dumb and stupid. He was talking about Mexican immigrants but he really meant any potential voter. Knowledge was anathema to Republicans then as now. That is why I believe the NYT has to stop partitioning itself into smaller and smaller pieces that only the rich can afford. I love to cook but do not subscribe to your cooking blog. Or any other of your blogs. If I really need paying info, I go to the library.
1
The New York Times is surviving because they create and promote meaningful the tenets of responsible journalism and many articles that promote critical thinking, I am a loyal supporter of the NYT because they do publish many interesting and compelling thought provoking pieces. Facebook, Twitter and Fox News do not support responsible journalism or critical thinking. The NYT is increasing it's audience because many people all over the world crave responsible, ethical and informative reporting. Other online sources like Mother Jones, The Atlantic,The Guardian and MSNBC also offer audiences access to meaningful information that responsibly promote multiple perspectives. The NYT is successful because they appear to uphold the tenets of responsible journalism. And right now the world really needs responsible journalism... which requires research and articles that inspire to people to examine topics and issues and think about them. Frankly the NYT should not be criticized for maintaining and delivering valuable stories and doing so for promoting responsible, thought-provoking reporting.
4
This is a good thing. Most of what other people call Journalism is really just people reading the morning's NYT and writing a synopsis of what they read. (Or worse, reading twitter and reporting on what famous people said.) The New York Times is the most important source of investigative journalism on the planet, and it is only fitting that others fail where the NYT succeeds.
Without The New York Times there would be no news.
3
You're leaving out and selling short the Washington Post. If you don't read it, try it. I subscribe to it and the NYT
7
I subscribe to NYT is because of great reputation and reporting. Used to subscribe to wall street journal but I'm mot in trading stock no more, so no point.
1
Yay the New York Times! Keep up the good work!! :)
4
I received an e-mail from NYT last week notifying me the cost of my monthly digital subscription is increasing 11%. I am still stinging from NYT's reporting on the 2016 election in which Clinton was projected to win past the closing of the polls. Nonetheless, Charles Blow defiantly proclaims any Democrat can beat Trump. Have we not learned?
I am considering a trial subscription to the Washington Post. I wouldn't trumpet dominance just yet.
I subscribe to both the WaPo and Times. I haven't received and email telling me subscription price going up for the Times (yet). If it does, it will be another big increase since I started my sub. in '15, and I'll probably discontinue. WaPo has remained the same since inception.
2
I do not normally pay for news. Back in the days before the Internet my father would buy the local newspaper once a week, because it had the TV program in it. This is all the news I got.
Then the Internet came, and with it as much free information (both false and true) as you wished, and twice as much spin.
Then 2016 came, and the entire world lost its mind. Britons voted for the comfortable lies over truth, and the US President labeled all inconvenient news "enemies of the people". This is VERY familiar to anyone with even cursory knowledge of how totalitarian propaganda worked - it was their favorite accusation, because they were the people... at least those that mattered. Trump declared war on the "failing NYT", and I knew I had to support it.
It helped that the Times had the most interesting and thought provoking articles, so I would save up the 3 best to view every month before hitting the paywall. In the sea of clickbait NYT had responsible, objective reporting.
Now... the article has a point. NYT absorbed a ton of publications. It has far more clickbait, more sensaitionalism, more gossip, more wokeness than 3 years before. Perhaps it has just as much responsible content, but I have to sift through a ton of dirt to find it. I just think if it were to split into several publications with a common subscription it would better suit the different demographics it tries to cater to.
I subscribe to another news outlet in my own country that I read from time to time. I read NYTimes daily. Indeed, I trust NYTimes more than the news outlets from my own country. Do I trust NYTimes completely? Of course not. Everybody must check and think about what is reading or seeing in the age of fake news. However, the broad and comprehensive approach has always attracted me and it is quite easy to take a look at other sources from time to time just to test. As long as it keeps the quality, the broadness and the tentative balance towards truth, I will keep subscribing the NYTimes.
3
If the NY Times has grown, it has not been result of anything but smart decision makiang by the management which has understood to a changing media environment.
Local papers had been dying long before the internet thanks to TV . Most TV and cable news coverage is little more than a paradt talking heads incessantly bloviating. Internet news sites are often filled with silliness (has anyone looked at the homepage of BuzzFeed toda?).
It is refreshing to see an American paper covering the world -- today's paper has in-depth reporting from India, Bangladesh,China, Italy, Israel, Afghanistan, Columbia, Slovakia,Greece and Turkey.
The coverage of the US campaign is comprehensive. It has significant business coverage.
It also covers culture -- arts, literature, music - pop and classical. The Book Review, the Magazine, the 1619 project are part of rich reading experience.
I have been reading the Times online since it started -- before the paywall -- and I continue to read it because it provides real journalism. It's competitors would do well to try doing that too.
4
Preposterous.
I've been reading the NYT, then the Herald Tribune, then the NYT again since 1980. None of the many net-native news sources I've read since the Internet went public (Huffington Post, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Vice, ...) has ever reached the quality and depth of the NYT. Just because these newcomers were born online doesn't make them important or relevant. Body of knowledge, expertise, gravitas, depth of analysis and range of coverage are only a few domains where they were never in the same league as the NYT. Another major deficiency of these outlets is/was their near-complete lack of cosmopolitanism, their narrow, 100% US-centric outlook.
As speed, superficiality and entertainment value have replaced depth, weight, and brains, many centrist or left-leaning online news outlets exists, and will continue to be launched. There again, more thinking is/will be devoted to coding, presentation, business and marketing than to research and writing.
The New York Times, as always, is about information first, conveyed with honesty, soul and goodwill. The power of Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, etc. needs to be countered by a biggie with a longstanding reputation.
Finally, malevolent fabulists like Limbaugh, Hannity, or Bannon can't be countered by honest news outfits because these would have to resort to the same fear, bile, and rage-based tactics: something considered disgusting and off-limits by honest, reasonable people.
https://tinyurl.com/twt3fjved
3
The biggest threat to NYT integrity and strength remains, externally, the Murdoch Ailes "many headed monster" and the internal, self-hypnotizing loop that starts to sound like "abortion is good, transgender is no big deal, and quotes can be used to raise eyebrows regardless if they lower veracity... ditto headlines." Will be interesting to get perspective on the above- and underground social media... Congrats, and may the force be with you
1
I read this column first in the print version, and it reminds me of two friends/foes that look into a mirror at a funny house; yet instead of laughing they both believe the distorted versions of themselves. Or more telling, the picture of Taylor Swift and Kate Perry hugging each other dressed up as a Big Mac and Fries, the lead article on BuzFeed, today. Perhaps the trend of journalism now is as described in the essay, “The Times will get bigger and the niche will get nichier, and noting else will survive,” but what is certainly clear by the writing style and delivery of Ben Smith, is the Times will get more blah, blanco, self-indulgence thinly veiled as self-deprecation, and two media outlets congratulating and hugging themselves for patronizing the narrowest spectrum of pop media narrative and consumption; Sulzberger and Smith - the Swift and Perry of journalism.
1
I subscribe to the NY Times, LA Times, Colorado Sun, and the Denver Post. I still receive the Denver Post in paper format. Sadly, it gets skinnier and skinnier. A full spread will be all ads with one little article, usually a reprint from the NY Times. Denver had two great papers not that long ago . . . Now it barely has one. The current "original" reporting in the Post is mostly the police blotter. This is so depressing and disheartening for a metro area of over 2 million. Our city is the victim of private equity money squeezing the papers to death. The Colorado Sun is a fledgling on-line news outlet of original reporting that's quite good but it's not comprehensive. I'm committed to supporting real journalism at a local level but then I find myself on the Times app getting my news.
54
Mr. Smith seems to assert that good old-fashioned greed spelled the doom of newspapers throughout the country. Not so. Like many businesses of old — think buggy whips — newspapers ran into a perfect storm of rising costs: the costs of newsprint, ink, distribution, salaries as well as increased competition from the internet for the all-important classified ads. Even the local yokel papers are struggling to survive because their ad rates simply can’t sustain the costs of daily or weekly publication. The Times has done a marvelous job of transitioning to the new digital world, even though I’m sure it’s been harrowing at times for those who keep a close eye on the bottom line. Though I tend to resent its liberal slant on politics, as well as domestic and foreign news, and the fact it uses often slanderous opinions from would-be pundits, I am nevertheless very tuned in to its cultural coverage, excellent obituary writing and sports coverage.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
4
Let's try it again....
Buzzfeed was no "chief insurgent" to NYT! They, Politico and RealClearPolitics are faux-independent, online news sources that support NYT and mainstream print and cable news at setting the narratives. They are the "edgy" online arm of the country's propaganda machinery. Even this article pretends to be edgy, independent and critical, but it offers ZERO serious criticism of NYT (or mainstream media). It basically celebrates the paper's success while promoting Sulzberger's rising-tide-lifts-all-boats "dynamism" defense. Starting pay at $104K... and they're supposed to speak to the American people?! What a charade.
A truly critical article of NYT's digital expansion might mention how these very forums are profoundly manipulative of public opinion and drive hegemony. Why in the world are readers allowed to recommend comments from within the NYT Picks list? It's pretty obvious that the convergence/overlap of Reader Picks and NYT Picks is by design. Now, let's see what NYT censors do with this comment....
1
I subscribe to other media online, and I am glad the Times and other news outlets are charging for access - the less they rely on advertising, the less suspect their content. But I have to say that there is a reason beyond 'behemoth' for the Times' success. I am a news junkie, but I always turn to The Times for what it has always stood for: "All the news that's fit to print.' It has become more attuned to less serious subjects, however at core it is still the best and most thorough news organization I read, and I trust it. I also like that it still has dignity, I don't like seeing other venerable news institutions turning into click bait. The Times is winning because of its standards. That's why I will continue to subscribe.
2
At the present, it seems to me that NYT is huge, maybe approaching monopoly, because it provides far greater value than the competition, not because it’s aggressive against the competition. This is not Microsoft destroying Netscape with predatory pricing. E.g., NYT moderation of its comments sections must be very expensive, but they’re much more useful than WaPo comments sections. Hence the NYT advantage.
Still, monopolies turn abusive, and the only cures for this abuse are competition or regulation. Let’s hope for competition.
71
I am a lifelong reader of the NYT and congratulate the company on its successful pivot to digital content and for its commitment to using its deep pockets to keep the current corrupt administration accountable. Yet it is disheartening to see this success come at the cost of innumerable local media outlets that cannot attract the advertising and subscriber bases or build the infrastructure to maintain strong, independent local journalism, and it is disingenuous to say that there is space for both. Certainly, it is not the mission of the NYT to provide both comprehensive local and (inter)national coverage, and it is not to blame for the collapse of local media. But as good as the NYT is, it will never be an adequate substitute for the deeply knowledgeable and committed local and regional journalists that it has come to replace. If the newspaper is the first draft of history, our descendants will never have better than a birds-eye view of 21st century American communities.
39
Neither freedom nor democracy is free. Ditto for the truth, whether you want to hear it or not. Columns like this one are necessary, healthy and welcomed to enhance our perspectives. The proper balance may always be fluid yet always requires more than one point of view honestly expressed.
3
In its quest for clicks, the Times has swung far left: stories that support only the left narrative, misinformation, deceptive and inaccurate headlines, ignoring inconvenient facts, and even hiring rather odious people into its ranks, Mr. Smith thankfully not among those.
A popular phrase these days is "get woke, go broke." That applies to many if not all of the outlets that have indeed gone broke. The pattern is that the leftist pot-stirring and clickbait indeed generates clicks, but eventually the audience for those reaches its limit. The Times is different because it has a long-time loyal audience, such as me. What the Times better worry about is what is going to happen when Trump -- in fact the Times' greatest benefactor -- is no longer on the scene, and thus the greatest driver of left-leaning clicks loses its agency. The Trump-is-the-issue-with-everything narrative will fade, and the Times' clicks along with it if it does not return to unbiased news, and fails to again eschew opinion pretending to be news.
There are now plenty of ways to get quality news without resorting to the news oligopoly. The Times better start looking 5 years ahead.
"The Times is different because it has a long-time loyal audience, such as me."
If you're a long time part of the loyal audience, then you must have been reading the Times prior to Trump. And, as you state, you're "long-time", then you must have received benefit from it in the past. So if you remain part of the "audience" then you will probably receive future benefit as well. Instead of your "concern" for the Times future, you should direct your concern to the other "quality" news sources you patronize.
I'm heartened to read this fairly even handed situation analysis. Mr. Smith is very likely among the one percent at the New York Times who have not yet drunk their own Kool-Aid. But you need know next to nothing about digital media to know their online circulation masks much bigger problem-challenges that he fails to raise. Once Donald Trump finally recedes into the sunset, NYT readership is very likely to plummet, so tethered is the paper to whipping the left into a froth in recent years. Other than CNN, MSNBC and Fox, no outlet has seen greater bottom line benefit from the Donald's coattails. But there's an even more daunting challenge, Mr. Smith and The Times ignore at their own peril: outside the insular media beltway, the supposed newspaper of record has lost a majority of the reputation, respect and trust it had built in the marketplace 40 years ago. The Times today is a shell of the civic and journalistic institution it once was. All of the hype about digital sales will do nothing to stem that tide.
2
I love each of the parts of the whole enterprise. In his launch essay, I think Ben Smith is too in love with the whole and its parts.
Well, I miss paper smell, but I still reading it!
1
The greatest threat to the news business is not simply that it is, perhaps, becoming a one player game. It's that the dominant player, this newspaper, has lost most of its credibility with over half the population. And rightly so.
The breadth of coverage provided by the Times is second to none. But it is biased coverage. The Times does not make many factual errors; its sins are those of omission. It is the rule, not the exception, that its news coverage omits facts at odds with the paper's world view. Too often the phrase "false equivalence" has become an excuse for misleading and incomplete coverage of the world, and for routinely providing thoroughly biased context. Its headlines are often poor. If President Trump walked on water, the Times' headline would no doubt be "Trump Has Wet Pants."
And, there's the paper's unfathomable decision to close its office of the public editor, the one attempt to provide transparency and accountability to the paper's machinations.
I, and likely many others, wish you luck in your new role. But, for the very reasons the Public Editor went extinct, I doubt that as an employee of the Times you'll be able to provide much insight into the workings of perhaps the most powerful news media entity in the nation, maybe the world.
But perhaps you'll be able to provide coverage of what else remains of the news gathering universe. I also hope for the best for the likes of the WSJ, Fox News, USA Today, and other survivors.
2
If the journalism is honest and as unbiased as you can make it, it's less important that it's a big newspaper than a newspaper with integrity.
I'm actually reading the NYT more, and the Washington Post less. because it's so obviously biased against Bernie Sanders. One does not need to be a Sanders supporter to be concerned about this.
2
It's interesting that The New York Times has framed its history now as being the one paper to sell off its assets when times got tough. I distinctly remember, though, that the conversation 10-15 years ago was different: The Washington Post's survival strategy was to stay small and out of debt, while the Times' was to buy up the competition and take on a lot of debt, hoping to be the last paper standing.
That was before the Bezos days, though. I like that the Post still has a scrappier vibe; it feels a lot less staid than the Times.
It’s all so sad. The Times “monopoly” has gotten so out of hand that it can say and do as it pleases all in the guise of “news”. Those of us who know the difference between opinion and news will continue to shudder as we read the product of the Times’ 1,700 journalist who have been assimilated into the “news as opinion” policy of the Times. Maybe Ben Smith will bring about an internal transformation at the once proud grey lady. We can only hope.
3
Meant to say "opinion as news" not other way round.
I wonder if much of the NYT's prosperity in the last several years is the result of Donald Trump's candidacy and election as president. Once he's gone, well that rising tide began to recede?
This is a good start. I've missed the old ombudsman who I used to argue with about why using "trailer-trash" in an unironic fashion was no better than using other ethnic slurs. It took a while, and I've noticed at least one slip, but the term has been retired.
Today, the reader comments pages have often been as informative as the original article, and often a corrective to errors and biases.
Nonetheless, the Times monopoly power over the news, even greater than the power the Times has historically had to set agenda and mainstream ideology, is troubling. Also today, the Chicago Sun-Times led with a story about a just agreed to labor agreement with it's staff guild/union, within which is a link https://chicago.suntimes.com/pages/newsroom-diversity
that graphically shows the ethnic and gender composition of all their editorial departments. I'm not suggesting the Times duplicate this, but I think it's a good step toward transparency and connection with the public. What was extremely depressing was that these graphs are for a newsroom with fewer than 100 employees. Comparatively, the Times is a vast empire.
Unfortunately that empire is far too conservative in many ways. It runs from far right to kind of center left, but not too far. The coverage of the Sanders campaign, not to mention China and Russia, has been disappointing in the extreme. How about some real far left reporting, such as provided previously by I.F. Stone, or today by former staffer Chris Hedges?
1
Very good for the Times, and very bad for community media in USA. Those media platforms that want to reach out to the Latino community in English are going to die sooner of later. Spanish speaking ethnic media has the opportunity to grow with a combination of print and digital, as long as we avoid the top-bottom approach to news and give an authentic voice to our communities.
The NYTimes used to own a group of community newspapers including the daily Lakeland Ledger, in Lakeland, FL. I doubt it will go back to that mode. How else it will foster local reporting of a respectable quality is a question that this new columnist should address. What is not respectable is the typical "If it bleeds, it leads"fear-based format and content which is typical of local network TV stations. That is the cheapest kind of time-filler, requiring no investigative or other enterprise reporting which might cost some money to produce. Here is the history of the Ledger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ledger And here is an article on fear-base "news" programming: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/two-takes-depression/201106/if-it-bleeds-it-leads-understanding-fear-based-media
I love the Times for so many reasons: the news, The Daily, the videos, the mini-crossword, the graphics, the opinion page. This paper is dominant and deserves to be. Because of our president, I have been desperate to find a news source which does not lie or exaggerate, gives detailed analysis of current events, and provides a place of refuge in a world gone partially mad.
3
@Wendy
"Because of our president, I have been desperate to find a news source which does not lie or exaggerate, gives detailed analysis of current events, and provides a place of refuge in a world gone partially mad."
Have you found one? If so, let me know.
@bored critic You made me laugh! I think the NY TImes is fine, but you are obviously more discerning - so I hope you find something you trust.
It's good to be king.
1
" ... Times stock has rebounded to nearly triple what it was in 2014 and the newsroom has added 400 employees ... " Mr. Trump calls this "failing"? Actually, being on Mr. Trump's enemies list gives this Independent voter confidence in the Times.
3
I used to read "Le Monde" and switched to "The Times ". For general information, including whatever happens in France.
Clear, quick, accurate information....I could no longer get it in old, verbose, self satisfied "le Monde".
What more do I expect from "The Times"?
A little bit more spine!
Yelling when it is needed (the weekly shootings of black Americans by police).
Calming things down when they are overblown (#me too).
2
The New York Times is a chat room: Publish pieces to invite comments that require a subscription to participate ("Comments"). Provocative keywords are used throughout an article (NYT, I'd love to see your keyword-to-click ratio and performance metrics since Donald Trump was elected!)
But journalism suffers with profit-driven content.
I read media Media based in Europe and Canada to have the scope and depth of coverage forsaken by many US publications--including the NYT--publications maybe aiming for a younger reader: A desirable consumer demographic, and a cohort with a shorter attention span.
Try this, by a former NYT columnist: https://nypost.com/2019/11/30/goodwin-the-new-york-times-long-descent-from-credibility/.
The old "Gray Lady" ain't what she used to be.
1
Welcome!
You’ve been entrusted with the sacred and noble responsibility of communicating thought provoking, honest and newsworthy pieces to the readership. I enjoyed your first piece.
The Times has an opportunity to advance online journalism in a way that few other publications have. I hope that they take their charter seriously, and it seems that they do.
One of the best things about the Times is that it is still a reflection of humanity across multiple demographics and opinions.
I subscribe to the Times because it offers a rich selection of content on a variety of topics of interest. I haven’t watched television news in 35 years because I’m not interested in the sensationalism and shock value approaches used by most television broadcasts.
I like that NYT offers a balance of content that isn’t based solely upon negative events. As someone else pointed out, the comments section is superb - this is a key differentiator. Comments act as a balancing agent, and are often as informative as the published article. This allows for open support, clarification and dissent that forms the basis for what news is all about. Newspapers exist to inform the public about what’s happening in their country, communities and government.
It’s a pleasure that NYT has added another accomplished writer to its staff. Welcome aboard!
42
I still subscribe to and read the SF Chronicle every day. The paper made the decision to cover local stories on the front pages and national and international news inside. A lot of the local stories are in-depth coverage of important local issues. And we have had a fun run of local sports stories in the past few years, I.e., the Giants, the Warriors and now the Niners plus the Stanford Women’s basketball team etc etc and the Chronicle’s sports reporters are the best. I’m not sure how many subscribers the Chronicle still has but I will be there until the bitter end!
As for myself, a Times reader from Brazil, I can only thank these modern times in which I can subscribe so easily and seamlessly to high quality journalism covering the whole world. We are truly blessed to be living in a world in which information can cross borders and reach people all over the globe. Kudos for the NYT, and my sincere admiration for its work!
3
My first job as a reporter was in 1980 for a tiny "shopper" that distributed a free paper to every house in town one day per week and a much smaller number of papers to subscribers one other day per week. I covered city council for a tiny town of fewer than 4,000 people. I attended every meeting, as did a beat reporter from a much larger regional paper. That sort of local news coverage in unknown now. We can read 500 reports about Trump's latest tweet and 500 more about what will happen in the next primary but nothing about town politics or the school board or the local business situation. The loss of local journalism is a social and political catastrophe that almost nobody notices.
2
I wish my local papers had anywhere close to the level of resources, talent, and support that the NYT does. I've noticed very educated adults around me are much more informed about what's happening nationally, but know very little about the city, county, region, and state.
I don't remember how I found out that the NYT published a daily "Today's Headlines" email, but that email is the key to why I am a subscriber. I would prefer the Washington Post, the LA Times, or one of the Bay Area papers, based on where I live and have lived, but I've been unable to ascertain whether they have a similar email guide to the day's paper. Queries sent to them a few years back went unanswered, which also tells you something.
Most news sites, NYTimes.com included, are too cluttered, and some feature so many pop-ups and advertisements that they drive readers away.
"Today's Headlines" is such a simple tool but so effective.
1
One of my earliest recollections was when my father sent me out to fetch the Sunday times from the corner newsstand under a Bronx IRT subway station. The Sunday edition was huge and heavy, tied with a string. The newsstands were literally buried by newspapers. There was an opening to hand the proprietor $.50 or a dollar. I understood this was my special chore to be always accomplished - rain or snow. This was something mysterious and important and had a profound effect on my elders, and after a while, me too.
5
(2/2) The unspoken accusation of this piece, and one that is talked about more in the comments, is that the times is becoming an echo chamber, a view that is reflected by it's clear disapproval of Trump. I can't say I really agree, first off the opinion section criticizes liberals, particularly the presidential candidates, all the time. To the point that I've read opinion pieces that go complete against my own views of the issues and candidates at hand, and that's a good thing. When it comes to coverage of Trump, maybe I'm biased by my own distaste for the president, but it's hard to see what could be done to be more objective, or how a respectable news outlet in 2020 is supposed to not be critical of trump. The times reports on what he actually does and says, and fact checks it frequently, how can they be held responsible when he says misleading things? Should they just ignore it when he lies? The president is actively hateful of the media, and his entire presidency is built on convincing bis supporters that he is right and the world is wrong, or at least that none of the bad he does outweighs the supposed benefits. Meanwhile, journalism is about truth and responsibility, two concepts trump seems to actively work against. Even if he didn't constantly rail the media, how could a news outlet like the times not call out his attacks on logic and objectivity? It's not that the times is biased, its that trump is so extreme hes made it seem like the truth is biased against him.
4
It's thrilling to see how well the Times has adapted to the digital age, and how it has expanded its reach globally in fulfilling a role for a growing audience as the 'newspaper of record'. That top journalists from both established and newer media companies seek the opportunity to work there is a tribute.
However, to raise alarms with the opinion that the Times may be bad for journalism and functioning as like a monopoly seem to be a provocative play for clicks rather than a thoughtful argument. Relatively few metro papers have ever aspired to have significant national or global presence even in years past. The real competitors for the NY Times as a journalism entity are global news gathering organizations such as the Associated Press (which I believe is still the largest in terms of newsroom employees), Reuters, leading English language newspapers in Asia, and major broadcast news networks - NBC, CNN, BBC, etc. And in financial news, a different set of competitors. The failure of local papers to maintain their foothold and grow - well, that's another economic story.
If the point is that news audiences are fragmented across a landscape of social media networks and smaller niche publications, websites, and nonprofit outlets leaving only a few worthy and well-managed formerly-print newspaper companies of scale to thrive... then yes, The Times is happily one of those.
1
I started my digital subscriptions to the NYT and WaPo after seeing trump try to destroy them and love seeing the competition between the two greats. It's delicious seeing his attacks on the free press backfire in such a tremendous way.
Last year, I started home delivery of the Sunday NYT - one of the best expenditures I make each month, even on my limited budget. It comes with the complete digital subscription, plus a free digital subscription for another person, as well. But there's nothing like reading the Sunday paper the old-fashioned way. Last summer's insert on block parties around the boroughs, the giant recipe spreads - love things like that.
The New York Times is about so much more than trump.
