The New York Times: Let it Fall

There's been much hand wringing over the