2
The path for local journalism is to follow the model of the Philadelphia Inquirer and become a non-profit foundation supported by charitable( but non intrusive) deep pocket foundations. Fortunately for me a reader of print in Philadelphia (as well as the NYT) the Lensfest Foundation stepped in to support local journalism. It is incumbent on other such foundations ( including the NYT ) to do the same for urban and rural journalism outlets. Welcome the national Paper (including print and diigital) of record.
Our local paper, the Mercury News, formerly an award winning publication, is now 3 sections of about 4 pages. The "local" news is maybe one article each about cities around the bay, wire service articles, and lots of obituaries. It's owned by Alden Media, which is best known for killing the Denver paper.
I get more local Northern California news from the LA Times, to which I subscribe on-line.
Hidden Brain, my favorite podcast, did an excellent show on how the lack of local reporting allows local governments to be less responsive to citizens. And we are certainly seeing how an uninformed electorate is affecting politics. An acquaintance recently told me she didn't know that Trump is biased against Muslims. How out of touch do you have to be not to know that??
1
American democracy requires a well-informed, educated citizenry. It’s the reason Freedom of the Press is written, and as its written, into our very Constitution. Today, in 2020, America’s very existence as a democratic country is existentially at risk.
This risk is a man whose mission can be taken right out of a Bond film: Destroy the 5th Estate as it has existed over the last 200 years. Destroy one of the last and most powerful bulwarks against the corrupt, the wealthy and the powerful.
This man and the organization he built has, arguably, succeeded, and we now live in a post-truth, post-evidence, post-facts country. The most recent impeachment is, among a plethora of other examples, a glaring example confirming this. The Billionaire is Murdoch and his organization is Faux.
The New York Times (and a few other media outlets) are the only News organizations in the US that still have journalistic integrity and viewership to fight Murdoch’s, pretense-abandoned Faux “news” which entirely serves as the 24/7 propaganda arm of the Republican Party and President Trump in particular. From publishing retractions to facts they knew were lies when they wrote them, to confusing their viewers regarding what was vetted news and what was opinion, to often failing to report (or burying) important stories that showed Rep’s or Trump in a bad light.
Its why I’m a subscriber and why the NY Times is one of the sources of News I receive about the state of our country and the world.
.
2
As long as NYT continues to give voice to various points of view, I will continue to trust and read this publication. It is my go to source of news. I supplement it with AP, Reuters, WSJ, Bloomberg News, USA Today.
The NYT isn't as dominant as this article implies.
This, from Wikipedia:
'Launched in 2003, MailOnline was made into a separately managed (from the UK's Daily Mail) site in 2006 under the editorship of Martin Clarke and general management of James Bromley. It is now the most visited English-language newspaper website in the world,with over 11.34m visitors daily.'
Strange that someone employed to look at 'new media' is only looking at media in the US. But then American newspapers have historically tended to be parochial e.g. virtually no national newspapers (which most other countries have).
If the world was only US, I might agree with the article. However, as seen from Scandinavia, our family supports Danish Radio, two national newspapers, The Guardian (UK) and NYT.
The major problem is junk information being free vs verified content being paid.
1
Not a bright picture.
I've read the Times since the mid-1960s.
I came to believe it was the one essential publication.
Since digital, however, my view has changed. The Times is weaker and waffles more than at any period in my memory.
It has abandoned coverage of much of the world (Israel excepted) and of much of the U.S.
Its editorials are without force (nothing new there) and its columnists are fully suited for cable-news blabbing.
Much of the U.S. (I live now in Michigan) is without a single credible news source, and the Times has scarcely noticed.
1
Y'all didn't even mention my ride and die NPR, and I'm calling foul on youse. Good luck coming up with podcasts better than Code Switch, Fresh Air, Hidden Brain ...
The Washington Post impresses me more right now.
2
Perhaps the Times could give a small discount to its paying subscribers who can demonstrate that they're also paying subscribers of their local papers.
As local newspapers are being taken over by Sinclair and other conservative companies, who are we left with to support? The city paper I subscribed to for over 25 years became a nonstop union basher, and reported next to nothing of anything outside the city. My hyper-local paper reports little of interest, and the columnists are rural and folksy. I don't have any place to go but outside for my news, and I probably speak for millions. Life in the far burbs is severely lacking, news wise.
With chaos reigning in an Administration that prizes itself on hiring ignoramuses who respect nothing and no one, when Congressional hearings are an unholy embarrassment of behavior, the gravitas of Times senior journalists and the Times' editorials remind me that yes, this behavior is an aberration and has not become the norm. It's calming and reassuring, as is the well-earned trust I have for Times' reporting. Maybe it's because I'm older, but the lack of gravitas in the writing is why I never took BuzzFeed News, The Daily Beast or their ilk seriously. I enjoy that youthful style and attitude in just about everything but serious news. The NYT is one of the most respected and prestigious news organizations in the world. Heads of state read it daily. Ben's 'section comparisons' point out the reason I don't read them or subscribe to The Atlantic, and why I didn't read BuzzFeed or - especially - Gawker. His own background is not inspiring my confidence in him either.
1
I read headlines in the News and Opinion sections of the Times on the same subject on the same day to a group of people - they could not tell which headline was related to News and which was related to Opinion.
People love reading the Times, particularly in the Trump era, to get validation and a sense of satisfaction on their own slant to the 'Truth'.
Trump is president and the Times is King. Self aggrandizement is self-fulfilling affirmation, and this 'news piece' is a shallow piece of self-promotion (portraits and all).
Yes, there's some good investigative journalism in the Times too, as there is the other 1/2 dozen newspapers most of us read daily.
The volume of your readers does not say any more about the quality of your work then does the quantity of Walmart shoppers. The death of independent journalism is greatly exaggerated, regardless if the Times bought Ben. That's not reason to declare an end to reason.
.)
I subscribe to the Times, the Journal, the Economist and the Raleigh News and Observer. The loss of local reporting is a serious threat. The Times financial success is critical for America given the big influencer, Fox News, is the unelected running the government today. WSJ reporting is very good but their editorial pieces are Fox Incarnate. NYT letters reflect more thought than do those in WSJ.
1
This might be the most self-congratulatory and overstated humble brag I’ve ever run into. I assure you there are tons of news outlets, real ones, being funneled to millions of users through multiple streams, from Facebook to Apple News to Flipboard. It’s never been easier to access the BBC or other foreign press. There’s plenty of competition, just not nearly as many newspapers.
(1/2) Excellent piece, definently very complicated and thought provoking. It's hard to hate the times cause it's been the main paper I've read forever, and its always seemed to me to be the most objective and responsible paper around - it's the gold standard for a reason. The economic arguments here have some merit though, it's hard to support a heavily capitalist monopoly, especially if its hurting local journalism, and yet to some extent you gotta play the game to survive in this country, so it's an interesting dilemma
1
As a millennial growing up my parents had the Kansas City Star newspaper delivered to our door everyday. Be the time I got to college the Star had cut well more than half it's jobs, removed several major sections including the local news section. Now years later I wanted somewhere to get my news, but the choice came between my local paper which barely covers local news and is getting all it's stories from the AP and others or a much larger newspaper like the Times that can cover national and international news better.
If my local paper still covered local news like they did 15+ years ago that would be something they could have no competition in, instead they choose to compete with giants like the Times
23
If we do not control monopolies this will happen in any industry. This is what happens when the $ is the goal not the service to society.
2
Monopolies tend to form when they continue to do the best job in their field over a long period of time. And this is what the "Times" has done.
Monopolies become a threat to free enterprise when they use their competitive advantage to take unfair advantage of competitors. The "Times" has yet to partake in any such actions.
The outstanding performance of the "Times", at least in some ways, may be more likely to encourage superior news reporting than to hinder it.
5
Like others here, I subscribe to the digital Times because of readers' comments. The online edition of the "paper" itself has become little more than a lifestyle magazine. If I want to know what's going on in the world, I go elsewhere, including the Washington Post and various foreign publications.
3
I do see anti-trust consequences in the acquisition of Serial Productions by a media behemoth. Too many media outlets are owned by too few corporate conglomerates. Time to start breaking them up along with all the other monopolistic companies which are distorting our economy and society.
1
Damned if you do...damned if you don’t! So many other newspapers have been criticized for “selling out” by putting profits ahead of journalism, being acquired by private equity firms or simply filing for bankruptcy. But The NY Times hung in there, maintaining its integrity and editorial staff as best it could while profits and revenue dried up and while the print media business went up in flames globally. And then, through years of trial and error, it reinvented itself into the sustainable business model we see today. This should be celebrated rather than condemned.
5
I first ended up subscribing to the local paper, getting the print edition a few times a week. Then it was just the Sunday print edition (mainly a pack of ads) but it did come with a digital subscription.
Their website is not very nice. I have to log in and out over and over again, and there is virtually nothing in the way of dialog (plenty of spam ads though).
So I caved and subscribed to NYTimes. I am considering a subscription to the Washington Post as well, so there may be something to his claim of a rising tide.
But this is all at the introductory rate. And during a relatively chaotic time. A year from now it may not be worth the price to me, and news in general may die down a little, or just go back to being boring in a good way. It's hard to say they've won, or even found a model that keeps them on top 4 years from now.
1
I think it’s terrific that the Times has become a national newspaper. Living in England 40 years ago, I realized that the availability of national newspapers in every household every day is a good thing. Back then, access to the New York Times required a trip to a newsstand even in many major cities.
Now I live in a small state. I would be happy to pay for a subscription to a paper that covers the news of the state. But as local papers shrank, they also fragmented, the same way television has. It takes half a dozen subscriptions to get the same news access you used to get from one.
This state needs a modern statewide newspaper with regional bureaus. Instead we have a dozen regional newspapers that are failing.
4
One of the biggest problems with media in general is that it is “for profit”.
Like everything else in capitalism, it is for sale, and that is a great threat to democracy and to our Republic.
As Les Moonves famously said, ‘Trump may be bad for America, but he’s great for CBS’.
3
I have been reading the Times for perhaps 50 years. Regardless of its errors, its mistakes, its sometimes too much of everything, the journalism therein is without parallel. There are still others, in various media, which compete because they have a certain niche, like Democracy Now or Truthout, but the stories covered and the quality of the writing in the Times are superb.
There are local papers in Maine, where I live, which are fine, too. The Bangor Daily News, the Portland Press Herald, to name two.
So, Mr. Smith welcome to you.
3
For decades, newspaper websites have been poorly designed in every sense of the word...visually, functionality, and so on. Mugshots on the home page that got clicks even though the people arrested hadn't been convicted and even if the photos reinforced racist stereotypes. "User generated content" (a picture your aunt took from her kitchen window of the first snowfall) with no concern for quality. Video..."raw' footage, then produced pieces that mimic tv news, then they abandoned the effort.
They gave away their content for free, then punished readers by putting up paywalls. Behind the paywalls was nothing readers couldn't get elsewhere or that they couldn't access by clearing their cookies.
In a nutshell, newspapers failed to transfer the DNA of their print product to the web.
The Times should probably send Trump a dozen roses for his attacks that got a bunch of freeloaders to finally subscribe to the paper.
Here's where The Times could go or has gone wrong.
I felt ripped off when the cooking section that was part of my original subscription got broken off and required a separate subscription. That was a bad faith move. I deleted the dozens (hundreds?) of recipes I'd bookmarked and I will never pay for that section.
Politics...stop predicting the news and get back to reporting the news. You're like a stage mother pushing your preferred candidates to the forefront.
I've got more but I'm out of space.
1
NYT needs to keep reporting news as it is without bias. Opinion pieces are okay to be left or right slanted; the discerning reader knows his way around. But news should be reported without favour or fear. Some 'news' items are blatantly biased towards one or the other side. To become successful as a print/digital media is a reflection that the readers are getting what they expect to get. So far, I assume that the majority of the present subscribers have subscribed for the quality of news and articles and not because NYT publishes what the subscriber likes to read. So far, my observation is that NYT is reporting news as it is most of the times but opinion pieces are dead against Trump and Republicans. May be they deserve it. But even in the news, there is an element of bias in certain cases where both sides of an argument are not presented equally. If the success in climbing to the top is due to quality and quality alone, it doesn't matter even if it turns out to be monopoly.
2
Many Americans are no longer able to tell the difference between a person reporting the news and a person giving their opinion on the news. When these people start believing rag mags, such as the Enquirer, over reputable news organizations, such as CBS, ABC, NBC, etc., America's future began dimming considerably. Bring back teaching critical thinking skills in our schools. Along with the use of multiple, reputable sources instead of continuing with the dumbing down of Americans.
4
Also, best of luck, Ben, from me.
The Times has replaced CNN as my primary pipe for "whowhatwhere," although CNN remains in my browser. But the inescapable autoplay ads before most stories and constant blinkering, shifting pages as it loads its tons of ads is excruciating. NYT is giving me my monthly money's worth with its contrasting space for focus on news and interesting commentary.
As a reader, I appreciate good quality writing I see in Harper's, Atlantic, sometimes The Nation and Mother Jones, but I'll be gladly dragged into a good article by any publication if to me it seems relevant, believable, honest, and so on.
I do not care about "independent media" as a bloc, against large organizations such as NYT; not if the argument is that publication x will enlighten me or red-pill me to some crazy viewpoint. I want the settled world/today facts, and from there it is on the up and up that columnists gotta colum. I do not expect NYT to be at all times perfect, but to uphold its (to me) standards.
Independents are needed obviously and they are sometimes wonderful and I hope survive and prosper on the merits of good quality writing.
Facebook is a stew. Maybe I can graze, but NYT is still one "newspaper" with its own integrity and it is just the course of life, not its fault that in the digital age it makes the changes it needs to remain good-quality and uphold its place truly as Legacy Media. I'm glad you will write for it and will remember to look for you.
40
@whowhatwhere I agree that CNN is a misery to use online, as is Huffington Post (and for the same reason). My local paper is so expensive to subscribe to online, and the website is so hard to use, that I'm missing a lot there, too.
I don't read anything on Facebook because my political interests are being mined.
2
@whowhatwhere ,, The NYT has ALWAYS been a quality NEWS paper... I started reading it in college (back in the 70's) and am DELIGHTED that it is still a first-rate, factually-correct and objective (in the non-editorial columns) source of truth and source of other things we might now think or know about. Whoever thought "truth" would be in such short supply as it is, now? Thank goodness they are making money and thriving telling people what they need to hear and to know about vs. telling people what the want to hear and remaining ignorant about. For now, we must ALL be thankful at we have (at least) one source or reliable information and hope their model will catch on in other new organizations, as well.
5
If the NYT is serious about this then it's editors and reporters need to make sure they credit and link to the work they are following, whether it be from a big legacy paper like WaPo or an independent daily in the middle of the country.
It cannot be a work-in-progress situation where every few years someone writes a column basically saying,"We really are trying. Please believe us."
The other around 30k journalists out there appreciate it, I know I certainly do.
The Trump administration has been a goldmine for the Times as the Resistance has signed up en masse with online subscriptions. Anticipating Trump's possible loss in November, it appears the Times is racing to get into other lucrative media plays in the event subscriptions collapse.
That said, and speaking as a 40-year newspaper veteran, there's a great deal wrong with the ad-funded, market-driven nature of American journalism that goes well beyond the Times' dominance. I hope Mr. Smith will occasionally break out of the profession's narrow Overton Window to explore what a truly healthy journalism might look like.
I recently cancelled my subscription to the paper version of the Sunday New York Times. I was originally trained as a printer at the New York City High School of Printing that no longer exists. I miss riding the subway to and from school and folding the New York Times in such a way as not to inconvenience my fellow "strap hangers." It was skill that no longer exists, with cell phones and tablets being ubiquitous today.
I have now switched to the digital version of the New York Times It's less expensive than a paper subscription, but I still enjoying reading it, even when I disagree the reporters or editorial content.
2
The way NYT could help struggling newspapers is by licensing their digital systems to smaller papers. So a small paper could have a great comments section and all the other features that make NYT great. But the small paper could concentrate on journalism, rather than software development
1
Let's look at the facts.
My old newspaper, the Buffalo News was just sold.
Coverage today consists of the Bill's, reviewing stories from the past, photo ops of events and almost no pieces that run counter to this regime.
My new newspaper, The Salt Lake Tribune, has gone non profit. They have almost no investigative journalism and have no international news.
So, I now gladly pay $17/month for national and international news. I pay $100/year for WaPo even though too many pieces are drama click bait.
Bravo NYT.
2
Calipari on certain apparently anti-monopolist reforms in recruiting:
"Of course I eat first."
When the Times bought the Globe they nearly killed it, but maybe it was necessary to keep it afloat. The only reason to get it was for the sports section. Now that they’ve sold it, it’s significantly improved.
We subscribed to the print version until I got a new phone with a big screen. I think the Times app is very good, easy to read, and well organized and wonder how much it has contributed to its success. I do miss flipping the pages, the layout, and organization of the print edition and find I read fewer articles on-line. It’s like getting a book on loan from the library rather than browsing the stacks.
I have NPR on all the time, unless a Sox game is on, and I don’t see myself anytime in the near future paying for NYT Podcasts on top of a subscription to the paper and cable TV.
All very interesting, but Mr. Smith might want to study the economics of journalism more, and talk about what practical changes the Times has enacted to keep its head above water, in dollars and cents.
In the 1960s, when I was a researcher in the Business section of Time, there were already companies making their stocks soar by buying up money-losing companies, using those losses to offset their own profits, and shutting down whatever businesses those companies might have been conducting. It looks to me as though the newspaper business today is afflicted with the same sort of sharks.
The problem all newspapers with a past in print face is that as readers desert print journalism for online journalism, not only circulation income but more importantly advertising income declines -- & even more precipitously. Publishers used to base their rates on the number of readers they could deliver, and got the major part of their income from advertising (more than 70 percent of Time's income came from advertising; that must have been about the industry average).
Now advertisers maximize their own sales by abandoning journalistic websites altogether in favor of Google and Facebook. This is why journalism is in such a sad state today-- and I'd welcome more informed information from Mr. Smith on exactly how the Times has managed to deal with this problem -- and why it has been so difficult for other legacy papers to follow suit.
1
Of all the media out there, my first go to source of information is the Times. As an engineer, by training differentiating fact from fiction is normal for me but I find the Times more sedate in its coverage, more complete, and truthful than any other paper including the Post. If I want to get edgy and read things that have not been toughly vetted then I go to the NY Post, or CNN. For me I'll take the Times as my first read in the morning.
2
The NYT, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and occasionally The Miami Herald and Los Angeles Times are actually digging up news. The rest of the online media is simply recycling it. Pro Publica is a contributor but rarely recognized. I subscribe to the NYT and Washington Post because they are credible and I respect their standards. Sometimes they are too fair to crackpots like Donald Trump but even they dropped their attempts to evade the word "lie" in reporting what he says. What is painfully apparent are the limitations of even these elite news organizations. All evidence points to the fact that Vladimir Putin runs this country. But the Kremlin is totally opaque, impenetrable. Yes, the NYT has a Moscow bureau, but its reporters are stuck in the foyer of the Kremlin as the real machinations occur behind its walls.
2
We should celebrate the New York Times' success in achieving fiscal stability while focusing on high quality news. But it's not quite yet in Facebook's league. Contrast 2019 NYT revenues of $1.8 billion with Facebook's $69+ billion, and NYT net income of $139 million is a tad less than Facebook's $18.5 billion. With just 4.7 million subscribers, this falls short of Facebook's 1.66 billion daily active users.
There is room for multiple news subscriptions in the market, and this will continue by the nature of the variety in the demand for both news content and its means of delivery. Expect more low-cost crowd-initiated and engaged local digital news while regional and national news variety is driven by different tastes in media, areas of interest and ideology (this latter, sadly) as well as the driving skill and ingenuity of our competitive news reporters.
Buzzfeed and its insurgent media startups aren't being defeated by NYT's winning 4.7 million subscribers; they just haven't yet figured out how to better meet the news desires of more people, and perhaps because they have Facebook expectations.
1
Perhaps an extra nyt feature (like cooking and games) could feature work from other local papers that have a paywall, and much of that money could go toward those smaller publications. There’s no making the Times less dominant, but they could actively try to support journalists elsewhere and spread the wealth.
1
It ain't your fault. Local news has given up because of "labor costs". You know, paying real people to ferret out stories of local import. Instead they keep profits up by sharing stories like "Five things seniors should know about constipation" or "You won't believe what this child star looks like now." Don't change. If we stop searching for truth the rats win.
3
In my opinion The New York Times has become more like CNN. It has some of the best journalists in the country, but it is no longer in the news business. These days make sure to diversify your information sources as well as you diversify your investments.
3
The NYT is a mouthpiece for the Establishment, leaving out inconvenient facts when they do not fit the Establishment's predetermined narrative.
Why didn't the NYT have an article, or ever refer to documents released from the National Security Archives at George Washington University regarding " U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991"
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Certainly there is much decent reporting in the NYT, but their world coverage often oozes as propaganda.
It rarely lies. It most often omits inconvenient facts, or context that doesn’t advance the Establishment’s chosen narrative. The selection of focus, subject and word choice contribute to the propagandistic style.
The NYT could sell pointless wars based on CIA lies routinely.
Perhaps, sometime, US citizenry will be better educated and the NYT will have to improve to keep respect.
first posted 11pm PST
second posting 6:30am PST
now 8:13am PST
My home town McClatchy newspaper is all but gone,SF Chronicle a hollow shell of what it once was..papers I read and subscribed for decades. In '17 I cancelled full home delivery for the NYT and reluctantly pay for digital now., the inherent bias in selective reporting of hard news is most troubling. I would gladly pay 1k per year to have home delivery of a trusted straight inbiased hard newspaper.
In the 1930's the Times printed glowing stories of the success of Russian communism praising what turned out to be Potemkin village propaganda. That leftist bias lives today.
Yes America will suffer if the Times succeeds and becomes more dominant...unless the Times truly builds a wall between opinion and hard news divisions.
I confess, I am a reader who reads the Times almost exclusively, supplemented with occasional articles from the Washington Post, a few Spanish language newspapers, and articles people send me.
It’s an outlet I trust, and I’m not willing to spend money on two newspapers. I hate TV news - with the exception of a few shows - which tends toward sensationalism, or in the case of the most popular programming, is outright propaganda.
I appreciate worry about the power and influence the Times wields over journalism of substance. I recognize it far outweighs it’s legitimate competitors - the WaPo, the WSJ, and other newspapers of record - in terms of size and market share. I appreciate that it has absorbed many members of its competition, which is allowing it to foray into other projects (podcasts, and even video [which I can’t help but feel was inspired by the success of Vice]), and compete in journalistic spheres once left to other outlets.
Still, when I look at American alternatives to the Times, I’m disappointed by my options. I do not trust most online outlets - I’m sometimes flat out disgusted at the low quality of journalism in articles people send me (looking at you, Alt-Rightbart). So I suppose I’m not even looking to the times in the hope it is “a tide to lift all boats.” I look to it as a bulwark, against a rising tide of garbage.
68
My father from Maine was "a printer." For many years he was production manager of a big printing company in Washington, D.C, then a VP. The man loved those 2-3 story presses, ink, and cigarettes.
He often took me with him if he had to go to work on Sundays. I loved it--big presses shooting out newsprint pages flying over the flames to dry the ink; the typesetters who were so nice to little girls and would let me plunk out my name in steel letters on their keyboards....
Dad said he didn't have blood running through his veins; he had printers' ink. I believed him until I about 7. When Dad was 14 and his brother 13, they bought an old printing press for $15, put it in their basement in Saco, Maine, and started their own printing business--cards, brochures, stationery, which paid their way to college--Bowdoin and Carnegie Tech. Dad went to Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh because it offered a major in Printing." His brother became a chemist.
My father was a conservative, Mom was an FDR liberal, and they each subscribed to their own newspaper: Dad the Washington Star; Mom her beloved Washington Post.
That was a long time ago. I don't know what Dad would do in today's world of publishing. The romance is gone, and no smoking on the job.
He would be sad at the death of so many newspapers, as am I. Only 5% of us say we get most of our news from reading newspapers (Pew Research). I felt like crying when I heard McClatchy is bankrupt--the business model, $$
Good luck to Ben & us
3
Trump's election turned me from a casual reader to a subscriber. Probably true of a lot of people. A certain class of "elites" thinks highly of it. A good friend of mine at the University of Illinois in the early 1980s said that there were only three newspapers in America: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Champaign Urbana News Gazette.
2
For may digital subscribers such as myself, The Times approach is smart. I’m not interested much in local NYC news, but whatever The Times faults and quirks, it’s still one of the best newspapers in the world in the breath and depth of what it covers, with intelligeny commentary for the most part, for international news and analyses, for reliable facts, and for having science reporting by writers who actually understand science and can convey it reasonably accurately. The only other news organization I know that is so good, reliable and accessible is the BBC. No the NYT isn’t perfect, no media outlet is. But the NYT offers me a fair price and gets a return from me when, if like many other media behind paywalls demand full price which i’m not prepared to pay on a retirees income. I subscribe to one local media as well, the only outlet we have in my area for local news. The Times is also to be commended for moderating comments. Far too many media comment sections are cesspools of trolling extremists, even at allegedly respectable media like the canadian broadcasting corp. (cbc). It harms a reasonable hope for civil society and positive democratic debate. If others follow the Times wise approach, maybe they’d do better.
2
I completely agree with the comment moderation. I always end up reading comments and am pleased about the respectable discourse and insight of other readers. I’d hate to see what was filtered, but in my opinion, either moderate like the NY Times or turn the comments off entirely. People should learn to articulate dissenting views without resorting to name calling before they can have their thoughts published worldwide.
1
The consolidation of news outlets is the result of Income Inequality. As a poor person now (I grew up middle class) I have not been able to support ANY newspaper for most of the last 20 years - 3 years ago I decided I could afford ONE subscription. And only at special rates. When this runs out, I most likely can no longer be a NYT subscriber.
1
“ He believes The Times is not dominating the market so much as creating one.”
He may be right. A longtime subscriber to the digital version of The New York Times, about 14 months ago I also subscribed to the digital version of the Washington Post. I read both on a regular basis.
1
The NYT has been providing a playbook for how to succeed in its industry. It was among the first to realize that it was in the business of collecting and distributing information, not just printing newspapers. It therefore was better able to adopt to the paradigm shift in how information was distributed. That others are following its example will save them, as well, from extinction.
2
It's simply not the Times I grew up reading. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, opinion began making its way into news stories. Now they live there.
2
I love the morph. NYT standards (most of the time) mixed with digital bells and whistles.
If a picture is 1,000 words, a video is 10,000. Deal with it.
The NYT should strive to be centrist, much like the Economist. Right now, the opinions writers delve too easily into new social paradigms pushed by the left, sans regard to future legal, economic, and political implications.
2
Welcome. I love The Times but I have come to dread the Opinion section. I wish there were a tier of membership where I could skip the bloggy, over-woke clickbait and just read the journalism. I would pay MORE to have LESS Opinion.
2
Be careful of what history calls the "Victory Disease".
1
The NY Times is a good newspaper but it’s not all that.
I encourage readers to pull up Netflix and watch “Shock and Awe”, staring Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson and James Marsden; finely directed by Rob Reiner.
Back in the day, the NYT, along with most other news outlets bought and sold the false narrative by Colin Powell and the Bush Administration for the invasion of Iraq. Only the Knight-Ridder organization got the story right and that was accomplished by dogged investigation.
Skepticism is a healthy attribute for both individuals and newspapers.
The truth is a hard commodity to come by, especially in this day and age of Fake News trumpeted by this Administration and Fox News.
NYTimes...you’re good but not as good as Knight Ridder, who are now unfortunately defunct.
2
The worst dangers for journalism are corporate consolidation, the prosecution or whistle-blowers, and the self-discrediting narratives and bias of a media embedded in the national security state and in corporate politics.
1
If what you’re describing is the problem- why are you adding to it by joining the NYT? Makes no sense. I’m already done with your column.
1
@PJ
My thinking exactly.
Think this article is a lame naive blast in an attempt to get a 'buzzfeed' viral response.
The NY Times had been on the ropes in this age of information overload.
If it is now finding some success GREAT!
Having a reliable news source with standards and guidelines (and which has learned form mistakes) is reassuring.
Although old, the Times remains liberal, it is a reminder that we ALL need to keep minds open, seek the truth and develop a full understanding of topics instead of seeking a viral hot button response to ignorant platitudes and disinformation (the social media obfuscation of reality(
Congratulations on success NY Times!
Been reading you for 50+ years and your Sunday Times is my Sunday mornings.
Thanks and keep up the good work!
1
The success of the NYT is a great value to journalism in all respects --- particularly in it's secure and open space for real communication between real human beings --- in it's unique "Commentary" discussion space for 'we the American people'.
I wrote a far more detailed and seriously composed comment, which was lost, on my little iPad (rather than my iMac), and which Steve would never have recommended as a writing tool for more than brief notes.
Congrats to the "Times" in "these 'Times' they are a changin".
2
Well, if he is that displeased, maybe he can go to fox “news.”
A couple of questions for him - if you feel so unsure of yourself working for the NYT, why leave your old job if you had it so good there? What’s the point of your editorial? What do you bring to the table to ensure that QUALITY news expands vice contracts (like this administration wants it to)?
2
The real reason that NYT is bad for journalism is because they are setting a bad precedent for mixing their opinion with their journalism. Too many articles are reading as if they are from the opinion section but they are not. Many other second or third tier news organizations do this, like HuffPo, Vox and others but when NYT does it, it legitimizes this behavior.
6
Let’s not discount The Guardian, which is also doing well, manages to still be free (online) and leans more progressive.
I’d like to see the Times do a better job at separating news and opinion, author bias is too often plainly obvious. The WSJ has hairy opinion pieces but the Chinese Wall in between those and its news reporting still makes it a worthwhile newspaper.
1
While I don't necessarily like some of the newer features of the paper, I rest a bit easier in this crazy world knowing that the Times is far from "failing"; in fact that comment evidently helped circulation.
To have a reliable source of information these days in crucial. Keep it up NYT....and be careful.
4
Strange opening piece. Ben Smith starts off bragging how he tried, in the past, to hire his new boss, A.G. Sulzberger, as if Sulzberger, part of the Times dynasty, would give all that up.
The success of the New York Times is great news.
As the gold standard of excellence in journalism,
the New York Times, in a period of advancing authoritarianism, is needed now more than ever.
The last thing it needs is people trashing it from the inside.
3
@Paul Shindler
I assume Smith thought that Sulzberger might be interested in working for Buzzfeed in order to have an experience of digital journalism at an outlet not owned by the Sulzberger family. (I believe he's worked at other papers, but they were all owned by his family.) He wouldn't have been giving up his rights as an heir to the NYT publisher's position.
1
Isn't one solution to nationwide monopolization by the New York Times that every NYT subscription come with a built-in additional subscription to a subscriber's local newspaper, paid for by the Times? The NYT should establish its own nationwide network of local newspapers that meet the NYT's journalistic standards for local news coverage, while ignoring their editorial bent. Alternatively, allow that a subscription to that local network newspaper come with access to the NYT website.
I'm a progressive living in a blood red county of Arizona, but I wouldn't mind if a portion of my NYT subscription money went to subsidize news coverage by my local newspaper, the Prescott Daily Courier. After all, every now and then, local news becomes national news. For example, Prescott is the hometown of the recently feted parents of Kayla Mueller who was murdered by ISIS in Syria, and it was the home of the nineteen Granite Mountain Hotshots wildfire fighting team killed in 2013.
The NYT would benefit from easier access to occasionally fascinating local news, and local news would benefit from support by the NYT, and both readers and democracy itself would benefit from broader editorial points-of-view.
2
1700 "journalist" with starting salaries in the low 6 figures; millions of subscribers, 100s of millions in ad sales, and a red carpet accessing any and every event, political, social, and economic arena on the planet; And still, the same handful of articles populate your site for days (weeks) with nothing new. Every story gets a "Trump treatment" - that is, how, why, when, where and what about it is Trump's fault (of course, sometimes that's oh so cleverly disguised as conservatives fault or republicans fault - 3 VERY different things).
Seriously, with all the news that's happening all over the world, and 1700 highly paid "journalists" to cover that news, do you really think you're living up to "all the news that's fit to print (digitize)" and up to the journalistic canon of objectivity that is the soul of our republic?
5
The New York Times is, was and ever shall be a newsletter for the rich, written for the rich, by the rich. A starting salary of $104,600 guarantees that the interests of stockholders, advertisers and the writers themselves will be preserved. Project 1619 was a shocking and welcome departure from the Times' usual perpetuation of myth disguised as history, but is overtaken by the daily contributions of the majority of its Op-Ed contributors, particularly as the presidential election approaches. The concerted effort to demonize Bernie Sanders by Bret Stephens, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Timothy Egan, Michelle Goldberg, Paul Krugman, Frank Bruni and David Leonhardt is proof of the Times' protection of corporate interests. The absence of diversity and breadth in opinion and news coverage renders the Times monolithic and banal at best, biased and untrustworthy at worst. Ben Smith offers nothing that will change the basic ideological philosophical problem of the Times' hegemony.
3
One third the homepage is filled with like- minded opinion pieces. It is not news. It is an agenda that taints the vast amount of in-depth and original NYT content - the news and culture reporting and its feature articles. The NYT has a big responsibility, like the three networks had back in the day. Its editors must be Cronkite-like with the homepage and segregate it from its editorial and opinion pages or it will be permanently known for what it currently is, a mouthpiece for an agenda.
5
"Mr. Sulzberger (who no doubt would have flourished in that midlevel product job" ... that was hysterical. Maybe y'all can absorb and make 'The Patch' work. Well done and much luck
2
Oh please. You guys ever read the Wall Street Journal? Ha I stopped my subscription becase of the almost total right wing slant of the commenters, the columinist. There is NO balance which in my opinion I get from the NYT. Secondly I realize that Rupert Murdoch did not need my few cents subscription to continue to wreak havoc on our democracy.
Thank you NYT.....even though sometimes I am miffed by the leeway you give some conservative pundits.
3
I hate to burst your bubble NYTimes, but you’re no longer “All the News that’s Fit to Print.” You cater to millennials and force your opinions upon us much too much, instead of simply reporting the facts. I still subscribe to you digitally but prefer the Washington Post for a clearer picture of the World.
4
As its line between journalism and editorial thinned and then disappeared, the NYT prospered more and more. Go figure.
2
I subscribe to the New York Times from India simply because I like the general quality of journalism. However, I completely lost the point of this column. Was it Ben simply introducing itself? Was it Ben showing off his chops and his qualifications to be the next media columnist? Was it NYT acknowledging that it needs to change and embrace the values of a smaller learner organization while still being a mammoth? Or is it just a clever way of the author showing off? Completely lost me.
14
The NYT got to where they are by adhering to high standards for reporting. "Quality" is the word that comes to mind.
Other news outlet need to up their game. A good start would be learning from the NYT rather than criticizing it for being successful.
5
I grew up in Los Angeles and have been an LA Times reader since childhood. My beloved paper was bleeding all its best journalists when Dean Baquet took over as Editor and tried his best to staunch the bleeding. Wonderful entire sections of the paper, like "Outdoors" and "Home" were being axed. But the paper's new owners didn't care and Baquet finally left in protest. As an aside, our sons were friends in middle school and I got to know him a bit---a thoughtful and brave man.
Several years after Baquet departed Los Angeles to take the helm at the NY Times, I departed for Boise, Idaho, where I learned that Idaho's biggest paper is a joke, suitable for fourth graders at best. I converted my LA Times subscription to digital and picked up the NY Times as well. And now that my mother and sister live in Seattle, I also subscribe to the Seattle Times. I read bits and pieces of all three papers each morning.
I am greatly relieved to see that more Americans are willing to pay for digital subscriptions. It seems my worst fears of the disappearing newspaper will not come to pass.
If the NY Times is responsible for this, then I send a sincere thanks to the paper, its publisher, and its Editor in Chief, Dean Baquet, for steering the paper through the years of fiscal crisis. I would also thank the intelligent readers of this paper for their many comments. Times readers aren't afraid to speak up if the paper loses its way now and then with a particular story or opinion piece.
6
I hope the Gray Lady remembers to thank Donald Trump for almost singlehandedly creating the need for an agile opposition newspaper. I suspect that during good times the Times would have floundered even more so; now it has a divine purpose and an critical mission. Let us give thanks!
PS & FYI - The Washington Post has the superior digital product on-line so don't get comfortable just yet!
5
Buzzfeed and its likes have been floated by cheap VC money over the years peddling trivia to dirt poor highly college debt beat millennials while bleeding red as a business. They later tried to monetize their brands via Goodful or Tasty cooking products as a last ditch effort, but results were lackluster; the board then got reshuffled. I guess eyeballs and likes does not always equate to money. “Reimagining the news business” was just a nice pitch for something that is economically unsound. internet meant an over supply of content relative to consumer attention/ demand, as barrier to entry and distribution cost collapsed, driving the price for news product to near 0. Old media had to figure out how to reconfigure the value proposition and target market appropriately. NYT found a decent formula: paywall, cheap digital subscription to get people into the ecosystem, then migrate and upsell them with other apps podcasts etc while selling contextual ads. Curious if NYT will copy Vice eventually as internet video/youtube will dominate. or Perhaps interactive news experience: 3d virtual tour of war torn syria, travel, cooking, maybe in real-time? That is reimagining the news business vs click bait tactics that delivers no essential value.
1
I began to read NYT when I received a good offer for subscription. Time by time I see that now I read more of the Times than any italian newspaper, even if I live in Italy. I used to buy The Economist twice a month and now I don't need it. I find here many different things to read, good quality, friendly to user, and not only breaking news. If Ben is wright this is not a good news for pluralism, but it is very nice that he can write it on the guilty platform. But maybe NYT is just teching the others how to make good information on the web. In that case it is welcomed.
4
The New York Times can thank Trump for my initial subscription. At the time I simultaneously wanted a comprehensive news organization to keep up with what was going on in the United States while also supporting high quality journalism in an age of increased misinformation.
I plan to stick with the NYT even after Trump is gone though. They've become my primary news source. I just wish they did more Canadian reporting!
3
If the NYT remains dedicated to reporting facts and clearly labeling opinion, analysis and news then it cannot be compared to Facebook or Google. Your corporations missions are completely different so an argument quickly turns to fantasy
1
I don’t think the NYT is the equivalent of Facebook. Facebook is the equivalent of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Most Americans don’t read the NYT. People with elite educations and careers on the left read the NYT and on the right, the WSJ.
2
New guy writes about his Times boss: "...who no doubt would have flourished in that midlevel product job I offered him"
Irrelevant and fawning.
Not a good start.
4
Smaller local papers need to become as user-friendly as The Times, so it's a quick & easy thing to scan the local news. Perhaps NYT could fix their tech for them all...a national uplift of all those boats would be fantastic.
2
I subscribe online because I want the truth. I can read beyond some bias and take issue with some opinion pieces. But I need to believe I am receiving truthful reporting. Don’t ever compromise that for expansion or sensationalism.
2
NYT starts my day every day, no matter where I am...Sundays on paper, every other day on line. NYT tells the truth; it offers (sometimes to my personal dismay) politically balance op eds. It keeps me informed and sane because NYT and NPR are the only two places I can go for news I trust that also goes beyond the surface. Conservative family and friends have called it "a commie rag"; their news source is Fox. NYT covers the nation and the world, not just its home city. I've lived in 12 states, some of them twice; most of their "name" newspapers' stories are pickups from the AP or the NYT, and most often local sports is their front page headliner. NYT isn't bad news for journalism. It's won 117 Pulitzer Prizes - more than any other newspaper. It sets the standard of excellence other papers should aspire to.
3
During his 2016 campaign and briefly thereafter, I heard Donald Trump taunting "the failing NY Times." He enjoyed slamming the Times very much. From Ben Smith's piece today, I learn that the success of the Times is far greater than I realized. I have not heard Donald Trump use the taunt lately.
5
All I can say is GOOD!!!!
I don't hear the toilets FOX and Rush Windbag's corporation whining about thier size and scope and audience.
Thank GOD we have the NY Times. And I also am heartened to think there ARE people with brains left in this country who subscribe.
3
One of the many great thing of The Times is that none of its excellent columnists or writers behaves as an arrogant dictator. The "what would happen here without me" motto, we can see in many other media companies, is not available here. It looks like there are no extra large mirrors in the bathrooms, to include extra large egos. Congratulations again dear New York Times.
3
If you can read and have some intellect the times is for you. Many people go to dumb websites for news—-a joke.
2
If the NYT could be more objective, we could actually have something truly good.
4
If loving the New York Times is wrong then I don't want to be right.
5
Welcome aboard! I heartedly applaud a view from above, as it were.
I am not pleased by the phenomenon that you describe at the Times. It appears to me that the ownership is taking advantage of the Google/Facebook trend, which is monopoly, but on a mass technology basis. And reflects our population explosion. All of these plus an attitude that power over others is everything. Trump is not alone in this tendency these days. It is now the culture of centralization, and it starts at the local level, believe it or not.
So, what is to be done? First, make it clear what is happening, engage the public is choosing the way forward, and get out of the way.
Local papers are not only falling aside, the survivors are more partisan than ever, and the model of Facebook as a top down purveyor of the work or ideology of others, and which content is not offered as what is real but as what is desired is without any critical restriction.
Perhaps we do need a revolution.
1
The Times and a handful of other major players should be the model for the newspaper industry, which otherwise has become a jumble of mergers, layoffs and closings. The key is to produce something that people will pay for. Another factor: With digital, the Times' subscriber base is not only national but global. The internet is not bound by circulation areas, printing presses and delivery trucks.
3
Welcome to the NYT. I was one of those post 2016 subscribers who felt and still feel my vote for journalism and excellent journalists is important. I like your outside looking in style of writing and hope you can continue that mode as it helps others see themselves and hopefully in turn hold themselves to the high standard of being objective.
3
And in the process of covering the media, as you select what to screen in as well as out, will you consider helping readers to better understand what "accountability" can mean, and should mean, for a targeted media, and its human creator, and transmitter, in a daily culture which enables and even fosters "alt-facts?"
In a WE-THEY world which media, of various types, levels and qualities can and do engage in "ravishing" FACTS and violating TRUTHS.
Can you help your reader to adequately discern, uncover, and reconstruct, as often as is necessary to move from undemanding fragments of "data," scooped, which all too easily, and too early closure, becomes believable-information whose implications an consequences, all too often are not understood
I think the times is doing some things very right: their interactive visuals, stories made for reading on a smart phone, etc.
But a few things REALLY bother me:
1) Integration with other apps is poor: a link out from twitter or elsewhere *never* takes me to the app
2) Headlines and subheadings change incessantly: this gives the feeling that stories are spinner throughout the day, and it detracts from a sense of stability/accuracy/objectivity
3) Search function is poor: finding stories from 2 weeks ago is frustrating, even if you have a screenshot of the title!
In terms of how the newspaper has evolved, I enjoy the range of voices and much about how it’s transitioned to an online space, but the points above are a constant frustration for me.
3
I am from southern India and was initially introduced to the investigative journalism and opinion columns of the NYT through its free articles. I was so attracted to its style and content that I immediately subscribed for the digital edition. Though I wouldn't agree to all its views, the news and views are objective and to the point most often than not. The opportunity for its readers to interact through comments is an added advantage where one gets express and read the views of a cross section of people. Given these advantages and the legacy of NYT, it is not surprising that NYT is seizing the initiative in the digital space. But beware of other competitor(s) with very deep pocket(s).
2
Some commentators accuse the NYTimes' reporters of bias but even if that is sometimes true the newspaper is still a more reliable source of factual news than any other outlet right now. Every critic must acknowledge that it is rare that the newspaper's news reports are biased or leave out important facts. Indeed, some news topics elicit very emotional responses from readers and those are probably the ones some commentators here are criticizing. Is the newspaper's scientific, business, sports coverage biased? No. Coverage of politics is probably what people are complaining about. I, personally, have no problem with it.
I also don't understand the point that the success of the newspaper puts it in the same league as social media giants like Facebook. The NYTimes is not a monopoly of news coverage. Just look at the success and reach of The Washington Post. Weekly and monthly print magazines are also thriving and are great sources of news analysis and, sometimes, primary investigative reporting (like the New Yorker Magazine). On line news outlets have a huge presence on Facebook and some are also responsible for primary investigative reporting.
I will continue to read the NYTimes for reliable news about what's happening in the world and in our own country.
3
"The starting salary for most reporters is $104,600." This has been one of the reasons I've always had at least one print subscription and never clicked on HuffPo, Axios, etc links: journalism that takes the profession seriously enough to pay professional wages.
1
Being Canadian, I used to have a bias for the news media of my country. However, over the years, it's become obvious to me that, even given some liberal bias (forgivable in the Trump age), the New York Times is by far my favorite newspaper. The paper's excellence is manifest at every level of reporting, whether it be news and business coverage, editorials, food and wine. or book reviews. For the digital subscriber, it's awesome value and I think that's the main reason for the success.
2
Greetings Mr. outsider to insider. Interesting perspective you've presented here. I started my subscription to the Times last year for one reason, lots of good journalism. I dropped my subscription to my local newspaper because they had dropped so much of their journalism staff, and were printing lots of yesterday's stories they paid a fee to other newspapers for. As the Stones sang long ago, 'who wants yesterday's papers.'
Another reason I quit my local paper was something referred to as 'advocacy journalism.' Which is in fact opinion writing mixed up as objective journalism. I don't care if the advocating is left or right of the facts of the story, I don't want that in the hard news stories.
The Times leans left on its opinion pages, but I find the news of the day very well written without the advocacy creeping in. In the Trump world of alternative facts, with his hateful, ignorant rewriting of history, often inaccurately presented as the right of center perspective, its getting harder to find middle ground story writing.
If one is on the right and has deluded themselves in believing they are actually in the middle, they may look over their left shoulder, see the middle, and believe they are seeing the left. Ditto the guy on the left looking his right shoulder, seeing the middle, believing he is gazing at the far right. Good luck to all of us in era of so called fake news, and I look forward to your writing on the media Ben Smith, it's an important subject.
2
And look what happened at Netflix -- it's not just a behemoth, but has created a new market.
Now I not only subscribe to Netflix but also to Hulu, HBO, Amazon Prime, and Disney+.
The NYT is not stomping out competition, it's creating a model that other newspapers can follow in order to flourish.
2
No, the times has become a drama laden, fear mongering gossip column with unreliable sources and twisted stories all designed to brainwash the populace into following their trump derangement syndrome.
I used to read the times to understand one side of the story and thought process, while reading other sources to better understand the other side. Unfortunately the times has left the realm of objective reporting and has entered the partisan foray. When in the past 3+ years has their been an article that said trump did or said something right? Never. I find it impossible to believe that anyone, including trump, is that perfect. Just like it's impossible to be right all the time, it's impossible to wrong all the time. He would have had to screw up at least once and get something right.
The brainwashing that has been instilled in people day after day after day is frightening. If you examine it closely, these brainwashed fanatical anti trumpers are America's version of religious fundamentalist extremism. A person who will willingly vote for a candidate determined to destroy America's core fundamental values just to defeat trump, is someone we should all be afraid of.
14
@bored critic -- I often read comments complaining that the NYT is too liberal. But, all newspapers have a point of view. You know if you read the Wall Street Journal, the columns and opinions and even news articles will convey a conservative point of view. The same is true of the Washington Times, Chicago Tribune and the NY Post. The NYT takes a liberal outlook, as does the Washington Post. It's useless to complain that a conservative outlet should become more liberal, or vice versa. No news outlet is without bias. The way to be well-rounded and escape a "bubble," whether it's liberal or conservative, is to get news and opinion from different sources. No one source can offer everything you want.
1
“No news outlet is without bias...”. Therein lies the problem. I abhor the liberal bias of the NYTimes, or any bias from any news source, because it violates the essential function of journalism to report facts. Opinions that include biases are fine on the editorial pages, but not when they permeate news stories or the selection of news stories chosen for presenting to readers. I hold my nose and read NY Times for the excellence and range of non-biased reporting and ignore the biased stuff, especially the editorial pages, but also many of the columnists who rarely present any facts to support their opinions. I believe The NY Times could easily become the dominant news source if it would stop trying to convince readers of their biased views and expand the range and scope of their factual coverage. If most of your readers share your biases, you’re bound to restrict yourself to a limited readership.
1
Ben, I hope you maintain this ability to be introspective and cognizant of your role in the conglomeration of media. What motivated you to leave BuzzFeed News and join the Times? I think it was a respectable decision, and I probably would've done the same. You're among the best and brightest journalists in the world, but continue to hold them accountable. Particularly when they are hostile to views that are not prima facie "woke" enough.
4
Part of understanding the Times success is what you are now reading, a comment that allows the reader to have a shot at being a columnist. This comment feature has evolved from a requiring a junior editor's approval to constantly expanding A.I. that manages to exclude a crude expression of partisanship, yet passes that which may be unique.
Reading this article I am in a virtual auditorium of millions, where I get to express my view with the occasional appreciation of enough readers to provide satisfaction and encouragement to continue to explore and evaluate our rapidly changing world.
I caught the bug with my first letter to the editor decades ago, ironically about a developer (yes, that developer!) who was getting federal subsidies for tearing down parts of the thriving west side deemed as "slum clearance." The Times affects history, as the oped that claimed that almost all species are bisexual right before the Obergefell decision was nonsense, as confirmed by a liberal eminent ethologist.
It's no wonder that the DJT despises this newspaper, and uses the word "fake" rather than the appropriate "biased." The elimination of the public editor (ombudsman) was an act of arrogance, as this position is needed now more than ever. The Times is a success, in a time dizzying explosion of technology that will continue to change our world.
You are doing good, but must do even better.
4
Very interesting. The New York Times is to news what Netflix is to TV? I’d agree with that. More and more people globally are turning away from their local and national TV channels and turning on Netflix instead. After a lifetime of reading The Guardian in print and online, last week I took up an online subscription to the New York Times. Tired of the Guardian’s shrill hysteria and predictable point of view on every subject under the sun, I am enjoying the Times’ more sober, adult tone and more far-reaching stories. Living in Europe but watching Netflix and reading the New York Times: we are all Americans now.
2
I'll summarize my thoughts by acknowledging that the Times is well worth the $1.00 per week that I pay for it.
2
Wondering why the Times’s new media columnist doesn’t mention one big reason the paper of record has seen its fortunes turn around since 2014: the election of Donald Trump.
Which raises a second question: how successful will it continue to be if Trump loses in November?
5
The digital NY Times is the reason that I’m able to read the paper every day. I live on a small island where the paper arrives by ferry daily unless the ocean is too rough for the ferry to come. There is no delivery which means I had to travel five miles to buy it before digital arrived. Also, it much much less expensive than buying a paper which formerly cost $7.25 on Sunday.
Thank you, NY Times!
2
It can’t be too much of an information monopoly where you can’t find the print edition on sale anymore in too many places around where I live in the SF Bay Area suburbs. While I subscribe online, I occasionally like to peruse the print edition particularly on Sundays, but Starbucks and the grocery stores did not have it while Barnes & Noble has not had an NYT delivery in a month.
1
Reading broadly and talking with other people with different perspectives and experiences is the best news.
4
I think an idea that significant percentage of readers will buy multiple news subscriptions does not fly. If "google" is not mistaken, american newspapers have only 30 million daily circulation. In the end I hope that at least few decent news sources survive. Downside of this digital times is that subscriptions "personal" so I'm guessing less people read each copy than before. One is also unable to buy single issue of most magazines, not to mention single article.
Maybe, but if Trump wins another 4 years I am off the newspapers and only PBS 1 hour a day. there is more in the world than Trump and this has not been reported.
3
I do not agree that the success of the NYT has been or is detrimental for the rest of the press. It is rather IMV the NYT showing the way. As a digital subscriber in Europe I really enjoy reading the NYT (esp its opinion and arts sections), without digitalisation it would be impossible. However, I do read European newspapers and, yes, the WP, too.
1
The down side of the up side: Once you become the top dog, you attract the fiercest of the dogs to battle for control, and believe me when this happens there are dogs out there that know very well how to get to the top and play the game. You may not even see this coming; just like we didn't see the current dog in the White House.
4
Thank you, Mr. Smith. Keep It coming. But many thanks, too, to all the commenters. I have been very disappointed with the Opinion section's turn to identity politics and often turn away from it to those in the WS Journal, to which I also subscribe. I want to hear all sides, which the Times used to give.
1
You failed to mention WHY the Times has skyrocketed in growth in the last four years: Donald Trump. Not their digital brilliance, although they do a great job. My husband and I subscribed after the election to both the Times and the Washington Post as an antidote to the horrors of the Trump administration. We get our TV and radio news from NPR and might have just continued like that if Hilary Clinton had won the presidency. But in the age of lies, good investigative journalism is a beacon of hope.
7
@Jenny
Don't be fooled by NPR. Nice, polite republicans.
1
Neat, but one of the hazards of this semi-monopoly is that the Times has become an echo chamber, spinning its copy in favor of a liberal orthodoxy and leaving its readership to separate fact from bias. Even its news articles often leave out inconvenient facts or reflect unspoken, and unacknowledged, assumptions. This may generate more subscriptions, and article clicks, but I'm afraid it does its readers no favors. The gray lady may be blue now, and perhaps that has its financial rewards, but I miss the days when the Times presented news in black and white, and its editorials represented the best of the fourth estate.
500
Thank you Bill;
there is an audience like me out there, thank you so much.
46
Sorry, Bill, but your comment is completely inaccurate. I’m curious where exactly you’re seeing bias in the Times’s news coverage? Do you have any actual examples?
85
@Chris - "...where exactly you’re seeing bias in the Times’s news coverage?"
It's what happens when the truth is not favorable to one's political bent. It become bias to those unwilling to accept the truth while others of that same political persuasion will acknowledge the truth for what it is.
61
Look. I love the NYT so much. And so did my mom when she was Alive and does my step dad. But y’all Need to stop it with the negative Bernie hit jobs. Some of which have had inaccuracies in them. He’s the leader in the primaries and you should not be unfairly trying to knock him down. I know he wasn’t your choice for President. But seriously. Even though you are anti-establishment in many ways you’re also part of the establishment. Give the man his due and quit trying to knock him down. He’s doing great and wants to do even more great things. These negative hit jobs on Bernie make me want to switch to the Washington Post. They ain’t doing that. Thanks.
158
I agree with you on the Times' relentlessly negative coverage of Bernie, and how the opinion page has bled into the supposedly objective news section. But please don't think for a minute that the Post is any better. Rubin, Capehart et al are laughably predictable in their hatred of Sanders. And it's no coincidence that the owner of that paper happens to be one of the most vilified billionaires in the world
19
@Peter Very true--I've been subscribing the WaPo to find a more old-school liberal-left paper (which I considered the NYT to be in my youth). And a relative suggested I never mind the editorials & read the WSJ just for tersely objective news. But that wasn't quite true. A paper who allows the headline "Bernie Sanders Must Be Stopped" on the front page, even if it is an editorial title, itself must be stopped. Or seen for what it is.
Oh, and of course, thank you for the 'billionaire' comment. But that applies to an extent to all the owners/publishers of our 'papers of record.'
19
@Christopher Brown I've seen Bernie articles pro and con. The NYT endorsed Warren, who has a similar platform. I don't think it's bias against a progressive candidate. All the other candidates have had pro and con. More negative articles against Bloomberg than any other candidate from what I've seen.
They need to point out candidates strengths as well as their weaknesses. All candidates have both. I've been surprised to see strenuous objections to an article about Sanders that seemed neutral to me (both good and bad sides in the same article).
15
I recently signed up for an online subscription to the local paper in a mid-size southern city we may be moving to in a few years. The hard news coverage was there, but very thin. Then I noted that the paper was part of the USA Today group. I might cynically say "that explains a lot" about the thin coverage, but I also realized the USA Today ownership was probably helping the publication stay afloat. Local community news is where the real crisis is in the news business -- a vibrant democracy needs robust news coverage at all levels, not just the top of the food chain occupied by "The Times, the Post and The Journal."
2
A reader of the Times throughout my adult life, I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of articles in it about Jews. Israel and the Holocaust.
The one that most sticks in my head was written by Max Frankel on November 14, 2001 about the Times itself and is entitled “150th Anniversary: 1851-2001; Turning Away From the Holocaust.”
Here it is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/news/150th-anniversary-1851-2001-turning-away-from-the-holocaust.html
Read it for yourself and see if you don’t agree with me that the article serves as an excellent reminder that The Times -- as good as it is today -- doesn’t always get important things right.
1
Methinks the guy from the upstart new digital newcomer to the News market, Buzzfeed, still harbors a little jealousy over the Gray Lady's continued success as THE name in journalism since 1851.
When Buzzfeed and any of those other online news sources mentioned in this article can claim the same long history of excellence, trust, Pulitzers and similar top awards for journalism that the New York Times has achieved in its long history, then he can engage in the snark I detect in this article.
Classy debut to bite the hand that feeds you.
2
Putting the NYTimes in the Facebook and Google categories misses the journalistic boat altogether. Only two are behemoths, with the Times 'merely' a really successful newspaper having found its niche and capitalizing on it.
I dropped out of FB over two years ago for multiple reasons, but use Google without even thinking about it. The Times I read online daily, cognizant of its perspective and enjoying it.
Is it too big? Who knows. The world changes, and with it the entities within in. Others will likewise prosper, others fail. Nothing profound there. Suggestions for change? Just don't price the less-advantaged out of subscription range. Otherwise, keep on keepin' on. I love the relatively wise range of opinions presented, including the conservatives with whom I often disagree. And the unique features keep me learning, enlightened, entertained.
Without the success of the Times -- my mornings would be far less inspiring. There's no bad news there in my book.
3
Excellent start, Ben. I have been a NYT fan since I landed on these far-off shores in 1975, then in 1980 formulating strategy for Punch Sulzberger as a young McKinsey associate.
The Times was my first, of many, media clients. I recall a four-hour presentation in the Times old Boardroom where we presented financial results, business unit by business unit (then including cable tv, magazines, books, baseball team) showing Punch and the Board the financial contribution made by each unit to corporate overhead. Punch remained silent throughout, then said "I have one question: What's "contribution"?
I have started every day of my life in the U.S.by reading the NYT. It is a part of me, a friend and mentor. I admire the Times for its honesty and breadth, its openness to innovation and its ability to self-correct. It's one of the few businesses I trust not to abuse market power, mainly because its strong corporate conscience is guided by the individual and group consciences of its now 1700 diverse journalists, and by the family.
5
This consolidation of media has meant the sad decline of local news reporting.
Just like all politics is local, the same holds true for all the other issues we face and if it isn't reported, it doesn't exist.
When I was moving toward graduation from college at a well-known Boston institution, along with alI the other students on track for a diploma, I was contacted by the school’s PR department, requesting the name of my hometown newspaper so they could issue a release along the lines of “local boy makes good.” I returned their form, filling in the name and address of the New York Times, which had been my local, hometown newspaper since childhood.
They returned a snarky note to the effect that the Times was not considered a hometown paper, possibly because they could not conceive of NY being anyone’s home town.
What I think is most dangerous with the determined playbook, which the New York Times has made their doctrine, is the mandate news reporters engage in opinionated political writing that favors a particular candidate. I can understand the columnists and bloviators expressing their opinion, but reporters have no place doing that. I have cancelled my subscription a few times out of frustration with this style the editors think is newswriting. It is not. Go back to your old Associated Press Style Manual and correct the harms this great behemoth of a company is causing. The NYT not only helps feed the misinformation campaigns, it is creating more and more of it.
3
Interesting. When I was an editor at Philadelphia’s KYW Newsradio in 1971 I tried to find anyone at the New York Times willing to listen to why the Times should create an electronic subsidiary.
Hourly newsfeeds to a national syndicate of radio stations, an ad hoc network of local TV stations (the internet did not exist and cable penetration was not complete), and the beginnings of what would become a cable news network could position the paper for the electronic future.
I couldn’t get in the door. I couldn’t even climb in an open window. Chalk it up to my ineptitude as a salesman. Oh, well.
Honestly, in my humble experience, the reason the NYT is in this position is because they worked harder, longer and better then others. . .their success is well deserved!
5
@David Wiswell
Wow. How wasn't THIS a NYT Pick? I guess they have some self-promotion limits after all!
Besides their long, hard and effective efforts at journalism, do you not see that they are ALSO using the digital format to be the ringleader of public opinion? I apologize for my cynicism, I am just curious about your view on this (as someone so seeminhly taken by this news organization).
1
I have read the NYT since 1966. First as a student, then as a soldier, then the Int'l Herald Tribune throughout Europe, and now to this day, as a digital subscriber. And to be honest, I do not give a hoot as to the juvenile machinations involved in running this newspaper. I care only for accuracy and objectivity. And I have the additional advantage to be able to comprehend foreign news outlets because I have the ability to fluently speak and communicate both in German and French. I am my own fact checker.
The NYT has it's work cut out for its survival.
To this day I read the FAZ and Die Zeit on line. Without the NYT and my other two sources, I would be lost in a quagmire
of media confusion.
F3
6
I live in the hinterlands of Montana. Our largest city has just fired its editor and op-ed editor in order to consolidate the paper with several conservative papers in the state. Very little local news now. Most of my friends read the NYT on-line—cannot get it at newsstands, and its a week late by mail. How I miss ink on my fingers!
4
@Mitzi Vorachek Think of it this way: think of all the paper covered with ink that you won't have to haul daily to the trash and clutter the landfills with.
I agree that local journalism matters, but
My local paper, while the largest in the state mostly regurgitates AP stories and their follow up on local stories is seriously lacking. I canceled my subscription years ago.
2
I think the headline, and the article, got it backwards. It should say, Why Bad News for Journalism May Be Success for the NYT. The Times is filling the vaccuum left by the collapse of rest of the industry -- and fortunately with good journalism.
But you have to maintain the high standards that the Times was built on, which, unfortunately, are slipping now. The Times would do well to bring back its strong copy desk, even if it means fewer reporters. What good is covering a lot of stories if they're not checked and polished properly?
And, btw, I say this as a retired newspaper editor.
3
On the one hand I buy the overall argument of monopoly and consolidation being a real problem, one with deep roots across media for a long time (I'm a fan of Robert McChesney's work on how "rich media" create a poor environment for democracy, for example).
On the other hand, part of this is the larger stage that the Times plays on in the digital age. When I was in college, if I was outside the US, it was hard to find the Times (or International Herald Tribune) anywhere, and it cost a fortune. Now I've lived outside the US for several years, and I like that I can subscribe to the Times and have the same access I would were I in the US. Here in Hong Kong the Times has excellent reporters who have covered the protests, and also the Times coverage of mainland China has been outstanding. The consolidation and extended power the Times has really does have some benefits for me, as an individual reader. Those real benefits would not have been the same before the digitization, etc.
7
If news outlets still consider Trump quotes and tweets headline news, they are not doing their jobs.
Anybody can watch clips or read tweets, but a journalist's job is to provide analysis and context. With Trump, the real news is what he's trying to deflect from or cover up.
Quoted above:
"..............Because The Times now overshadows so much of the industry, the cultural and ideological battles that used to break out between news organizations — like whether to say that President Trump lied — now play out inside The Times........."
1
I remember my teacher in 8th grade (1964) taught us how to fold the physical paper vertically in quarters.
My father would read it with a magnifying glass
English was our third language so there was this red British dictionary that everybody in the family used, and we’d underline each researched word, so we knew we’d checked the word before.
The times has been part of our life, like Arabic coffee.
12
Absurd. There is no reason any other “media outlet” cannot do original reporting and analysis. And if NYT is successful at translating excellent journalism into commercial success, others will surely want to emulate.
4
I'm glad this newspaper encourages or tolerates self criticism, unlike Bloomberg Media or Fox News.
4
I'm a digital subscriber, but a phlegmatic reader of the Times. My first port of call is the Washington Post, then the Guardian, then Politico, Slate... When I remember to do so, I read the Times. It feels so much behind the times, so to speak, struggling to catch up with these other sites that follow the mendacity of the moment we live in with much greater alacrity and point. I mostly read the Times for its arts coverage.
1
I understand the sentiment here, yet am comforted that a pillar of real, fact-checked investigative journalism is financially sound. Without strong traditional journalism that carries a high level of trust, we are completely sunk. We would have no idea what is going on. I signed up for the WP as well as a civic duty.
6
Ben talks a lot about the Times dominance and little about the investment they have made in defining a path for the best journalism. I taught myself to read with the "Neediest cases" profiles when I was 5, and I have made it part of my news habit throughout my life. In my opinion, what the Times has done is embrace the evolution and revolution in multimedia forms and hired and invested in attracting the most talented teams to write for them. In the end, as readers, we all have a choice. I read many different sources on many different topics everyday, far more easily than with print. So the Times is by no means a monopoly for me, but it has my trust. And that is the most important asset
6
I am an expat/exNewYorker.
When I lived in NYC, the Sunday edition could be bought near Penn Station at 10:30PM on Saturday. Most times I picked my copy up brought it back to The Lower Eastside, hopped in bed spread out the different sections working my way through to the weekend crossword.
The NYT is a connection to my country and a "reliable" source in a world of fake news and conspiracies manufactured to rile up the base.
I think most readers usually do not buy locals.
The NYT had its bumpy time but turned it around...why should it feel quilty for its success?
9
The Times is the only news subscription I pay for. It seems a lot of sites figured out the old trick of deleting one's History to load new articles.
So, when I choose the one I would pay for (as a confessed news junkie), the NYT was it. And I'll probably pay the full price once my introductory rate goes up.
Thanks for the photo of news room. Very interesting to see inside the "brain" of the NYT.
3
The Times does not possess a monopoly over what news is publish by 'journalists'. What is the Murdock empire if not an industry with journalists?
As a kid in England I read the Times for the post imperial, superior in all things, British objectivity, the Guardian for the left's soft support of the Soviets and the Telegraph for the latest from Little Britain's fox hunting, 'oik' disdaining, Tory heartland.
The idea that a news paper must report everything from all angles is plain daft.
We need ideological clarity, not some kind of general knowledge dispenser with a morally comfortable point of view.
7
@GRAHAM ASHTON At this point I'm not considering subscriptions to the London Times or the Telegraph. I can see your point about getting multiple news sources, though, having NYT, WaPo and Atlantas' AJC. I do hate the bias though.
1
Ben Smith and some commentors hint at a step we can all take to preserve and encourage local journalism. Subscribe to at leaste two newspapers.
When the digital era began, most of us in journalism thought the metropolitan daily was under the greatest threat because, after all, The Times can't cover the Presque Isle City Council. Only a paper in Maine could cover Presque Isle. Most of of were wrong. The Times and some other big-city papers sustain and even thrive, but local newspapers are failing almost daily.
I have seen studies showing that when local newapapers go away, local taxes rise between 1% and 5%. Just because no one is sitting at the local governing body's meetings and reporting what our elected officials are doing.
Having served eight years on a regional school board and three on the town select board, I have learned how easy it is to spend other people's money. When no reporter is there to report how officials are spending other people's money, more and more of other people's money will be spent.
Five percent of my property tax bill is $90. I can use that saved money to buy another local newspaper subscription to add to The Times and the Bangor Daily News, to which I already subscribe.
Read a local newspaper, save on your taxes.
5
For most lovers of democracy, the NYT and the WP are akin to what Radio Free Europe was in the Soviet era. Only the big news players can stand up to the propaganda and power of the news plutocracy. We are in a situation where the remaining sliver of the principled media plutocrats are fighting a last ditch battle against the self-dealing conservative plutocrats who see the news media in general as the pinnacle of power and wealth. Exhibit A: Rupert Murdoch. Exhibit B: Mark Zuckerberg.
12
I think this column illustrates why the NYT is so successful. It is thoughtful and reflective and not afraid to criticize itself. In short, it is honest. The NYT doesn't get it right all the time. No news outlet does. But it does strive to do excellent reporting and does not shy away from admitting when it is wrong. I think that is why so many people gravitate to it during these confusing times we are in when we don't know what is true or not. I do read a variety of news sources, but the NYT has been my default for a long time. I started with a student subscription in college many years ago, and I'm still a reader today.
11
I have been a subscriber to the NYT since 2006. I also subscribe to the Boston Globe. I can’t imagine my life without the information I have learned from both.
5
No question that the NY Times has managed the changing media and political landscapes quite well...from a business standpoint. But, while this article mostly worries about what this success has done to other media outlets, it only spends a paragraph pointing out what it's done to the NY Times. The NY Times has become a mashup of gawker, buzzfeed, politco, and others. It has lost its bearings and is no longer the standard for solid reporting of news. This is bad for The Times. Bad for journalism. And bad for readers. Subscriptions may be strong. But society no longer benefits from more people reading the NY Times.
4
Good for the Times for hiring you and giving you the leeway to publish this piece. I welcome more empirical analysis and commentary.
7
I am a journalist of 20 years (not at the Times) and agree with article on the perils of news 'monopolies'. I cover the environment and social issues and have thought about joining the titans of the Guardian or NYT but have determined it would not change the world to write for an audience that is already convinced. I battle every day whether that is the right decision, but believe we desperately need more diversity in media. I also miss the days of fact - now we put opinion on front pages of websites or even within a news piece. It has influenced my own work - I now have to write opinion pieces which I detest. The idea was always to provide enough facts on both sides to allow the reader to form their own opinion. What a shame we now spoon-feed readers. Also, and this isn't touched on here, but the narrowing of the field has made it harder for me to get interviews. If you don't work for one of the big five (print and wires together) it's tough. Thank you for this article.
12
The fatal flaw that has crippled the news industry is the lie that the “both sides” approach is the only way to do good journalism. Classic example: climate change. While there are two opposing opinions; there are no two sets of facts. There is only one set of facts: climate change is real and it’s driven by energy created by burning fossil fuels. Another example: Trumpism - the false claim that the Trump administration is legitimate and not a threat to democracy. The media keeps putting out “false equivalencies” and abrogating it’s primary responsibility: to hold our elected leaders, institutions and corporations accountable. This is why the news is in trouble, not because the Times dominates.
3
@Sdtrueman I agree with you - I don't mean putting out one side then the other if one is incorrect or just plain stupid - I mean sticking to facts and letting the reader decide. Ie. " Does tobacco divestment save lives? Divestment appears to reduce tobacco stock price based on past data. However, revenues are increasing at tobacco firms as they move to vaping. But deaths have been caused by vaping." These are facts. It's not me telling you that we shouldn't invest in tobacco. (even though that's my opinion). The facts speak for themselves. I would hope.
Agree. It's hard to see a successful business model for local news other than these news organizations becoming necessary philanthropic recipients to protect against malfeasance in the local and public realm.
1
Go, or rather acknowledge that you're already, national, and start funding local media. Brand it, do whatever you do--work further with ProPublica, as they're on it. Use the success for the good, and if you must crowd out the competition, make the best of it.
1
@Doug Tarnopol Who has money to fund local media? They sell their stories to local media.
Once my 4 dollar a month subscription ends, I'll be moving on. Sure I'll miss a few articles and some comments, but not enough to make it worth full price. Maybe I'll put that extra 4 dollars towards my regular Public Broadcast donation.
3
I subscribe to the NYT and The Guardian, so the NYT earnings a lot of subscribers doesn't mean crowding the competition. What is important is that I can trust the news & articles I'm reading. I honestly think the subscription represents excellent value.
9
I agree. If anything it made me more open to idea to pay for a subscription.
Now I also have a subscription with the Washington Post, WIRED, and my budget can sustain a few more.
I support some independent story tellers via Patreon, such as Humans of New York.
However I spend more time reading the news on my NYT app - I don’t have the time to even check out WPO and WIRED.
But I think of my barely used subscriptions as a way to support them financially :)
1
A really revealing take as whenever I read about the FINANCIAL position of The Times (in The Times, of course), I hardly get a sense of a financial titan. In fact, from my amateur perspective, their finances look rather precarious. So, from that perspective, to compare it to Google or Facebook is beyond absurd.
But I not only appreciate this reporter's take, I find how he frames his ideas and his writing style to be very engaging and I look forward to many more engaging articles. If he comes even close to the late, great David Carr, The Times will have scored a great win (and, ironically, have further consolidated its alleged titanic position in the news media as a result).
2
You can thank the hedge fund that bought our local metro newspaper for slowly strangling it. They layoff reporters even while the newspaper is profitable. They continue to increase the subscription price, even when profitable, all in the name of increased profits. When the hedge fund sells the local metro newspaper to a local owner interested in actually running a newspaper that reports news, I will again subscribe.
4
I would also say that the Times has had less of an impact then say Facebook or Google in killing local papers. Rather it has filled the vaccum left behind by those looking for unbiased and thoughtful news.
However that being said and much like a church planting churches the times needs to get out and begin developing news rooms (at least at the regional and hopefully state level). It would be so cool to see collaborations with something like NPR to bring back and develop local news (digitally of course) It would also be wise as it would give the Times a further ability to break intriguing stories.
7
“I’m proud to be leaving BuzzFeed News as one of a handful of strong, independent newsrooms still standing... But I miss the wide open moment 10 years ago, when we were among a wave of new players reimagining what news meant.”
Proud, as a journalist, of Buzzfeed? Whose headline today is something about the ten best recipes? And “reimagining what news meant” is part of the problem. There’s a historic definition of what news is, and the internet’s “reimagining” of it (always for profit) has degraded the quality of news for a generation.
7
In a nutshell, the cost of my hometown paper, is more than the NYT and WAPO. It is now in liquidation and does not report the national news.
3
The Times is Optimus Prime fighting against Maga-tron.
3
I advocate readership diversification; that is, the willingness and ability to be exposed not only to the information provided by papers like the New York Times, but also what other media outlets with different orientations report from their own perspective, and in as many languages as possible. Every morning, I read papers from Puerto Rico and Spain (with opposite views), then I read the NYTimes, and occasionally papers from other European countries. I wish someday I could read what China or Iran report in their respective languages. Given the global reality we are engaged with today, it is hard to believe that the NYTimes monopolizes media. This may be the case in a strictly national context, and it shall be addressed. I would rather be concerned if the New York Times monopolized the news in a much wider context.
1
I'm a subscriber and love the NYT, but I think the author has a point. I'm particularly dismayed at what seems like the step back from coverage of local NYC news, which seems like part of the NYT positioning itself more as a national and even international newspaper.
4
The Times is so successful because it's, by far, the best comprehensive English news source on the planet. WSJ isn't comprehensive, and Washington Post, Guardian and the others are on a lower tier.
7
Thanks to a very enlightened teacher, I've been reading the Times since second grade. That is not a typo. Certainly, saying second graders "read" the Times might be too generous a description of what we did with it then. But we got used to seeing the banner in the Times's unique version of Old English font, and we became accustomed to the sheer mass of the paper itself by leafing through it every day. The Times has been my guiding light for news and perspective ever since. And that has been a very long time, indeed.
The success of the Times should be no surprise, really. After all, while it represents the news around the world, it is also a product of New York City, which has foibles and character all its own. But it is not too big. It is not a monopoly. It is not overwhelming. And while I don't live in the city, it is my hometown newspaper. I am comfortable with it, and I cannot imagine a day going by without reading it from front page to back.
I would ask one favor of the Times, though: organizational growth can be stressful, and finances can be stretched in unpredictable ways. Please please please never consider selling the paper to Rupert Murdoch. That would be the end of the journalism I've depended on my entire life. Even as monstrously coarse and brutal as the world is today, it would be so much worse if the voice of the Times were ever diminished.
6
Long time subscriber and reader of both paper and online versions. Can't help thinking that its infringement on the first generation of start-up hip sites has been the Times extensive expansion and prominent display of pop culture. There are multiple daily articles on front pages of TikTok's latest viral thing that will fade into history by tomorrow, Lady Gaga's new boyfriend, the latest new Diva (after one song) lamenting her crushed and saddened soul after the breakup of a six week relationship and how it speaks to all woman and makes men understand, analysis of what J LO and Shakira's halftime "spectacular" will do for the advance of the woman's movement, etc., etc..
Let me see what today's is: Oh Celine Dion and her "Courage Tour" (!!) with winks. Click.
3
IN my case its not some much that the Times grew but that the local is shriveled and reduced the value proposition to almost zero.
As an example today is Monday and we have an article about a snowstorm that stopped at 8 PM on Thursday.
Their on line edition costs as much as the Times and has few if any current national news stories.
I wish the Times would buy their content and add a Rochester, NY section.
Gannet's execs. ate the prophets.
1
Every day I seek an alternative to the NYT due to one reason only: the bias against progressive points-of-view. It has become obvious that the news sections are being manipulated or influenced by the paper's corporate interests in the editorial room, to the point that the newspaper has lost it's credibility when reporting politics. As Phil Ochs is reported to have said you have to read the Times between the lines.
5
"It's obvious"
is how so-called conservatives try to hijack the conversation: by begging the question.
Bless their hearts.
1
@Lorem Ipsum
"is how so-called conservatives try to hijack the conversation"
Ok, true, but in this case it is far too obviously true and deniers are the ones slipping into the group of those questioning "facts".
As a journalist (now teaching) who worked at small and mid-sized papers, it’s hard for me to fault selling off everything “to hold our journalism investment as flat as humanly possible.” My last paper, owned by Advance, sold off everything — including the journalism and the journalists themselves.
Maybe that’s why it’s The Times and everybody else.
3
In reading all the other comments on the evils of a corporate giant like The NY Times -- and there are definite pluses and minuses to being so huge -- I'm left wondering where we'd be if the Times did not exist, and instead of it we would have hundreds or thousands of smaller media sources, many without the highest standards of the Times. So much of what purports to be news is merely opinion designed to sway readers, or fiction designed to confuse and keep the truth from being known.
For all its faults, we are better off having one or two 'newspapers of record', places where we can -- more than any other place -- know that what we are reading is factual and responsibly reported.
7
The Times puts the truth up and the Republicans, Fox news, and other haters of people and truth then know what they must lie about. So the times benefits from both truth lovers and haters read the Times for the same thing, the TRUTH. Don't fail us. And get some better opinion writers. And maybe fewer too. They miss the target frequently just trying to fill today's column.
3
Ben Smith sounds like a smart, insightful media columnist but what I really need at the Times is a public editor. And more editors and copy editors. It appears that money is not a problem.
4
I do appreciate the NYT publishing this article. I was once a local journalist covering cultural events in the NYC area and I learned what it was like to run up against the NYT. When I approached cultural institutions for ads they would respond we're saving our budgets for Google and NYT. The NYT writers would abuse their power by getting early access to previews and scoop the rest of us. While at a press preview of a museum event the NYT preview of that show would come out. I still love the NYT and publishing this article just confirms that.
2
I'm 78 years old and have lived my entire life with the Times. It's always been a great paper, and with the links to nearly unlimited sources of news through the internet it's better than ever.
However, this is an absurd article. Google sec.gov and "New York Times" under "filings" and look at the operating results for 2019 as set forth in its 10-K annual report. The New York Times Company's total revenue was $1.812 billion, up from $1.748 billion in 2018. Net income was $140 million vs. $127 million. Here's a comparison: I just retired as a director of an insurance organization whose revenue ranks about 50th in the U.S in that industry. In 2019 this company generated $7.214 billion in revenues and earned $520 million net before securities gains.
For a worldwide organization like the Times, $1.8 billion is a very modest number. The $17 a month I pay for my digital subscription is a great bargain for me but, considering what I and my fellow subscribers get, it's almost charity for the Times.
The fact that the paper "dominates" digital print journalism is much less a sign of its robustness than of the decrepit state of that industry.
8
While I was reading Ben Smith's article he appeared on Morning Joe. I remembered him from, I think, the time when Buzz Feed printed the infamous dossier. And there he is sitting right next to one of the classiest spokes person for The Times, Nick Confessore. Ben was wondering if Nick was going to help him get inside The Times building since he was on his way to his first day. Great stuff! I feel like I'm an insider and can hardly wait until I go on Facebook and Twitter and tell them how proud I am of this great newspaper. Monopoly? Okay by me!
1
If, as Ben Smith observes, the Times is sucking up most or all of the oxygen of journalism, then it follows that it has a special obligation to take on the Trump Administration with even more aggressiveness and fervor.
I have long felt that journalism in this era is not up to task posed by an authoritarian government that views the news media as "the enemy of the people." That's a mortal threat, and the Times and the other serious media must push back in order to avoid sinking beneath the waves of"alternative facts,"
How? For me (and for many other commenters), the biggest single change in practice is too eliminate false equivalence in reporting. There is no equivalence in what the Trump Administration and the Republican Senate are up to compared with the Democratic Party. In fact, the GOP is not longer a political party but instead a lockstep propaganda machine that pushes a fake agenda of helping "forgotten Americans," when its real goal is ultra-wealthy crony capitalism without guard rails.
The Times must maintain those guard rails not only on its opinion pages but also in its news coverage. Facts are still facts, and to the extent that the Times and other publications legitimize the absurd claims of the increasingly fascist right by writing news articles that repeat those claims is a tragic mistake and, worse, an outmoded philosophy of "fair and balanced" coverage.
Simply stated, a Trump "rally" is not a news story. It is free publicity for a madman.
7
The reason the Times is successful is that it be depended upon to give the true story, biased or not.
3
The Guardian US edition is a good complement to the Times. Covers stories the Times doesn't touch.
6
@bluesky335 - And if you really value excellence in diversity, you will subscribe to The Guardian rather than read it for free if you can afford it at all. In journalism these days we all have to put our money where our values are.
2
It is more than a little ironic to me that the national figurehead who sought to marginalize the Times is, to a large extent, responsible for its resurrection. In his habitual name-calling way, he assigned a one-word dismissal to an adversary so his supporters couldd easily dismiss them, eg, "Crooked Hillary", "Lying Ted" etc. In the Times case, of course, the one word is "failing". But because of his own ongoing, breathtaking global crimes, disasters, and failures, the Times is, of course, more successful than ever. And needed more than ever.
4
The success of the NYTimes is the success of Trump.
I wonder where the New York Times would be today with a president Hillary.
3
I am an Indian who has lived in the US for over 50 years. I have been reading NYT for almost all these years.
Sometimes, its anti-Modi/anti-India articles make me uncomfortable. On the other hand, I like what it says about Trump.
So, please, please, please, don't do anything to NYT. Let it live the way it wants to live.
3
@Dreamer
"Sometimes, its anti-Modi/anti-India articles make me uncomfortable"
I'd like to hear the take on someone defending Modi.
1
When the dust settled after the last presidential election i decided i needed a reliable source of information to counter the drivel coming out of the White House. I first turned to my local midwestern paper but their price for a digital only subscription is higher than the NYT and provides a fraction of the content. Im happy to support the Times and i think im getting lots of excellent content for my money. Local papers would probably have more subscribers if they priced their service more in line with what they provide.
4
smooth move, new guy... take a poke at your new boss and employer on day one. I'm guessing your colleagues aren't asking you for career advice.
2
Hm. Yeah, your enemies define you. Just note that some of us base our subscriptions on the journalism. Also bear in mind you're competing with people trying to do journalism in arguably the worst time since the McCarthy period.
Meanwhile... "a more polished Gawker'? Faint praise indeed.
2
Welcome aboard I find the New York Times very stimulating. I must spend 2 hours a day perusing it’s intriguing articles, interesting opinions , mind expanding crossword and the cooking section what a wonderful paper! The cost is well worth it. I am also expanding my online subscriptions to the Washington post. So I think NY Times has got it right. The only fear I have now is I’ll become one of those people who’s nose is in the phone as they cross the street.
3
I pay to read the NYT, Boston Globe, Prov. Journal and to listen to WNYC, WGBH, RIPR because I believe it is my civic responsibility as a citizen.
5
The main reason the evolution of the NY Times as a "digital behemoth" is bad is a simple one - it does not offer a breadth of commentary from its columnists that reflects the breadth of opinion on the political scene in the USA and in other countries.
This filtering of opinions is not healthy.
4
Sunny, there are numerous news outlets online and there are even still newstands in some locations. No one is filtering opinions except those who aren’t seeking alternative points of view. You are the key to fixing the problem you identify.
2
And yet
When I look at old issues on timesmachine, I get the feeling that this colossus is merely big, not great. Too many articles are repetitive (eg every article on the corona virus has to recite all the basic facts - where it broke out, how many have it, etc... I know all this, I’m reading the article for what the headline implies would be new/different/deeper/... information).
too many are mostly reciting what various sides are saying and not about what actually happened.
Too many pieces are audio or video. That means I have to take the piece at the pace the reporter reads their script at, can’t skim, etc.
And I won’t even get into what seems to be the ever more blurred lines between “just the facts ma’am”, advocacy, and opinion.
5
Can’t follow the Knicks in the digital NYT medium.
@Brian, Agreed. The NYT sports section is easily the weakest section of the paper. It wasn't always so.
"The NYT sports section is easily the weakest section of the paper."
My god, you need more than the 24/7 coverage of every sport by hundreds of cable channels, TV shows, radio stations, etc. etc.? What could the Times possibly ad? LInks to more replays of 100 dunks during some game?
The author considered the Times to be a "dying legacy outlet" back in 2014. The future looked bright for the new digital media providers such as BuzzFeed News, Vice, etc.. that would eventually replace print media. The problem is the author did not look at journalism from a business viewpoint. The new providers were good and they had a head start in the new sales channel of the internet. But the old media providers still had the firepower of quality staff, the advantage of having good partners (the OpEd contributors), and most important of all, branding. The Times customer base was not about to simply abandon the newspaper for a startup that may distribute news of possibly dicey quality. This is why I still subscribe (now digitally) to the high quality journalism of the Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. The author should be happy that he is joining a great team.
I say kudos to Sulzberger in turning the Times around.
5
The moat is not so wide and social media rage could bring down the business. Once upon a time, the moat was cited repeatedly as the reason a newly started newspaper could never compete against the NYT or WSJ. Building a color print plant building or creating a distribution platform alone was prohibitive. These days a digital newspaper property requires to cater to an ideological audience to maintain subscribers, it is subject to the changing winds of their interest. What was not mentioned is the formidable Bloomberg News which employs more journalist than NYT and has always been digital since it's beginnings save for it's 2 magazines. Blink and a digital property can disappear quickly for any number of reasons.
As a reader of the NY Times for over forty years, I can say that if the time ever came where we only had one news source let it be the NY Times.
The NY Times has ALWAYS been the paper of record and kept those in power accountable.
And of course, the crossword puzzle.
1
So much for the “failing” New York Times. I have been a Times reader and subscriber for more than 50 years. The New York Times is all that stands between freedom and authoritarianism. If you read The Times and nothing else, you’ll be an informed citizen. As long as we have The Times, we’ll be OK.
3
Just saw you on MSNBC. As you expressed a concern about this, I hope your access card works today.
In case you haven't noticed, Ben, the NYT offers its digital subscription for $4 a pop. Unlike the WSJ ($44/month). That might explain the large subscriber base--not the 'professionalism' of its journalists. In fact, I think I'll cancel today. Thanks to you.
1
Congratulations.
Love that The Times has risen like the phoenix.
3
While the consolidation of news media under the NewYork Times is certainly worrisome, compared to the state news media was in during 2014 it is far more preferable. Free to read media start-ups, including Buzz-Feed, all relied on cooperate advertising to extract a profit. This insured that these news outlets all had inherent corporate bias, as they would not risk losing ad revenue by publishing something that painted a sponsor in a negative light. Therefore, much like the cable news networks, they all became tools through which the corporate world could spread propaganda and determine which issues could be discussed. The explanation I have given is lacking in many areas, so I would highly recommend Noam Chomsky’s « Manufacturing Consent » for anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of the biases inherent to western media.
1
Much has been said about the size of our new corporate agglomerations. Given the NYTimes dominance, their business model needs to be inclusive and supportive of local and regional newspapers and media outlets. Wherever the NYTs is sold or delivered, a local paper could be included in the fold. Other means of digital redirection could allow the Times to include or reference small art news outlets in their reporting. Every time a reader accesses another source in support of NYT reporting, a fractional payment could be made. Ultimately, NYT is still dependent on smaller media outlets to feed its maw. Training reporters and developing stories that they can not see from on high. The NYTimes could develop a system similar to Major League Baseball with many different levels of reporting feeding the major league teams. That would mean creating a coalition with an entire network of independent but connected news sources.
2
OK here s a reality check on your stellar growth. I bought a digital subscription about 6 months ago because I wanted to read news without your subscription police software blocking everything after several freebie articles. Now my honest opinion is that the breath of your news coverage is sorely limited. I find myself having to go to four or five other sources to get really full news coverage. I also find that you are slow on breaking news. I was hoping to have a 'one stop shop' and instead I got way too much political content and opinions. I want more real news not opinions! Based upon my experience I may not renew my digital subscription, and I believe I am not the only one that feels this way.
3
Yes, trumpies, you can tear down the free press in this nation, day after day.
But I wish FOX and the entire republican party could find any error in themselves or dearleader.
At least 'the left' is able to admit imperfection and strive to improve.
6
Good, quality, insightful journalism was close to extinction. The New York Times learned how to maintain and enhance its mission profitably. The consolidation mentioned seems wise for the business and saving great journalism. Bringing talent from the Atlantic and other places preserves the high level of journalism in sustainable business. The NY Times is an example of how to keep your focus on the mission and value of the brand first and build a business model around it. Consolidation of journalists under the reputable roof of the NY Times gives our best journalists a home. The subscription price is affordable when I can cut my other subscriptions and still have access to the most valuable content I wanted because now it is part of the NY Times.
4
While competition is always key, the NY Times, although still successful is a far cry away from the hard copy print days when they had to turn away advertisers because they could not fit into the paper.
The Times figured it you can't beat em, join em, ie stress basically digital subscriptions. It was not rocket science.
I would concentrate on keeping The Times head above water before I worry about competition.
5
Those of us who appreciate the alternative press for the emotional support that the NYT often is deficient in giving us, know that the real issue is breaking up the right wing media machine, and having more of a local presence. The NYT has more of an ability to do this than its smaller counterparts because there may not even be one within a local community. Instead of making the NYT empire bloated within, a bit of true diversification maybe should be in order. They have the money and the power.
I have long suspected that the radio waves that have been bought up by the right wing have molded communities, and after Watergate, their plan to continue with Nixon's desire to crush the "liberal" old line press became even stronger.
We tend to ignore those air waves. Radio still plays a big part in some people's every day lives---warehouses, garages, trucks, etc. Widows may look to who they consider to be a surrogate husband for advice on everything. The younger under educated may feel more knowledgeable and "worldly" repeating easy talking points---they are told what to feel angry about---the list goes on.
Podcasts? Are they really going to listen to NYT podcasts?
@duvcu
Podcasts. I don't get it. Life is too short by far!
I have young work-friends who start telling me about a podcast they "love." I say, there used to be something like that that was really popular back in the '30s and '40s-- it was called radio!
1
A free press is necessary to expose corruption and other shenanigans at all levels of government and business, but to remain 'free' (i.e. independent), a diverse and fragmented industry would be less susceptible to manipulation by those who prefer not to be exposed. Monopolies are generally not good and are often regulated such as in the case of public utilities. Since regulation of a 'free' press is sort of an oxymoron, there needs to be a way to prevent a monopoly of news, opinions, and ideas. Didn't there used to be legislation called the 'fairness doctrine' designed to ensure an independent and diverse press?
2
In the bubble? No, I am not an optimist.
... 'In January 2017, Smith, as Buzzfeed's editor, published the Steele dossier, a 35-page dossier about Donald Trump, which major news organizations, including the New York Times and NBC News, refused to publish due to lack of credible evidence. Smith defended his decision by saying, "We have always erred on the side of publishing.' ...
2
I’m always surprised when I look at my account info and see just how long I’ve been a Times subscriber. As a former newspaper reporter and editor (who didn’t make anything near $104,600!), I take a print copy as well as a digital subscription. Welcome, Ben, to this interesting beat. However, I am a little mystified about another man writing about media for the NYT. Not that everything has to be 50/50, but with all the voices the Times tries to encourage, I’d think finding a woman or a person of color for this assignment might have given a new voice a larger platform.
That said, I look forward to your take on the vast changing landscape of “media” including “fake media”, Facebook, Twitter, radio (the forgotten medium) and podcasts. I think there are good stories about “narrowcasting” to particular audiences who can then parrot that thinking in their own intellectual bubbles.
2
The digital NYT is great and it’s all about choice; choose what you want to read, when you want to read it, and while its reporting may have a more liberal slant, that’s just fine as there is plenty of Op-Eds offering more moderate or differing views.
I trust the NYT reporting and I trust that its reporting seeks to tell the truth, and that’s so important in our society today.
7
I'd like to see even more women in leadership roles at the Times. It still also looks pretty heavily white. Different faces bring different perspectives to the news, but overall, bravo to the NY Times!
1
My local city paper has all but given up on national and international news, and is struggling to do a decent job with the local stuff. It’s a shame, since the flagship radio station has become a far-right echo chamber. The TV stations are sallying forth in a balanced manner, but their stories in this age of 300 channels are minuscule in time.
The NYT is just left of center, but that is just enough to inspire the scorn of the far-right. Voicing their opinion is a useful thing so that a balance can be found.
3
I pay for online access to 3 newspapers, the Times, the Washington Post, and the Charlotte Observer. By any definition the Times is the best. I listen to the Daily everyday. I get the other papers because I want to support freedom of the press in the age of a Trump.
3
The Canadian Federal Gov't has put forward a $600 Million CAN fund for "selected" media outlets to help offset the losses from lower advertising revenue. The qualifying media companies are selected from an "expert" panel, currently most with Centre Left political leanings, similar to our current gov't stance. This is on top of the $1.2 Billion that funds our CBC (Canada's poorer version of the BBC), again who's editorial stance tends Centre Left for both the National Radio, Television, and on line content.
Any media company that holds the gov't to account with any vigour runs the risk of losing their funding or having it reduced, which may influence editorial positions.
The Toronto Star, now a national paper, is very close to bankruptcy if not closing down their newspaper printing operations and going completely on line.
All media have struggled with subscriber formats for on line content, but being sponsored and edited by the gov't in power is a bad idea in my opinion.
I thought that success would breed innovation. I guess I am wrong. Rather than finding ways to compete, most news outlets will just close their doors.
Sometimes it's good to check the local newspaper for one with national implications, e.g., the Miami Herald which reports the goings on at a certain expensive resort.
I like trump, even if you all (readers) hate him. I love NYT. Greatest news outlet, even if I do not agree sometimes. And I am a customers for very many years. And gotten all my friends to subscribe. For money, to support your effort and excellent work. Thumbs up for great journalism!
2
I am deeply thankful for the NYT.
But, I am also aware of the need to have multiple sources of information.
Thus, I also subscribe to the Washington Post online and to the British, conservative, Daily Telegraph online.
The cost is really a pittance.
1
As good as the NYTimes and Washington Post are, I find the Post does a miserable job of reporting local news for MD & VA. Considering its vast resources it appears to be corporate control of information to make avoid any conflicts with the local governments and politics. How good is the NYTimes in reporting local issues? That's what's so critical in our democracy and what has vanished, causing incredible harm to a balance of information and power.
I'm old enough to remember when most people thought the idea of paid TV was absurd. Why pay when there's so much for "free." Now cable has taken over television with access as well as content, and soon if not now, nothing will be free.
1
Monopoly? More like the first green sapling appearing after a catastrophic forest fire. It will continue to grow and the rest of the ecosystem will come back with it.
4
The Times dominance at the expense of the rest of the industry means the Times has a duty ensure the future of print journalism at a local level I believe. Noblesse oblige for newspapers? Perhaps run local papers like Bezos, without interference from the HQ? We are not simply losing local print journalism, we are losing the future of historical records for this period in our history. Newspapers are often the only resource of record for researchers. And the Times does not look into local issues to any degree on a regular basis. Local leaders who want to game the system are catching on to this. No one is watching them. It’s a rather desperate time for our nation, and I fear no one will catch on until it’s too late.
1
My husband and I still receive the print edition of the NYT (along with the digital version). We would love for the Times management to create a digital version that prompts readers to find those unusual stories that seem to only pop out at you when you are leafing through a print version. That is one aspect of the digital NYT that is horribly lacking. I can't tell you the number of times that we have found FASCINATING articles that we would never have run into in the digital version. I always feel like I am missing some of the best pieces when I only read the digital version.
2
I wish I could get worked up about this, but I just can't. There have been enough journalistic sources closing shop in the last few years, that if one that actually reports real news (Sorry, Mr. Trump) is consolidating power, and is managing to hold on economically, then I'm pleased, very pleased.
1
I always thought the digital subscription model would be a success. I was only surprised that it has taken so long.
What scares me is the disappearance of the local/state outlets that used to have one or two investigative reporters. Inexplicable land sales and rezoning, kickbacks for development projects, mysteriously relaxed enforcement of environmental laws ... All this stuff happens on the local level and there are simply too few reporters left who have the time, money and editorial support to do what is necessary to keep commerce and politics somewhat above board.
1
One hopes that smaller newspapers across the nation survive. Not only do they provide important local and state news, they investigate local and state politicians Without their investigation, the politicians would be able to pull off shady deals for their supporters mainly developers and real estate interests. This is especially true in Florida.
1
I grew up in suburban NY (Westchester). My schools, elementary through high school all used the NY Times Sunday Week in Review in some way. Back in the 60's it was a given that many had parents who got on the train Monday through Friday to go to work in Manhattan, we also learned how to fold the paper to read on the train without encroaching on your seat mate's space. We learned why the paper was formatted just so to enable a daily commuter to read it on the train every day. Today I live in an area where there is no delivery and scarce access in stores. My digital subscription to the Times keeps me connected and better informed than any local paper. Size does matter and sometimes what we miss is a nostalgia for things that never were.
I remember back when the NYTimes announced a 10 article limit per month—the day I reached it was the fastest I ever pulled out my charge card. I could not live without the news and information it offered. But I also get the AJC “dead tree” version delivered to my home every day. Subscribing to my nearest local daily is every bit as important to me, if not more so. I sincerely believe that doing so is a civic duty. Freedom cannot survive absent a strong, free, independent press.
2
Seems to me that the long term viability of all legitimate media outlets rests with the level of interest and intellectual curiosity of the public.
Unless we address the educational crisis in America, all the corporate consolidations of media companies will not solve the problem of an increasingly large percentage of Americans who simply could care less about the news.
1
The Times is The Times because they earned it! I spent years going back and forth to many of the new and rising media outlets looking for in-depth, well researched, documented, news, and well thought through editorials that are so well written (mostly), that they allow me to question my own positions on the important things that touch our lives, even when I disagree with the premise or the conclusions of the writer. While I believe that there are many rising news sources that are fighting the battle to give us all insightful reporting and the truth, they are the base of the industry. The NY Times stands on top, carries the torch and leads the way. Hopefully, others will follow.
To all of those at the Times; thank you for what you do.
5
If by “bad for journalism” it is meant that the NYT is helping lead the way with fair and unbiased reporting, and insightful opinions, than I totally agree.
18
The NYT has become the paper of the oligarchy. It was before but there was a certain amount of shame left years ago that there wouldn’t be out and out grifting and misleading articles about candidates. And let us all forget the NYT sacking of the Clintons for raising the publishers taxes. But they beat Clinton down to the point where they got rid of financial regulation.
The NYT is bringing you 4 more years of Trump because the NYT would rather lie about socialism than take care of their fellow citizens. That’s your America. I subscribe to the NYT to keep an eye on the capitalist criminals of our times.
15
The great thing about the NYT is that it pays its journalists in dollars instead of exposures.
This is why I am a paper and digital subscriber.
12
While the New York Times is still sold as a news source, there are many other and better news sources available to today’s reader. The Times’ enduring value lies in its opinion articles and other non-news sections.
9
Exactly as egocentric as I’d expect this to be. This guy’s interviews made me queasy. You’ve got big shoes to fill Ben.
7
The internet is certainly over-loaded with interesting, important, excellent, often unfortunately trivial yet entertaining articles.
Here at the eclectic, splendid NYT website, there are so many worthy subjects that my situation feels to me like a car running it’s tires on an ice spot, which is the precise metaphor describing how frustrating it is to understand in trying to keep up with “reality,” whatever the h it is.
Such revelation is embarrassing while confession is allegedly good for my soul though I don’t know with utter agnosticism such an infinite doubt allows me to have a conscience in non existential spectator hood.
1
I do not subscribe to either the print nor digital editions, although I would like to, because I cannot get passed the outward and obvious Democratic, Liberal and or progressive slant to all political reporting. If balanced reporting existed it would be welcome and increase readership.
5
Ben, can you clarify why, when I went NYT digital, the special deal clearly indicated that I had all access included plus the Cooking section. Shortly thereafter, I noticed that I had to subscribe for it. I'd like to be able to browse Melissa's tips please. I've been with the NYT since 1979.
9
I’ve been dismayed by the increasingly self-congratulatory tone of the Times; making the inaugural media column about the Times itself (under the flimsy guise of accountability and self-examination) and posting a practically life-size picture of the author is a further step in that direction.
59
Glad you are with the NYTimes.
I do hope you will look into the continual erosion of the wall between the business and news sides. Right now that wall is practically non-existent on the "softer" news side ("Smarter Living" is often just thinly disguised promotion of products reviewed by NYTimes-Owned WireCutter, which gets a cut when you click on a purchase link in the review; and NYTimes Cooking shows no shame in food articles promoting such products as the Insta-Pot that lead to purchase links through which the NYTimes gets a cut).
It's fine to say "well, that's harmless because it's soft news," but who will protect the wall when such practices creep into harder news.
The last "Public Editor" attempted to address this question was rebuffed at every turn. And then the position was abolished.
Hope you have better luck uncovering these things.
21
Two years ago, I sold my shares of NEW YORK TIMES CLASS A stock at $19.15 for a loss. As a longtime subscriber, I felt guilty about selling.
You can chalk that up to my being a less savvy investor than I thought I was. I had no idea that The New York Times was gobbling up digital news companies like crazy.
The important thing is that the extensive coverage by the NYT and the balanced political views of the newspaper have not been compromised significantly -- yet.
1
The New York Times is a new Bible of modern time. With its neutrality of opinions and scientific analysis, it opens our eyes to the events of the world in a logical manner.
5
Well, I am an NYT addict. I have been online for some six years, and perhaps do not provide as much scintillating commentary as others, but I like yapping in with my opinion.
I find the commentary sections every bit as interesting and informative as the articles, so I am glad that your editors have the stamina to read the avalanche of submissions.
15
Howdy! I think the NYT should give college students a free online subscription or a huge discount. My 18 yr old grandson told me he would love to subscribe but he doesn't have the money. Just like a lot of these kids in school they can barely afford to pay attention. I want to pay it but he won't let me. They need to broaden their horizons and get away from YouTube and other social media sites. You'll have loyal readers forever.
17
Tell your grandson that his college’s student government association can arrange to have copies of the print paper delivered free for students to pick up. And the college library has a digital subscription.
NYT should add more conservative writers. By mostly presenting very liberal view points it harms its own mission statement and also the public in general. And I’m a liberal myself. However, having grown up in Former Soviet Union and witnessed the ultimate in group think and indoctrination, I would caution the captain of this giant carrier to add more ships to its formation flying a variety of flags as it sets for the “New World”.
32
This article is woefully incomplete. First, it plays the game of modern media of showing us which facts the written wants to show us. No table with subscriber growth. This is like the news articles about fires where we can no overview of the extent of the fires like in Australia but just closeups of things on fire. Second, it doesn't address the fundamental problems that have caused the problems of newspapers in a fundamental way. Third, it doesn't address how not having local investigative journalists has contributed to wide-spread local corruption. It is good that these issues are being addressed, but a better job needs to be done addressing them.
5
Glad to be a reader but please mind the bias of straight news. It should be clear which is which. The recent coverage of the primaries has been difficult to swallow. Pete was really just bullied away. Bernie isn't that radical, folks. And why, for crying out loud, is Biden the chosen one? Very disappointed in it all, but, hope to see some change for the better.
5
I’d love to see a NYT subscription that included a subscription to a regional paper such as the Charlotte Observer. Different owners, I know, but it could be done.
16
@S Turner I love this idea! The Times outside of the NY metro area partners with regional newspapers to deliver the printed product. They could certainly partner in future subscription revenue and hopefully bolster those other newspapers as well.
6
Mr. Sulzberger is right, Americans will buy more than one subscription. I have digital subscriptions to multiple newspapers; The NYTimes, WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times, and The Mercury News. Additionally , I check out CNN, Reuters, and The Guardian UK. I do this simply because I read multiple view points in order to find the truth.
I'd like to have paper subscription to my local paper, The Desert Sun, but have had major delivery problems. I'm down to three days a week down from seven days a week but due to STILL having delivery problems, I'm contemplating switching to Sunday only. The reduction is basically because I was and still do have to call in on a regular basis about the paper not being delivered. It typically was not delivered two to three days a week of a seven day a week subscription. It's now missing one of three days on a fairly regular basis. I don't have this issue with digital.
8
whether you like the times or not, we need the free press in our country. the real issue is how to get folks to actually read again rather than just take the sound bite or the section of a speech taken out of context. I subscribe to multiple news sources to include our local paper and will continue to do so.
9
Just as future presidential hopefuls often say, "In my first hundred days I will..." A note to Ben Smith: a smart hire by The Times, enjoy your new role, I'm rooting for you! but in your "first hundred days" I, as a digital subscriber, would love it if you wrote a piece on your predecessor, a man who is so missed by so many, David Carr. He is past, you are present, and so much in media has changed since his passing, I realize. But keep his legacy alive. Younger readers, if they don't know of him, can learn, through you. In the meantime, you'll bring your own energy to the scene and I'll be reading your every column. Best of everything, Ben.
7
Excuse me, Mr. Smith, but aside from The NY Times, what organization in the US is going to counter Fox News?
I think you need to consider the position of the Times in a global, meaning worldwide news, sense. The blessing of translation software is that news media can be shared with almost any major language group, so I am not surprised that some sources will rise to the top. When much of the world has news that comes from state-sponsored sources (People's Daily, RT), sources that are independent will naturally gain importance.
2
@Jeff
I often find the NYT is essentially the People's Daily for elite progressivist orthodoxy.
4
I think what the NYT should be careful about is being the paper of record. In media the trend has been away from just the facts with quotes from sources directly involved with the story to adding in the reporter's perspective to "help" readers understand the importance of the source's information. This enables those unhappy with coverage to cry "fake news." Maybe it should buck the media trend and separate out the source part of the articles and the perspective part. Even then there will be complaints about which sources are used.
But the most important thing is for the paper to be strong enough to field effective reporters. The free speech press is in grave risk of disappearing into the buzz feeds of the world which do not have the resources to deeply investigate oligarchs, multinational companies, or government. The veneer of news tidbits is not what we need. We need our companies and politicians to be afraid of seeing their misdeeds in the paper. Facts should matter. Keep up the good fight against the news deniers NYT.
NY Times made the prescient decision 20 years ago to have its digital platform as primary knowing that eventually the print version would go by way of the rotary telephone. It also expanded all coverages of non-hard news. It’s analyses of issues is like a fine magazine. No comics but good crosswords. A dear friend to all of us and willing to tolerate dissent and critique.
8
I am so happy to read this. Music to my ears.
3
Welcome to the Times, Mr. Smith! I live in Latvia, and I have been a very, very, very, very happy payer for a number of years now to get behind the NYT firewall. I am a journalist myself, and every evening I do a half hour topical news program on one of the television stations here in Riga. The Times (and also the Washington Post) are invaluable sources of information for me in terms of thinking of topics to talk about and to see what others have been writing about them. Best of luck with your column, and I will look forward very much to reading it in the future! Karlis Streips, Riga, Latvia
4
This article is a noble step at self deprecation and introspection, but merely a step. The NYT has become a monopoly like Facebook and Google, but this concerns me less than the other emerging similarities the Times has with Facebook and other less reputable companies.
Understanding the Times has to make money, too often the paper puts out willfully divisive opinion pieces on politics, race, and other sensationalized topics, purely to generate clicks. Almost daily, I see articles that seem more intent on evoking the worst emotions from the reader, rather than generating thought.
If there is one consolation, it is the Times’ comment section. This allows for well-informed and intelligent readers to scrutinize and if necessary, call into question the veracity of asserted opinions and their referenced statistics. I am frequently impressed by the ability of everyday readers to counteract the at times poorly reasoned opinion pieces of noted professors and authors. Maybe that is the authors’ intent all along? I imagine a factually incorrect and provocative piece is most effective at producing clicks.
Still, there is so much wisdom in NYT crowd. And I am grateful for it.
1164
@Mark Mark, I agree with a good deal of what you said.
While the NYT's subscriber numbers are rising along with revenues, I too am troubled by the clickbaity headlines (some of them as misleading as the worst of the tabloids) and the melding of opinion and news.
For example. an article from last week about alternative teaching pedagogies in schools failed to include any voices assessing the effectiveness of these pedagogies, as a commenter pointed out. As a result, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a reader to infer that the TImes is espousing these pedagogies. It stuck me as spray-painting the Style-section ethos onto subjects that call for more substantive scrutiny.
I'm looking forward to hearing your insights as you get settled into your new post.
40
@Mark I agree. One of the biggest things the Times has going for it are its commenters.
121
@Mark Poorly reasoned pieces from professors and authors only? None from businessmen/women or celebrities?
13
I read the Times every day and make far too many comments.
I am worried about the ongoing turn to the Left not only in
the Editorials but in the Newsroom.
Pictures of Trump often show him in the worst light and the reporters, not Opinion Piece writers, seem to delight in
mocking him and pointing out his foibles and faults.
I did not vote for Trump, I wanted to vote for Bernie but the
DNC made that impossible. I would like to vote for Bernie
but now that Mayor Pete has ended his campaign and Amy K
seems to be moving to end hers, it looks like we will get
Joe Biden. Nonetheless the duty of the Times it to present the
News in the most balanced and fair manner - especially now that it is the largest news organization in America.
Hard to believe that the Times has 1,700 journalist and yet the
reporting is so limited to the usual suspects: Manhattan, LA, DC, Paris, London, Hong Kong, Australia, Seattle - but so little from Spokane, New Guinea, Tibet, Isle of Skye, Nice, Wheeling, Alameda or Rockaway.
Perhaps the Times can hire reporters from across America to supplement its reporting of America, not to mention Opinion pieces from people who are neither rich, influential or "Hip".
Please look into how Times Picks are chosen, they seem to
be unbalanced and somewhat repetitive.
35
@John Brown Would love to see The Times have at 2-3 reporters in every state since most newspapers are disappearing in most cities and towns.
5
@Dave
I agree, even it is a State by State link
that you have the option of opening,
The Times had report by a journalists who
spent two months in Iowa, he did not really
tell us much about Iowa, but of his experience
in Iowa leading up to the Caucuses.
And thank god the NYT has had the intelligence and leadership to continue to lead in balanced quality journalism and to be successful in today’s media reality.
Without a company with integrity and scale to compete like the NYTs, the country would be left with FOX, FOX “news”? Talk about putting small media out of business, Fox takes the cake.
That’s a very scary thought for me and anyone else who believes in our democracy.
You for for joining the good fight!
7
I think Mr. Smith is shooting at the wrong target. If the NYT had not come up with a successful model for survival in the age of digital journalism, I don't see how that possibly could have saved regional or local newspapers. At least give The Times credit for creating all those $100,000+ a year jobs, which may inspire young, would-be journalists to give a try at this otherwise dismal trace.
9
My local newspaper and television stations have been taken over by right wing organizations. I was a journalist, starting with starting and editing my first school paper in 3rd grade and on through college. I worked for what the NYT called "The best underground newspaper in the US". (The San Francisco Express Times.) So I understand disruptors. Though our paper refused sex ads and focused on telling the truth. Even once printed four different reviews of the movie "Battle of Algiers" because three of our staff thought the first review missed some points.
Even doing other jobs I thought as a journalist. Which is why I subscribed to the digital NYT ten years ago, after reading it off and on all my life. I also read the British Guardian, The Wa. Post, SF Chron and LA Times. The Roshomon of news.
But our great need is to reach people who don't read these papers, and who have no reliable local news. Somehow the Times needs to take its position as the national newspaper more seriously and connect to the entire country. By featuring more stories about all the US. You've been doing a better job of that the last few years. But still more needs to be done. More regional reporters. Or regional stringers. (Lot of unemployed journalists out there.) Reduced use rates for reprints by small local outlets? Tie ins with high school and college papers?
Use your power wisely. (And lay off Bernie.)
8
@calannie Good suggestions. Yes, the NYT has to be a better older sibling, or maybe even the wise respected grandparent to many of these local publications.
I have suspected for years that the right wing radio stations were insidiously ingratiating themselves into the mindset of much of America. They are clever at many of the manipulations that the Dems just do not do. They have been at it for a long time, and Watergate gave birth to a whole new basket of them. It was a homage to Nixon's desires, as he had always wanted to crush the "liberal" old line press. There just isn't any Dem equivalent on the air!
Many senior women fall victim to wanting dead husband surrogates, telling them how to feel and what to think, what to be angry about. Many under educated young people fall victim to being made to feel more "informed" and "worldly' by repeating talking points. We cannot forget that radios are still played in blue collar environments-warehouses, delivery trucks, garages, etc, and in homes that do not always have cable or higher tech benefits.
I don't know how we can break what this machine has created, because as you well know, it's actually getting worse. Many people never watch anything but Fox, many do change their radio dial of buy a different newspaper other than their local right wing version.
Alternative press is ever more vital but it cannot be marketed as so. It has to become more mainstream. Lefty Billionaires bribey air wave pub buyouts maybe?
I miss John Burns!
5
@Chris
I miss John Tierney. Can still recall his 1999 column, in which he posed as a homeless man sleeping on the sidewalk outside Rosie O'Donnell's house in Nyack, NY. He was told to move along or get arrested.
Ms.O'Donnell had just lambasted former New York City Mayor Giuliani for arresting the homeless in NYC. It was a priceless example of hypocrisy.
Cannot imagine The Times daring to publish anything like this today. How far it has fallen, but, heck, subscriptions are up, right?
4
I too suggest that the opinions and news be separated.
10
Excessive global news gathering? No,inadequate-- crucially on how average citizens live in other democracies. On coverage of how other democracies finance health care for all as centrist policy for decades--our biggest issue now. Why their drugs are lower priced. Why many countries ban TV pharma ads that swamp Americans 24/7.
This all has ripple effects on lives. We need positive role models discussed in our media, now of all times. Yet, there's almost a news blackout.
We are unique in lacking HC for all, and national paid sick leave.
Per Wikipedia— “Paid sick leave is a statutory requirement in most European, many Latin American, a few African and Asian countries…”
We need NYT interviews with citizens in other democracies, in various walks of life and income levels, on how they pay for and use their HC.
In the internet age, is this information blocked by 2 huge oceans and a Canadian border? But Canada's close!
Or is our media trying per our distorted standards to not look too ‘left wing’?
The NYT has hardly any truly progressive op ed columns. And not one columnist who informs us on the various ways other capitalist systems pay for HC. Even as this issue is the hottest for 2020.
Or how abroad they're not so dependent on big money donors to run their elections.
Or why their courts don't equate money with 'free speech', so the rich can hold sway.
The NYT is not fulfilling its 1st Amendment duty to inform the public on issues affecting our lives.
2
It's probably fair to claim that the decline in local news coverage due to the financial problems experienced by local media has drawn frustrated or cost-conscious readers to a national paper like NYT. But what about national magazines like Businessweek, Fortune and others? Will they not be able to build paying digital audiences the way the NYT has? They're certainly trying! Just curious to hear what others think....
I started subscribing to the the Times just after the Brexit vote due to my frustration with the extremely poor and partisan nature of UK journalism. Unlike the parochial UK newspapers, the NYT’s coverage of international news is great. The French election of 2017 was a consequential event but I was amazed how it was totally ignored in the UK media. I will shed no tears if the nasty tabloids die and the NYT is left standing. Good to know they’re paying their reporters well so smart and curious people are attracted to the field.
4
I subscribe to the NYT as a digital subscriber and did so soon after Mr Trump became President. In my country, we had a buffoon as President in Mr Zuma at the time, who tried to create his own Fox News. It is these buffoons and the social antagonisms that they represent that make it necessary to support ethical news organizations in a time of social media-induced anarchy.
3
The Comments will always make The Times relevant. Whatever they cost to moderate, they are the strongest guarantee of your survival.
12
The Times is a mini-mouse compared to the global behemoths of Facebook, Google, Twitter and even the newcomer TikTok, who each have 100s of millions and billions of subscribers and daily users. The NYT may be one of the last standing dinosaurs of old media, but it will never be able to compete on the scale, reach or revenue of the online media giants. The Times watched for several decades as these startups ramped up and then rocketed around the globe while the stodgy owners of The Times worried in their offices in Times Square over newsprint and editorials. Adapt or die....
5
Facebook, Google and Twitter would be nothing without the content they use from the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Axios, Buzzfeed, the Atlantic, the New Yorker, heck, even all the local newspapers that show up in my newsfeed.
1
I don't intended to stay long as a subscriber in 2016, just as long to see the first Woman elected for US President. Still waiting.
2
There have been a few moments already this year where I have flicked from local reporting outlets to the Times landing page and thought: oh thank goodness for the Times.
The measured (relatively) reporting on the corona virus sans sensationalist (again, relative) headlines is most welcome. Even amongst my usually level headed friends have got themselves into a lather of panic over the virus off the back of these local news reports.
That the Times is as big as Facebook (what times we are in if this is the yardstick), doesn’t bother me in the slightest so long as it continues to check itself against the ethics and journalistic standards we expect. While it continues this it’ll continue to have my readership.
1
The nation, the world actually, owes gratitude to the New York Times. The Times discovers and presents news in a way that no other medium does. More important, the Times staked its survival on an unfailing devotion to QUALITY, and now thrives. Makers: take notice.
4
Recall "All The News That's Fit To Print." It was a brand fantasy, but no one warned that it shouldn't be done.
I'm a news junkie, so I can authoritatively attest that the Times' continues to be a lighthouse of journalist integrity and cultural decency that no other medium outshines.
GIVEN that (suppose, for the sake of this comment), one should welcome a global presence that demands of itself admirable exemplarity.
In moral philosophy, there's a vital difference between overrRIDING standards and overBEARING "standards" (thanks, Samuel Scheffler, _Human Morality_, 1992).
In the jungle of GLOBAL media (and a veritable pandemic of media fakery and avaricious opportunism), journalism has, in principle, a duty of leadership that no other kind of organization has the chance to sustain—not the U.N., not the G7, etc. The heart of global leadership, I would venture, is cultural.
The best deserve to prevail when they earn it and have to again every day. (So, Times, I don't mind that you're raising my monthly subscription charge modestly next month.)
There is a reason The Times is so dominant. People as desperate to find an accessible, trustworthy source of information. The Times is the first place I turn to when there is a crisis and I need to know.
The dominance comes with responsibility. So far, I believe the Times is living up to its commitment to deliver without (usually) a spin on the news.
3
As a longtime journalist I can tell you that the demise of local news coverage began long before the New York Times digital expansion. Greedy owners, short-sighted financial decisions, and too many editorial ideas that showed no awareness of the changing technological times was killing it before the end of the 20th century. So focusing on the Times’ role is a bit like doing an autopsy that concludes the victim died in car crash but ignores the 15 vodkas he had before it.
I remember my father complaining about how poor local coverage had become in his hometown Buffalo paper around 2000. He readily recognized that what he was getting, a lot of junk wasn’t worth the price of his subscription.
Circumstances are far worst now. The paper I worked at for 35 years until 2018 is owned by Digital Media First, a misnomer since “digital” goals of the company ranked a distance second, at best, to making profits. In turn, DFM Is own by Alden Global Capital, whose draconian cost-cutting measures are well documented in the NYT.
Journalism has been in survival mode for a half-century; so I won’t belabor all the idiotic decisions I’ve seen. When I started at the paper it was literally a cash cow but was also respected for its reporting. A decade later it began a noticeable downward spiral because of new technologies. Unfortunately, because of all the cuts in the industry, good local reporting is rare today. If anything, the NYT should be congratulated for filling the void
2
Another male voice taking up huge real estate at an emerging monopolistic media property. Great. We couldn’t find a single woman to cover the media beat for the Times? This is an era when women-centered stories are dominating the media landscape—from newsroom coverage and personnel decisions, to sexual harassment scandals, to media company leadership—and this column cries out for a fresh perspective, away from the demographic Ben vastly over represents in newsrooms today. Ben is no doubt a great reporter but this is a huge missed opportunity. Alas this is what monopolies do—constrain, crowd out and ultimately suffocate.
5
@Erika
The way you feel about men crowding out fe,ale perspectives is the way most America feels about DC and NYC perspectives crowding out the perspectives of men and women in flyover country.
A friend recently told me that, as a long-time reader and subscriber of the Times (almost 60 years), I'm in the demographic that the paper is waiting for all of us to die so it can go full social-media mode without having to hear our complaints.
As Stephen Sondheim said, I'm still here.
The Times is growing in readership and that's good but it's doing it by significantly lowering the bar on quality and integrity.
The click-bait headlines are maddening. The don't inform or lead you into a story. They trick you into reading something. And they increasingly follow the social media tone of being aggressive and in-your-face because I guess that's what the young'uns like. How is the phrase: "get over it" allowed within ten miles of a headline? We're not all frat-bro knuckleheads.
I don't want the Times to be more like Gawker, Buzzfeed or any other online "media" company with a meaningless name. What I'd like is a sober and accurate accounting of world events worthy of the "paper of record."
I know Mr. Smith isn't a Public Editor but in the absence of one perhaps he should cover the Times with a less cheerleading eye.
9
Spot on for the click bait headlines! They ARE maddening, misleading, empty soundbites. Readers deserve better.
1
After reading your first column for The Times, Mr Smith, I had to look up something written by my favorite media columnist, the late great David Carr, whom you've mentioned. Whenever I traveled through airports around the country, frequently visiting Sky Clubs, I always darted for The Times to look for Mr Carr's column. He interpreted what was seriously going on in media consolidation, with a switchblade of realism and their ultimate results; rise in shareholder values, streamlining of journalistic interpretations (Liberal, Moderate and Conservative, really), and ultimately, cuts in reporter's jobs. Fiercely independent news is becoming as scarce as honesty. If your polish as a Media Columnist reveals the truth with time, I sincerely hope to look forward to reading your perspective in print, as I excitedly did with Mr Carr. You got some giant shoes to fill.
2
In the age of Trump I do believe that if there were no New York Times there would no longer be an American democracy or at least the hope that we might preserve American democracy. It has become the last bastion of truth against a right wing determined to destroy the very notion of truth.
2
I have 3 subscriptions NYT, WP and the Guardian. There seems to be a price war going on so can't complain as a customer.
2
Really enjoy the NY Times and it's honest reporting. But let's on forget the important roll played by the The Associated Press. AP is a not-for-profit news agency headquartered in New York City. Founded in 1846. Pretty much all straight news reporting and no editorials, seems to do alot with a little (money that is).
Thanks to both news agencies for keeping the world informed in the age of online miss-information.
7
Nothing else will survive? The Post will be around unless Jeff Bezos or his heirs have a change of heart. The Wall Street Journal isn't going anywhere. But the larger point is correct: almost everyone else in traditional journalism is in danger of disappearing, particularly at the local level.
I've been reading the Times since I was 15 years old. I've always felt somewhat ambivalent about the paper. The comment that called the Times an echo chamber of liberal orthodoxy is partially true. But the Times has brought on conservative columnists and opened today's much broader commentary universe to diverse voices. The reportage is generally even-handed, although it's true that reflexive liberalism sometimes creeps in.
The Times used to dismiss or sneer at certain topics that were seen as silly season stuff. But that outlook has slowly changed. After denying for decades that JFK had a plan to get out of Vietnam, recently the Times published an article showing that in fact he did have such a plan. After mocking UFO reports since they began coming in in the 1940s, the Times last year or the year before ran an evenhanded article that included an interesting (and somewhat disturbing) video shot by American Air Force pilots.
The paper is much different than it was even 20 years ago. And the changes have been for the better. Given that the government lies so much, we need the paper to help us figure out where the truth lies.
1
“There’s no new thing [in journalism] coming”
The idea that big media monopolies are something new is misplaced. After all, 79 years ago Charles Foster Kane was making kings and losing sleds before Rupert Murdoch had been breeched. Hearst’s national media empire controlled information, shaped markets, and decided elections, just as Murdoch's has. We haven’t suddenly arrived in an era of echo chambers and journalistic monopolies - the reality is we never left.
There has always been a (limited) market for well written, thought-provoking news. That the NYT has stumbled through a 25 year period of digital disruption and come out ahead is as laudible as it is unusual for a large, staid corporation. Sticking to its core competency and value proposition, “All the news that’s fit to print,” trust in the NYT brand has strengthened and it’s appeal broadened. As others have shown, in the miasma of the internet, the value of a trusted brand is immense.
Journalism isn’t dying any more than broadcasting is. It is evolving along with the means of production. Shows aren’t less entertaining on YouTube, if that’s your cup of tea. Podcasts and blogs aren’t inherently less accurate than the nightly news. But finding reliable news sources with global reach in the balkans of the internet is time consuming. Since time is money, the NYT's digital value proposition has, it appears, finally found its market.
5
Build it out. Go Giants!
2
That sentiment is meant to counter the other giants, media giants frightened and/or embarrassed and/or immature to call themselves publishers, and not for the sake of giants alone. Go Startups too!
Welcome aboard, Ben.
On the subject of the New York Times: While the Times is justifiably revered, especially for its investigative journalism, I remain concerned about its objectivity in its news coverage of contested presidential primaries.
In 2015-2016, the Times’ coverage of the Democratic presidential primaries gave far more favorable coverage to Hillary Clinton (exception: her e-mails), while ignoring or trivializing Bernie Sanders. The Times’ coverage of the GOP primaries highlighted Trump, while giving short shrift to his key rivals. The coverage suggested that the Times was aiming for a match-up between Clinton and the candidate perceived as her weakest GOP rival.
In 2019-2020, the Times has consistently savaged Joe Biden in its news coverage and news analyses, while being far more even-handed on candidates Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Sanders and Klobuchar. The coverage of Elizabeth Warren has contained a mix of favorable and unfavorable stories. Why the disparities in tone?
This is a black mark against the Times’ generally excellent journalistic record, and warrants investigation, analysis and comment.
Wow, really? Out here far from the lights of the city, I missed how success at the NYT sent my local newspaper chain into bankruptcy. I thought it surely must have been the migration of classified to digital (someone else's digital) and the rise of news aggregators. Sometimes I've wondered what's going to be left to aggregate when there are no actual reporters anymore. I'm pleased to learn that instead the reporters will all be working for the Times.
I have been a subscriber since day 1. I am surprised it has taken this long for the Times to become the King Of The Hill. I expected this sometime ago. When people like me, who are not from NYC, buy a subscription you know you are on to something.
Nevertheless, I am happy to see the improvement in the articles in the Times. In the past I would lament that the Reader Comments were more insightful than the articles. Not so much now and I have read some great pieces in the Times. The Reader Comments are still amazing (minus this one).
I live in California and I am also a paid subscriber to the WSJ and the Toronto Star. Doing my part to support journalism and democracy.
3
My perspective could help a little:
At the beginning, I subscribed to the New York Times exclusively in order to read Paul Krugman's columns. Sound advice on economics from a Nobel prize laureate seemed important to me.
I'm sorry, but as BuzzFeed editor, you never had a chance. I don't want to read from a site called "BuzzFeed". That name sounds silly.
However, looking forward: even if the New York times is big, I am a critical reader, and, no, there is no monopoly. There are several high quality, big newspapers on Earth to read.
Thank you, New York Times, for you great work!
4
I admit, I started reading the NYT after the election of 2016. I like the diversity in coverage and reporting, but above all else, I trust it.
4
It was all done by the readers and the comment section.
When we started commenting here - it hardly ever was above a hundred comments per article - and then the comment section took off -
tremendously -
(not only with the appearance of Trump)
And now -
sometimes -
it's so crowded -
nobody goes there anymore...
3
One of my favorite quotes from Yogi.
1
i purchased a basic digital subscription when we left new york and later found the times to be just another online marketer. i turned down all extras until they gave me a free crossword subscription. recently, i discovered a charge for the crossword added to my account. they have a very efficient chatroom when you call to correct — you are not answered by a human. you get blocks of pre-crafted copy, which responded properly, i think.
Build an Analysis section and distinguish it from Opinion more so. Let writers who are good at both do either or both flexibly.
The five year NYTimes stock chart tells another dimension of this success. It's remarkable to see it in figures that can't be altered or spun.. so give credit where it is demonstrably due - to the election of Trump. It's right there on the chart. In the few days after the 2016 election, the stock takes a turn upward and has kept on that trajectory since.
Thanks President Trump!
2
My father always said that you have to have a local paper, and he is still right. There are some things that even The New York Times or TV news can't cover the way our own paper can, such as the recent Molson Coors mass shooting or the forthcoming Democratic convention from an experienced local perspective. It's up to you to keep reminding readers of this when they want to hear about their own cities from a New York paper.
1
I see bias and an echo-chamber in the Times and sometimes find it exasperating, but at least it is still its own paper. At least its raison d'etre is news
I've been in New Zealand for 15 years. One media company, Fairfax, owns every major paper but one in the entire country. The local newspaper, The Press of Christchurch, is abysmal.
Our friends across the pond in Australia (as another has commented) perhaps have it even worse.
2
The NYT has become a digital behemoth because it trades in an increasingly rare commodity: unvarnished truth.
4
With his new job, Mr. Smith appears to be enjoying his sour grapes.
Also, why is this column not in the form of a list?
8
Actually, I think my dog is jealous of the time I spend with the Times.
I often wonder the background and home life of Times workers. After all, they’re people with home lives, just like anyone. But how they receive and put out information is what separates a reporter from the rest. And then all those workers with opposite hours just to feed us what’s going on, where it’s going on - taking us around the world, or just pointing out our own back yards.
Anyhow, welcome aboard. Get us thinking even more. It’s good for the aging brain. Seriously.
4
The Times fought a brave battle when everyone, which means everyone, thought they were crazy: selling off the building itself just to keep the game going!! Now it's criticised for that very ethical stamina which kept it afloat. Ok, there are times when it is a bit over the top, a bit too partial on some issues, but let's face it, if it weren't for the New York Times, we'd be in very very deep water and coming from where we are today, that means very very deep.
6
The consolidation of everything from movies to news, as the media industry gets hollowed out by the same rich-get-richer, winner-take-all forces that have reshaped businesses from airlines to pharmaceuticals.
The gulf between The Times and the rest of the industry is vast and keeps growing: The company now has more digital subscribers than The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the 250 local Gannett papers combined, according to the most recent data.
And, now, the Times is raising the rate for all of its digital subscribers from $15 every four weeks to $17 every four weeks. The rich-get-richer and winner-take-all forces at the New York Times are just doing their jobs . . . no matter what are the consequences.
2
Let's face it, the news, is the news, is the news. The difference these days is between the truth and someone else's interpretation of the truth.
The New York Time's is my go-to publication for breadth of coverage and for the kind of reporting you just can't find anywhere else. Because of its clout, the Times gets the best writers and researchers and it shows, even today.
The Times is changing, as it has to, and there are definite growing pains. Frequently, I've begun to doubt the veracity of some of the articles or opinion pieces in the newspaper. In the new rush to get the news online, things get lost along the way and mistakes are made.
We live in a world of instant everything and waiting for a fact or lead to be verified is difficult and can cost vast sums of money. Still, the truth and research matter. We readers want to be informed and we want our news unspun, evenhanded and thoughtfully analyzed.
Grow gracefully, New York Times, and let your readers reward you for a job well done.
3
@Pamela L.
The rush to print is definitely producing some shoddy reporting. Hearsay, third-person accounts, etc., are now treated as verified source statements. Rumors are reported as fact. Not enough corrections ensue.
I have my own fact-checking process now. I simply wait a few days for the full facts to emerge.
2
Having edited and published two community newspapers over the past 20 years, freelancing for several years before that,and sending vetted copy as a US Navy journalist during the mid-fifties, (quite apart from being a first-class news junkie), I too, have every concern about the state of print news.
I seriously hope the financial powers at NYT, pin a copy of Ben Smith's contribution on the wall behind their desks; maybe even reading it now and again. Getting bigger is not the same as getting better.
1
I feel that one option for "print media" is some type of multi publisher subscription model. Suppose for a moment that a subscriber could pay perhaps a slightly higher monthly fee, and get access to the Times, Globe, Post, Houston Chronicle, Tribune, maybe even the WSJ.
Perhaps the subscriber could have a variable cost that would allow them to select what was included in their basket.
This is just a thought from a NYT subscriber who would like a little more, but is not willing to manage multiple subscriptions.
1
Mr. Smith, Welcome! Some unsolicited advice: Don’t let the current circumstances define your job. Consider different approaches to ‘sharing the wealth’. What about a NYT program that sent junior newspeople to ‘into the field’ to smaller, local newspapers for a stint, thus supporting them with talent and financials. What about supporting NPR with plain old cash?
Don’t become just another juggernaut, use your power for good!
2
I see a danger in any monopoly. It controls the narrative with it's own biases.
3
I pay for the digital subscription to the NY times,. The Arizona republic , which I used to get delivered to my door, I no longer pay for, or readn other than occasionally online, although my 80 year old mother pays$40 a month to get the full paper version. We pay for her, because she likes it and to keep it alive, but that is not a long term strategy. They need to improve their app, and vtheir comment section to stay afloat.
1
While I don’t have as much time as I might like to read newspapers, I subscribe to several. It’s more important today than ever before to support a free press. As long as there are good people doing their job, Trump and his ilk can’t completely hide...
4
I have been subscribing for more than 10 years the NYT because I value quality.
I also subscribe to La Presse As I use the daily LaPresse app every day, for the same reason.
Integrity, depth, looking at all sides of the issue.
Digital media does, at the end, succeed when they provide value.
Consumers will pay for it.
3
Well, it's good, and it deserves to be the winner. Now a little more global reach please.
3
I have a digital subscription and to the crossword puzzle; also to the Echos here in France. The heavy handed Cooking app will not get my money as I pay for the paper; articles with recipes should be available. Aside from this one gripe, I'm grateful and read as much as possible every day. This is a great newspaper as I remember them from my youth. I'd rather have a good monopoly than poor journalism.
4
My wife Sophie and I each subscribe separately to the NYT.com, a decision we made to support the Times years back when the paper was selling everything with its furniture as Ben Smith reminds us. Despite his story we are going to keep it that way (we could save a bit by sharing a subscription, although apparently the Times does not need our financial support. First of all because it is such a great paper: we are French but connecting on the NYT.com is one of the first and last things we do everyday (or night) in Paris. Second, because great journalism is something we like to support (besides "consuming" it), the way we would support other important causes, such as saving the planet. Third, because in the Opinion pages, there is such a diversity of Opinions (conservative/liberal, Democrat/Republican...)Yes, as a former student and then expatriate in the US, I deeply regret that some great regional papers (Seattle, Boston, Chicago...) have either disappeared of become almost financially destitute. But the re-emergence of the NYT as a financially stable news behemoth is reassuring. I am more worried about the impact of closed-minded social media outlets for the future of our democracy. Long live to the Times and its 1700 journalists and we wish the best to Ben, may he be as great as David Carr whose death shocked us at the time.
Jean Leon, Paris
3
What a debut! Here's hoping we are nearing one of those wide-open moments once again...
1
Even though I am Italian and live in a small town in Italy, I subscribed NYT because I think that what is happening in the United States could concretely and irreversibly affect the lives of people living all over the world. My life, the life of my children, the life of a Kurdish family that I don't know and again has to deal with bombs. Trump is a threat not only to the United States but to all of humanity. This year is crucial. Every American should remember that his vote is not just a vote. On election day, American citizens will also represent - with their votes - people living on the other side of the world. A vote (or no vote) by a farmer from Alabama could concretely influence the life of a Greek farmer. This is a huge responsibility. There is little we can do in Europe. We can support the free press (by subscribing to the NYT or the WP).
4
I have digital subscriptions to the NYT, WaPo, LA times, a local paper, and the Wall Street Journal. I really enjoy all these papers and am glad not to have piles of papers in our house. There aren’t enough hours to read all of these papers but am grateful to get such quality of journalism from them. They greatly enhanced my retirement years.
3
Here in Hove, it is a delight to read the New York Times each day - different parts of it at different times. Readers want substantial articles, such as those here.
3
It seems to me much the same story with WNYC. I'm not aware of any real radio competition. I'd say only some will call their coverage unbiased, though you hear it said on air every eight minutes or so.
Tuning in is a treasure hunt that comes with much tuning out.
The NYT electronically is my go to news source.Well written and covering all the news that is worth reading. And always up to date. The reader feed back is a must read for those of us who are regular contributors. If great electronic journalism is good for the bottom line more power to the NYT and its current family leadership.The founder would be proud of the current publisher.
3
The article, "U.S. Plans ‘Radical Expansion’ of Coronavirus Testing" is factually in error. When the CDC announced their availability of testing kits, they also said at the time that the number of testing facilities had to be limited under the law and that it would take an exception by the FDA, which they had called on the FDA to make, for it to be available generally outside of those few facilities. So the article, which asserts that the FDA is "circumventing" the FDA misplaces the intent of the CDC rather critically and should be rewritten or withdrawn.
I was surprised to hear the NYT viewed as a monopoly. Before I became a subscriber three years ago, I considered the Washington Post and the WSJ as an alternative. The Times had the better price, a great customer service, and I am thrilled to have such easy access to an American perspective and US news. I have many excellent alternatives here in Europe, which I access regularly. The Economist, Le Monde, Handelsblatt, German public radio, the BBC and CNN. I hope the NYT will continue to provide incisive journalism and thought provoking commentary. If it flags, I will take my money and attention elsewhere.
1
As an older person - recently disabled =who discovered the digital NYTimes a few years back - I love this newspaper. What I like best of all is reading the comments, comments from all over the world. It makes my day and when I receive replies and I can respond back, and occasionally receive replies to those replies, I feel like I have found another joyous universe that hums. Thank you NY Times.
4
I am very thankful for the excellent reporting of the NYT. I really enjoy the investigative reporting in segments like "the daily" that are very informative.
I find the NYT produces some of the best neutral journalism out there, and that is why I am a subscriber.
In an age where political propaganda and conspiracy theories pass for "fair and balanced" news, I feel very fortunate to have a trustworthy news outlet to go to get accurate information.
Thank you NYT !
2
What a great opportunity, then (while we're in a self-congratulatory mood), to raise digital subscription rates AND restrict some of its previous benefits.
As a former journalist, God bless the NYT. I have been a reader of the NYT my entire life and as an adult, I read the Times everyday from the time I wake up to when I go to bed. I will acknowledge that in its quest to survive I now find more mistakes and more cheesy stories that, back in the day, would not have made it into the lobby much less on the page. But I do see a more vibrant, diverse publication and I am so very glad you have survived.
2
My wife and I both read the Times. She reads the hard copy and I read the on line electronic edition. We have been readers and subscribers for a very long time. Since college, not we are both in our 80s. For family budgetary reasons we have read the library subscription or when a subscription was available in my workplace. When the electronic edition came online, we decided the most convenient but very expensive alternative was to become a home subscriber. We are not unhappy with the decision but we both can see that eventually we will probably have to single up with the electronic edition only in order to meet our budget, but it will give me a little guilt because my wife enjoys reading the hard copy.
This is your first column so I won't beat you up on your projection of the Times driving its competition out of business, but I really don't think this will be a problem for a long time, because of the ease of entry using the electronic platform and the various social media search engines.
The Times is the best in the business and I am a reader with access to most of the papers at work(U.S. Senate staff) with access to the papers and periodicals from our reading racks in the print and periodical galleries. I also keep a laptop with me at work and check the breaking news, routinely.
Television news is your chief competitor, and I listen to C-Span on the radio while commuting in the A.M. and P.M. And we typically watch the evening news together and discuss at dinner.
2
Can’t say I ever read more than a handful of Buzzfeed pieces, probably prodded their way via social media. So I can’t say whether you merit this considerable step up, and the gravitas of this venue, or not. But as with with most pursuits in a life most would consider successful, a little humility, and gratitude, go a long way.
2
Overlooked:
The superior graphics, captivating use of photography and creative application of scripted action GIFs and other live-action coding (Examples: The articles on cell phone tracking and the history of the Trump family property development in New York) put The Times head and shoulders above every other online presentation.
Unlike most other leading news publications, The Times respects the news and the readers by not having icons scroll with you, up and down, links to twitter, mail, facebook, etc. (People know where to find those things. They don't need them as a constant companion.) The format is crisp, clean and uncluttered. A single well-managed column in the middle of the screen.
The treatment of Comments is superior and does not force the reader to have to continuously scroll up and down to review copy referred to in a comment. Side by side.
Quickly written - on my way to work. Thanks again for the best visual presentation of my first read of the day.
Welcome to the job, Ben! I'm so happy to see this viewpoint. It never ceases to amaze me how many people I know read the NYT only no matter where they live, and show no interest in the understanding the issues in their own communities. They're not supporting local journalism, they're not feeling invested. There are many reasons for this, but I think your assessment is correct. I'm rooting for local journalism, and I do hope the NYT finds a way to help, the way the amazing ProPublica does.
2
I participate in the trend to read and pay for multiple newspapers online. I use a number of Android and Windows devices to read the "papers." It seems to me that success of digital subscriptions would increase even more if someone improved the technology: A bigger, lighter, portable screen, easy to scan and easier on the eyes. Amazon Paperwhite almost provides the right experience (easy on the eyes, at least), but it requires its own subscriptions, which feels like overkill.
Google and Facebook have different mandates. The New York Times needs to realize there are new global and generational metrics that must accompany the traditional business criteria. Assuming it wants to position itself for breakout success, it needs to look at China. The companies there are doing things in ways titan companies in the U.S. haven’t countered with better ways in the U.S. retail market. Why? Personally, my bet against the Times is it gets stuck in the bad habit of depending upon historical American macroeconomic normalcy for its guidance. It needs to think beyond itself while considering its indispensable role in governance (a duty that changing cultural conditions have marginalized).
5
Owing the NYT's inability to fulfill their delivery contract here in Denver, I was forced to shift to digital version after 10+ years as a print subscriber Act. Now, I actually find WaPo digital version much easier to read and navigate than the NYT. I suggest you, NYT, try to catch up.
13
As another Denver reader I concur with your delivery comments. I find WaPo harder to read online. I have to wade through too much stuff I don't want to look at. I like the Times front page format. Easy to use. The Denver Post digital edition is the worst to navigate. On the plus side, in Denver, TV news is improving online and new online pubs like Denverite and Colo Public Radio news are hiring new reporters and tackle big Colo issues like education, housing and environment.
Better the Times be the flagship of its industry than some of it competitors. With size comes the dangers of insulated thoughts and echo chambers, but the grey lady still at least attempts to provide the diversity of opinions and decorum found lacking in many other outlets.
A resurgent Times means that there is indeed hope for journalism and free speech from one of this nations most storied and long-lived newspapers. Of course, the Times has been on the wrong side of history many times, but its archives are open for readers to sort through and make their own opinions.
With print media dying as I grew up in this century, it wasn’t so much “healthy competition” of clickbait that was needed but the veracity and aggressive journalism that led to such pieces as the pentagon papers. To do such daring pieces, you need an organization as strong as the Times and its readership. It is a tide that raises all ships. Readers are wise to compare news between outlets, comparing sources to determine a political bent and average the difference.
An interesting first article but certainly colored with a personal bent. Like the Times’ other columnist, your voice is welcome as an opinion to be thought upon—but only an opinion. I look forward to your future insights!
10
As I believe this is an introductory piece by this journalist, while reviving a former column, there are some pluses and minuses here which are worth pointing out.
I’m betting that while there are similarities, this is not a continuation of the old Ombudsman/Public Editor role. The Times seems to have sent the message it no longer wants to do that. So typically, as each of the rotating journalists who assumed that role would get suggestions from readers, I’m not sure to provide some because it is unclear what this column actually will be about.
In any event, speaking as someone who loves and is addicted to the Times, whether it is flirting with becoming a kind of monopoly or not, know it has weaknesses. I have told them the specifics many times, so there doesn’t seem to be any point repeating them. It hasn’t been too quick to recognize or fix them. To the degree any of them are significant enough to bother others, there could be grounds for competitors to take market share away from a looming monopolist.
Another weakness of the article is that it never says exactly what the Times did to recover from its shaky financial period. Did its bet on selling the furniture succeed, and they were very smart, or did it just get lucky and time just ran out on others?
On the other hand, it is admirably brazen to raise the monopoly theme, and as your first piece, and to go work for your biggest competitor, while being so open about your mixed feelings.
Good luck, Ben!
8
The unfortunate drift of the New York Times over the years has been towards a People's Magazine sort of format....
It's often hard to separate editorial policy and opinion from fact even on the front page.
It's been a frustrating thing, and I keep hoping the paper will figure out a way to re-evaluate itself from outside its own "bubble", if you will. Perhaps it should be another building - separate some of the functions. Or change floors. Or how back having a few satellite newspapers, as the Los Angeles Times has done out here. It bought the San Diego "UT" (formerly the Union Tribune) and stories with appeal to both areas of Southern California are the same. But the UT often has stories that, while they do run in the LA Times, are of unique news to this area so close to the border.
Please, New York Times, correct the drift. It is frankly annoying, especially when you/it get on a high horse about something....current high horse...breathless coverage about "Can Senator Sanders be "stopped" by a more "centrist"/"mainstream" Democrat.
Please consider your audience.....it's not all "centrist" Dems...you have a national audience, even if they don't all subscribe here. You'll be doing the country a big favor.
26
Thank you for being self reflective
9
I read 3 newspapers a day.
The NYT is the paper I've been reading for the longest time, about 25 years. Is it an echo chamber? Absolutely. Yet still the best paper in the country by a very large margin. Our family's loved NYT columnist these days is Paul Krugman because of his integrity and original & bright mind.
Online we also peruse Wa.Po., though it is largely redundant after reading NYT. Wa. Po. columnist Alexandra Petri is another original mind that makes our week better, and funnier.
Finally, and sadly, we finish with our local Madison daily, the Wisconsin State Journal: "centrist," which is to say conservative, bothsidesism, and lacking rigorous thinking as well as lacking women and people of color on the tiny editorial board of 4 white men.
I've never come across a local newspaper that, compared with the NYT, seemed anything other than incredibly shabby and small-minded. My question is how can we make our local newspapers all across the country more NYT-like? How can we get Paul Krugman and Alexandra Petri syndicated in every local paper across the country? And most importantly, how can we get every newspaper in the country to have a wonderful Comments section like the NYT has innovated? NYT, share your magic! We need a more thinking populace, and there is no other paper in the country that so encourages thinking as the NYT does.
16
Can I echo the point made about the comments section. The quality of the letters , their length and insight has me reading The New York Times even before my UK papers. Americans and others contributors should be congratulated and proud of the intelligence and good sense they make.
3
I think you’re asking how can we make the local basketball team NBA worthy? You can’t.
Better, yes. But compelling writing, accurate first hand reporting combined with historical perspective takes superstars.
As long time New Yorkers, my wife and I grew up reading the New York Times. We loved A.M. Rosenthal and Russell Baker. I used to pick up the New York Times (Home Delivery) from our driveway. Once I slipped on ice and broke my leg.
Our son switched our subscription from home delivery to digital. Now I love the convenience of reading the Times in my smartphone or tablet. Just awesome !!!
12
Curb your enthusiasm. Quit your job. Start fresh in another profession. Try something else. Drive a truck or sell real estate.
Please.
11
As President, Mr. Trump is unfit and unqualified, but as a media personality he's pure gold and probably the reason for the NYTimes success, as it has been for the Washington Post. One can only hope that the prospect of "loosing" him won't change the high quality and honesty of your journalism..
8
The Times is ‘journalism’? Sadly, no...not anymore.
In my view, real journalism may be defined as the practice of objective, unbiased reporting of events. The Times operates as ‘opinion journalism’...which is something else entirely.
37
I suggest that you study American journalism historically. I think you will find a growing improvement in objectivity and fairness reflected in most major newspapers. Meeting the digital challenge in classified ads, particularly,has hollowed out local papers in many big and mid sized metro areas. This is a big issue in a republic where informed citizens play a vital role.
Most journalists I knew and worked along side of for many years went the extra mile to find as much corroborating evidence as possible before writing and searched out people with differing viewpoints on topics they covered. This is often not easy and often misunderstood by sources and spokespeople who think they have all the facts on their side, or at least all the spin.
1
Don't flatter yourself. A lot of what appears in the morning digital edition hardly qualifies as "news." Case in point-the series on polyamorous relationships. If I want to read about that, I'll go to People magazine.
23
I was shocked to see you publish Haqqani Op Ed.
H
I have no respect for your journalism after I saw it. e is a killer and a terrorist. Period. How stupid you guys can be. The Op Ed was written his handlers. I know your loyalty lies with US government and people. But Haqqani killed so many Americans and numerous Afghans. I would have accepted an interview or an article about him, but not an OpEd
So please do not preach high standards of journalism.
Thanks Manoj
7
When I was in high school and got my driver's license, I drove to Mt. Penn, Pennsylvania (outside Reading, Pa., which is about 59 miles from Philadelphia) and I bought the NY Times and the New Yorker every week. Yes, I was a bit of a strange high school student but I had decided, beyond a question, that I was going to first be a journalist and I already had a job, by senior year, writing and reading news over the air on a local radio station (with some actual reporting from time to time). Now, the Times has invaded the soft artsy stuff the New Yorker used to feature.
Biographical profiles. Check. New York personal stories. Check. An interview with jazzman Sonny Rollins. Check. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/24/magazine/sonny-rollins-interview.html?searchResultPosition=1
What's left for the New Yorker to do? They scramble. They cost only $50 less per yr. and are weekly. (Here's a tip: like hotels, if you go to the New Yorker website and then go back to it, they offer you an even cheaper discount price to start your sub.)
The NY Times has, indeed, become multiple news organizations in one big bundle and it would be great if they could spread some of the joy (money) around. One idea: if you sub to your local paper, you get some limited access to the Times, too, in a bundle. Try it!
7
What I love about NYTimes is its news section, innovative presentation & journalism quality. But honestly I just hate to read Opinion section that used to be my favorite section few yrs ago. Since DJT is elected, NYT's opinion section are filled with hater of him.
7
Don't overlook the Wash Post.
5
Other outlets that might be alternatives are WaPo, LA Times and Reuters. Other than that most local papers should go out of business since they have seriously local views on the world that are more about cowing the local people than any real dissemination of factual information.
2
Talk about delicious music to my ears. As Trump lies through his teeth about “the failing New York Times,” the Gray Lady is flourishing beyond our wildest dreams, Of course, to an unknowable extent (and proving that irony is not dead), the turnaround at The Times is attributable to the stories Trump’s madness generates on a nearly hourly basis.
While I wish there were many more thriving newspapers in our country delivering real news, I thank god every day for The Times, which is helping save our democracy one news article and one opinion piece at a time, 24/7.
19
When Trump was running in 2016, I was so stunned at the lack of neutrality and professionalism shown by the NYT that every day on a social network I would dissect the online front page and show how biased the newspaper was.
Pretty amazing stuff for a newspaper that should be wedded to accepted Journalistic standards. And I do have a degree in Journalism.
But after a month or so of this, the NYT came out and declared that they were, in fact, working against Trump's election as a matter of policy.
So it wasn't fun anymore.
9
I love NYT, but the coming increase in subscription cost will send me elsewhere. They argue that the increase is to cover their journalistic work, but it is pretty obvious that their digital department—videos, interactive graphs, and so on—is a sign of unnecessary expansion. Now they need to cover those costs. I would argue that a principle of good reporting is to reach as many people as possible. This means making subscriptions affordable. I teach news literacy in my classrooms. That just got more difficult.
16
Oh, please. As a long time reader of the NYT, I have watched it become less and less a reporter of the news and more and more an echo chamber for the left. A bit early to label it “a success”.
26
And a lot of human interest articles of dubious value
19
This makes me want to add another subscription to WaPo at the least.
4
@P Nicholson add your local paper to your subscription list. the wapo is also fine and gobbling up journalists from dying local papers.
I am glad to hear the NY Times is doing well. I have been conflicted for some time now between my sense of obligation to one of the nation's few remaining pillars of free press journalism and my growing lack of interest in reading what is presented daily on it's web site. Knowing that the Times is in stable condition makes my decision to cancel my subscription much easier and almost sufficient to overcome my procrastination in doing so.
7
I wish I could support a greater variety of journalism by subscribing to more outlets, esp. more local papers such as the LA Times, the Miami Herald, or even news abroad like the Guardian and Le Monde, as well as investigative journalists such as The Intercept, but I simply can’t afford to: so if I could only pick one, the New York Times gives me what I need, with quality, at an reasonnable cost.
Maybe someday my finances will allow it, and I will also have the time to read it all !
4
@ml
There's no subscription cost to the Guardian.
I also subscribe to the Washington Post (and several others, U.S. and Canadian). The Times may have greater depth, but the Post is a worthy competitor. The Post seems to update its website more often, which brings me back more frequently, even if I may spend more time with the Times. If I had to give up one, it would be a tough choice.
There are a lot of papers I visit occasionally to get local perspective or to prepare for a visit. I think those papers would benefit from a micro-billing system that would let them charge by the visit.
6
Unfortunately, as you seem to understand, high technology pushes inexorably toward and winner-take-all world (while Congress, the FTC, and the FCC do nothing about it), But what you omit from this column is glaring: the effect Facebook has had on murdering local newspapers. Let's put the blame where it belongs, not on the New York Times. Let's not fault it for improving its product. If Congress and/or the FTC had the courage to shut down Facebook--which is nothing but muriatic acid eating away at the social fabric--perhaps some local newspapers could hang on.
3
Day in and day out, the best money I spend is on my digital subscription to the surging New York Times.
14
Well, there are good alternatives to the Times that seem to be doing quite well. I added the Washington Post to my subscriptions and now find I start out with them. This happened because they are just sharper. They don't publish columns with plainly bogus logic just because they feel the need to "show the other side." The times is stronger in more areas, but the Post is catching up there too-- cooking especially!
6
Now I understand why the Times hates Bernie Sanders so much. It is trying to become another Amazon. I was (and still am) considering canceling my subscription because of the nonstop attack articles on Sanders and the not so veiled implication that voters don't understand the process and we should vote for someone we don't believe in because of this fantasy ideal of electability. I hesitate to cancel because the Times journalism is peerless in every other regard. Like others, I also subscribe to the Washington Post and find it a great source of news. Its politics section is more balanced than the Times but I prefer the amazing human interest pieces in the NYT.
6
No, the Times is not peerless. Good articles on animals are extremely rare. They often seem more interested in taxidermy than in other living creatures, and sometimes seem clueless about living humans, too.
1
This column feels off.
1. Clickbait title
2. Unclear central message
3. It’s more about the author himself
4. This is an ombudsman piece
The NYT is definitely creating a market for journalism. To nurture that, stop buying other media, but instead set up a fund for them (like Mediapart in France).
13
As a Canadian I would be pleased to subscribe to a Canadian newspaper in addition to the NYT, but they are owned by rich, conservative families that push their own agenda, which I can’t abide.
6
I live on the other side of the world and never thought I would be able to read a quality newspaper like the NYT on a daily basis.
The NYT has opened a new world for people like me who appreciate an alternate view of the world's news. Australia's leading newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, (SMH) has also gone digital and I subscribe to that too.
I am pleased to see that in the USA as well as in Australia, unbiased but informed news reporting is outperforming the Murdoch owned MSM network.
Keep up the good work. May you prosper and grow stronger.
24
Thank you for this. I’m in Wuhan, quarantined, and spend my days consuming news. I’ve had my complaints with the NYT for some time, but from the outside looking in, the changes and sensationalism in all directions are stark.
International news is interspersed with recommendations for cleaning up dog waste and citizens toilet paper predilections. Columnists analysis has become borderline; when one has to reinvent themselves every few days, the tendency toward fringe speculation is inexorable. One can almost feel the deadline crunch in some of the opinion pieces; stuff just gets hammered out to fill the required column inches.
I hear friends increasingly simply adopting these fringe analytics as fact. Discourse cheapens as reference to “the NYT” is taken as gospel.
I’m amazed the NYT has even allowed this new column. So, maybe we have hope.
4
They allow it because they know there’s no chance it will hurt the bottom line. Nor will your comment, or mine supporting it.
4
I pay digital subscriptions to The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Seattle Times. It's important to go to different sources to avoid the inevitable bias, so I also go to a bunch of different sources as well.
The New York Times does excellent reporting, and it's depth and strength is clear, but there's one big, dangerous thing it gets wrong: the popular meme that racism is a good thing when it targets "white" people as individuals or as an imaginary group. Oh, yes, this is understood by The Times and others to be not racism, oh no, it's "social justice."
Racism is never a good idea, no matter who it targets by what superficial human characteristic. There is no such thing as "race" among humans.
It's clear that The New York Times, and many others, do this because it gets clicks (and therefore ad revenue), but it also does the bidding of Vladimir Putin, Tsar of All Russia, and his troll army. Racism begets more racism. It divides the good people of the US against each other, and it gives the radical-right propaganda channels something powerful to push off of in support of their agenda of Trump, what nationalism, and autocratic, un-American values.
That's an important part of how Trump won in 2016, and I am terrified that it's how he will win again in November.
Times, please stop promoting racism. Stop talking about "white" and "black" people; there is no such thing. Stop emphasizing "white guilt."
10
Sounds like the paper is glowing with confidence. Just remember what’s happening to the Chinese economy when it least expected and how self-satisfied and blind they were to the Coronavirus explosion. The global economy could change on a dime. The paper, of course, is not going to see anything along the same lines, but points of view are dictated by necessity which are not always addressed by the paper. The Bloomberg candidacy is a case in point. Its coverage is mostly muted, and when it publishes anything, it won’t allow readers’ opinions. Why? Diverse opinion from the same group of people is not diversity of opinion. Diverse opinion comes from people with different backgrounds which we don’t really see in the op-Ed pages, as it’s editor James Bennett knows full well, for instance. Hopefully somebody is doing an in-depth piece on the pseudo Taliban peace agreement. Lindsey Graham is all in, as is would- be Senator Pompeo - that alone should give us pause.
I look forward to future columns delving into the key differentiators of the times strategy, specifically their focus on using data to target user appropriate content to create richer user experience and interaction. Media executives can learn a lot from NYTs strategic and tactical failures and successes- I’m guessing your mission is to create richer user experiences also. Best of luck.
Kudos to the NYTs, even if it's a shadow of its former self when it was a balance between foreign, national and local news. Most of the local news in the NYTs is has declined precipitously over the years.
Yet, this is as it is for most other cities and towns where local news is dead or on life support.
The small town I grew up in upstate NY has lost its weekly paper for years now. And the local daily from the largest town in a three county region is a shell of its former self. Most local news is now in free papers. And these are more advertising circular with local bulletin boards and a very few stories.
In most mid-size cities, the local paper (if still publishing) has news which is usually a conglomeration of wire service and stories sourced from larger metro dailies, such as the WaPo and the NYTs. There is maybe 1/3 to 1/4 local news. I'm think papers like the Albany Times-Union, a Hearst publication.
As we all know, most people are now getting their local news from regional TV stations, which are usually owned by one or another of the huge media conglomerates. Or, they get it online, where quality and sourcing are all dubious, at best.
I feel so old.
5
There will always be competition with the Times. If the Times fails to be objective then subscribers will abandon it. I count on the Times for facts. In the current environment it is a beacon of honesty.
6
God bless NYT! The thought of losing this great institution was worrisome, but now there is some respite.
4
How do I get a starting job as a reporter?
3
You say your job will be “covering this new media age from inside one of its titans (though I hope you’ll tell me if I ever get too far inside).” So I ask: will you closely examine and fully report on the privacy protections - or lack of such protections - for readers of the digital edition of the Times? I have noticed the paper uses multiple “cookies.” What information does the Times collect about the readers? Why can’t readers opt out of such collection? The Times has published articles critical of Amazon and Google, but is the Times really that different?
6
My love affair (well, it's one sided) with the New York Times is so deep and profound and heated and devoted that I can only say: "Don't change a hair for me."
5
Unlike social media, the NY Times is a known, trusted source.
6
As if to not prove a point, though, the photo of Ben Smith used in his debut column is not credited to anyone at the Times’s vaunted Picture Desk... but to BuzzFeed. Insert LOL and / or facepalm emoji here?
3
Chinese citizen here, have been a NYT subscriber since 2014. Probably one of the best decisions I’ve made in my life. NYT’s coverage on China is one of the, nay, arguably the best in the world, in my humble opinion. And frankly the subscription cost is laughably low when you look at papers like Financial Times. Thank you New York Times for providing a window for Chinese like me to know what’s really going on here in China, amid all the nonsensical propaganda.
10
I’d pay 10x what I pay for a yearly digital times subscription unsullied by inane advertising and invasive tracking. I can haz?
5
I thought it was The Failing New York Times?! ;-)
3
@Merlin
In terms of journalistic standards, not revenue.
1
So success is bad news? Oh you’ll fit right in at The Times.
2
I subscribe to The Times to defend democracy and I read The Guardian fill me in on everything else.
14
I was just thinking about this the other day. I am here living 15 miles north of Philadelphia with no local newspaper covering local stories and I am paying the NYT subscription to read national & international news.
It’s a wakeup call for me. It is time for me to throw money at grass root journalism in my backyard.
14
What a strange oversight not to mention the Washington Post other than in passing. I subscribe to both the NY Times and the Washington Post, and the Post is superior in many respects. For one thing, the Post is much better at presenting a balanced perspective, in both its news reporting and its editorials. That's coming from a progressive liberal who has spent enough time in government to be able to discern sloppy reporting and overly partisan generalizations. And the Post has published far more scoops demonstrating the corruption, incompetence, and venality of President Trump and his Administration.
With respect to future dominance, how will the Times compete with the deep pockets of Jeff Bezos? Many don't like how Amazon does business, but Bezos's private ownership of the Post is a public service, and I suspect the Post will be going strong for decades to come.
8
Kevin,
Agree that the WaPo is pretty good, cheaper too, but can’t go near the comment section, it is a brutal undertaking; they should really have better monitoring of the comments.
NYT comment section is totally a ultra liberal haven; no variation in thought allowed.
4
Quality, I hope will always win over mediocrity, but it will always matter who is telling the tale...
3
Woah. When I sell out to a higher paying corporate job, can I publicly call them out on their dollar too?
12
I've been a Times subscriber since 1995. Lucky for me, I had to travel to NYC, for work, in the early 90's and became enamored with the paper at that time. Through several moves and never having lived in NYC, I've always been a fan and I'm happy the Times have seen success these past years.
We all need to support our local journalism too, whether it be the local NPR station or if you still have a reputable local paper, a subscription to that. The only way to stay informed.
6
I think we are thinking too much. yes, talking head TV gave us right and left and right and wrong, but the simple who, what, when, why, where focus reapplied on new channels is really nothing new. or rather, nothing news.
1
Give the Times and the Sulzbergers credit for facing and embracing the challenge of the internet far more seriously, creatively and effectively than any of its other major newspaper peers, all now still spiraling towards oblivion at varying velocities. It was a very close call, and far from a certain result, that we still have a solid, successful, independent institution that has somehow has preserved its core journalistic mission. And give credit also to us, its audience of customers willing to value and pay for the journalism it provides. (And I say that as someone who has twice in more than 50 years furiously, but temporarily, cancelled his subscription over disappointing journalistic lapses.)
9
My on-line subscription price for The Times is going up by two bucks. Hmmph, I thought. Maybe it's time to review whether I need NYT in my life. So, here's what I think. If I left all the stories about the political strife in this country out, stopped reading all the opinion pieces, including the Paper's editorials, I would be left with one helluva newspaper! I am exposed to so much relevant news that, even at $17, it's a buy.
14
I started reading nyt in bed with my parents on Sundays in the seventies. Sorry, not sorry.
4
I thought 45 deemed the NYT as “failing”?
2
I’d like to see bezos underwrite local journalism in Seattle...then he might come to bat in ways that help him look his kids in the eye later. Seattle Times is waaaay behind on digital journalism while Seattle bursts and unravels. Come on, Jeff.
1
"In his debut, our new media columnist says The Times has become like Facebook or Google — a digital behemoth crowding out the competition."
Following his debut, The Times said that they had inadvertently hired the wrong person for this position, and had reopened the search.
5
Every time the sociopath in the white house calls a news outlet fake news, lying. crooked, unfair, or perpetuating hoaxes, then I know they are great papers! The NYT really has his ire. Love it. We will survive.
12
Well, you can't blame the Nyt for having a decent marketing department. It shouldn't be rocket science, but other publications around the world get it so wrong.
For about a year I read many articles, up to a monthly limit, for free, and the quality meant that subscribing was an easy choice.
The initial subscription was affordable, allowed access to all articles, and the price and inclusions were clearly set out.
Contrast that to some other players out there, who offer free ( dumbed down) news pieces, but require immediate supscription to read their supposedly "premium" articles.
No thanks.
Yes I would like to sample another voice, but I have yet to find one.
I think some publishers are more concerned with in-group status or exclusivity.
5
To people complaining about loss of local journalism: Decades ago I worked for small papers. Each one was totally dependent on the weekly two-page grocery ad insert. That was bolstered by consistent quarter- to eighth-page ads by successful local merchants. Finally, a strong page-after-page classified section cemented that week's or day's income. As far as I can tell none of those institutions exist anymore. Where are local papers supposed to get their money? A friend works for a successful local paper in Hawaii; it is totally online and is funded by some kind of tech gazillionaire.
As for that person who is graduating from J-school and thinks she deserves as her first job a reporting slot at NYT, unless she's a daughter of a famous politician, I hate to say she may have to pay her dues elsewhere for a while.
5
I understand that the largest number of subscribers outside the U.S. are in Canada. Therefore, more stories about Canada are highly desirable -- both to serve your Canadian readers but also to enlighten Americans about issues north of the border.
4
When digital newspapers were free, I read the NYT, Washington Post, Times of London, Guardian, Independent in the UK and much more in the US (not on work time, but on leisure time, or in between work time). This, I felt was necessary so as not to be dependent on local insular news and newspapers.
As paywalls went up on most, but not all of these, I decided I would pay for one digital paper. I grew up with the NYT. It was available and not terribly expensive. C'est tout.
I do not agree with much of its editorial policy, and in spite of the fact that it claims that its news and opinion are separate, and probably actually believes this, but this is not always the case, it is the default international newspaper I read.
Is it crowding out the competition? Maybe, but I never really enjoyed the Washington Post and other US newspapers. How much influence does it have?
I have yet to meet anybody anywhere who stated that an editorial or op-ed piece changed their vote or determined it.
6
Good column; great comments.
All in all, a promising start.
4
What I worry about is the lack of hard-hitting journalism at the nation’s statehouses. We hear a lot about all the corrupt nonsense the Republicans are doing on a national level; it’s much, much worse at the state level where not as many people are watching.
6
The starting salary of a NY Times reporter is $104,600? Good work if you can get it. That's what a public school teacher in one of the better-paying districts in NJ (and therefore in the US) makes after 15 years, IF he or she has a master's degree plus 16-32 additional credits. And that's the the MOST he or she will ever make as a teacher.
I would venture this is why the Times has such a difficult time understanding the difficulties facing working people in this country, and cannot seem to fathom the frustration and outright anger felt on both sides of the political aisle.
4
That public school teacher has job security, a short workday, gets summers off and can retire at 55 with a generous pension.
5
I respectfully think you may need to reconsider your archaic perspective of what it means to work as a teacher.
7
This column strikes me as short-sighted, hyperbolic, and hubristic. You are clearly ambivalent about your new job, Ben Smith, but I hope the columns you write will be less self-referential and more outward-focused in the future. A look into the archives of The New York Times shows that the Gray Lady has been reporting for generations, and has been one of the main newspapers of record in the U.S. for over 100 years. It was here, and holding a place of authority long before Ben Smith's heady days (six years ago!!) at Buzzfeed, and I cannot imagine what it is becoming or what new challenges it will face, but I hope that long-format, researched, thoughtful journalism is always going to be a part of the NYT. Buzzfeed has, since it began appearing on my radar, mostly provided pre-chewed, overly simplified and mildly amusing lists. Where is the thoughtful, meaningful journalism? Right now, in the middle of a couple serious sets of events in the world, at a time when information from so many political leaders are untrustworthy, I turn to sources I expect will give me the facts with journalistic integrity. I don't want a Buzzfeed list of ten amusing things to keep in mind about the COVID-19 pandemic. I need verified and trustworthy information. I am reading the web resources provided not only the NYT, but also the LA Times, BBC World News, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and NPR.
23
This article describes the NYT survival and growth in structural terms -- absorbing competition and so on--just like, say, a consumer electronics or software company. I would imagine that part of the reason for that growth is that the NYT is trusted by so many, in this era of disinformation, much of it from the White House. Subscribing to the NYT feels like supporting a bulwark against this madness.
5
Wow, I had no idea, $104,000 for a basic reporter. So I am a roughly 10 or so year subscriber. It's cheap enough and I basically trust the variety. Equally important is that I perceive that spending my time reading other web sites is not as valuable, for example The Atlantic, Washington Post, etc. Thirdly, I basically see that this whole news thing, with a few exceptions (like pending national, international emergencies, and Climate Change) ore all just forms of entertainment. However this third point is a kind of "black hole" as I am sinking more and more time reading because an endless number of calamities. "whack a mole" submerge, then emerge again. However, I stopped reading the huge number of opinion writers, except 1, The Editorial Board. and finally I really really enjoy the long Times Magazine pieces when I find them. This essay is thought provoking, just as Facebook and Google distort their environments, the Times will eventually do the same. I am very curious where this distortion will first be easily noticed, "politics" or "business" basically. I expect the political leadership in NYC will have to deepen their ties to the Times. Mr. Smith, as long as you don't dig too deeply, you'll be set for life; those vacation home additions plans you have can go full steam ahead.
1
Wow. I had no idea that the Times has consolidated its position in the news-space so much - thanks, Ben for this valuable information. While I value the Time journalism as a subscriber for many years, I've also recognized, by having some first-hand information on some of the news reported by the Times, that many of the Time's articles are heavily skewed. In many cases, I find this infuriating but I keep the subscription anyway so I can track what is being reporting and to anticipate the resulting public discourse. With some urgency, I will definitely add some subscriptions to competing news outlets and I encourage you all to do the same.
5
I subscribe to the Times and the Washington Post online and have a print subscription to my local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee (which just ended the Saturday print edition). I was in New York last summer and had the opportunity to read the print edition of the Sunday Times, which still captures a real newspaper experience.
4
For balance I often read the WSJ on line, which is offered free thru Starbucks WiFi. And I can’t stop looking at their comments sections. The Journal clearly doesn’t monitor comments on any meaningful way and those sections are basically sewers of right wing thought.
3
The election of President Trump has been good for the media business especially the New York Times. He has made them a lot of money. There have been numerous articles written about him mostly negative which has increased sales especially digital subscriptions. More people are reading the New York Times and it seems to be increasing. They should hope he is re-elected to keep their profits robust. President Trump has been a cash cow.
2
Nyt is great... except it’s increasingly becoming an opinion piece for the liberal part of the country. I’m worried it ll turn into another msnbc.
7
@Me
If only MSNBC were some left version of fox.
4
So.
The trouble with the Times is it just so darn good.
I did not know that.
Good hire.
5
I have been a NYTimes subscriber ever since college and I'm 84, so I qualify as loyal. I am sorry for various stands
the Times has taken (pro Iraq war for example), but all in all it's my morning habit, and often I read it on the internet before going outside to pick up the actual newspaper.
One NYT plus, better than any other paper, esp. WAPO, is the comments section. What an informed and fascinating readership, and how clever the paper is to have a system of ranking "Reader's picks" etc. That's
unique and gives me insight I get nowhere else. Thanks!
9
Well, just as long as these gigs aren’t held by anyone from the working class. If I want to be reminded of those days I can watch “The Front Page” or Weegee’s photographs.
Newspapers have not been adequately replaced. I won't be happy until the promises of the 1970's are fulfilled: that a super-fast, silent color printer (possibly supplied by the newspaper company itself) drops a well-printed local daily, principally financed by local advertisers, on the living-room floor each morning. We can look at our squinty screens or listen to the radio for updates.
The NYT is swell, but they don't run my weekly humor column or the Lancaster Eagle-Gazette's superior local sports coverage. We need newspapers, preferably in non-volatile form, as never before.
We can figure out how to deal with the old newspapers readily enough: the 'paper' could be printed on polyethylene sheeting which can be disposed of in a machine that'll melt it down, separate out the ink, and extrude out new blank sheets.
3
Welcome to the NYT. Over a period of many, many years this newspaper has proven itself to be a reliable source for the news. Is it perfect? No. But it is the paper of record that I read every day. The demise of the newspaper has many causes, internet access the chief among them. I also read and subscribe to the Washington Post, the Guardian as well as the BBC. Without a free and fair press we are lost as a free country.
12
I’m just happy that Americans are subscribing and paying for a news source rather than getting it “for free”. I do agree with many here that the opinion pieces are overshadowing the news pieces at times. Also there are some opinion writers that are more or less activists than thought writers.
4
The Times is no Atlantic or Politico.
Lower level of sophistication, lower level of writing and minimal investigative journalism. 10 years ago, the Times was the only US paper I subscribed to. It went disappointingly down in quality, so I now subscribe to 2 others as well. The brain needs good food to grow and be nourished.
3
@FF559
Oh get off your high horse. The NYT is characterized by some of the most dense and creative writing anywhere. And breaking news is far more challenging to produce than thought pieces in a magazine.
3
Please don’t turn this into another capitalistic venture..... since I have subscribed, perhaps 2 years ago the subscription price has risen. I can understand price increases to a point, but if it is to just to bring in more profits for shareholders..... that would be a news story all in itself. Keep doing what you are doing, and I feel, doing well. But please don’t keep beating subscribers up to generate more bonuses for CEO’s
4
I've never been a paid subscriber to the Times or Washington Post because a VPN, and multiple email address give me unlimited, and unpaid access. (If they didn't, a simple google headline search would take me to the same content that wasn't behind a pseudo paywall.) Ad blockers keep the pagination bearable.
The Times neoliberal oligarchy, and the rigid perspectives it fosters, troubles me as much as Trump's lies.
So, I'm left with The Guardian, something I freely and willing donate to in order keep real objective journalism alive.
4
The times should offer local journalism. Pay an extra 8 bucks a month as an add on to your Times subscription and get local! Don’t wait for Gannett to figure it out, it’s not going to happen. We need local news.
3
It’s a closet Republican newspaper that pretends it’s liberal to assuage both it’s upper class readership and the plebes who follow it religiously for no other reason than they feel they have to. It’s sad what the New York Times the Grey Lady the newspaper of record has become.
2
We are still print subscribers in my home, but I frankly am a digital-only reader. It is true that this reading has encouraged me to purchase two other digital subscriptions: The Washington Post and The Guardian. They keep me busy, and for a news junkie it is heaven. Nevertheless, I am very proud of The New York Times and consider it my hometown paper. I could never find a better one.
3
The NYT has been my paper since I began reading. It was essential reading seven days a week, until the cost went bananas. Now the Sunday paper is what? $7? $8? Sorry, but that's obscene. So there's digital. Fine. But, more importantly, I began reading the Washington Post for the 2016 election and became hooked on it. After the election, as the bad stuff on the NYT became evident, the misogyny and bias and blatant editorial blunders and mistakes and then those vile email stories, the dumping of the public editor, I cancelled my subscription in fury. I've since come back, but as a half timer. Now I read both papers even more critically. We'll see how we come out in the 2020 election. Just know that you're on probation.
3
Media is a business. Mr, Smith's credentials are political. Sorry, NYT, I have no confidence in the credentials of your new columnist.
4
Pretty ironic article and headline given that I would say Buzzfeed itself was bad news for journalism.
Buzzfeed was among the first to employ click-bait headlines, listicles, and short, infotainment "articles" written primarily for social media with the intent to go viral, and to garner as many click and shares as possible.
Many news organization such as The New York Times unfortunately adopted this model, and in doing so, compromised their journalistic ethics and integrity.
12
Thank God for the NYT. and a few other good papers. If we didn't have good and honest journalism left we would be China and Russia.
8
I wonder if `print` news is going back to its early partisan roots. Early papers made no bones about being `the organ of such-and-such` league or party. I don`t think this is necessarily terrible. It`s at least more honest than pretending objectivity when there is indeed bias -- or at times outright disinformation.
Let the various organs battle it out for our collective perception - the truth will lie somewhere in between.
This is the most openly navel gazing media move ever. Lord.
12
Just want to say that as a Chinese national, who graduated from US college and accessed NYT through VPN, my comments are cencored by the edit board because my IP is in China.
4
As someone who works in publishing, I have to commend the Times for doing it right. You are providing quality content, and people are paying for it. I believe in local journalism, too, but it’s hard for me to consider paying for my local paper, which is owned by a big company that eviscerated the staff. Sad.
14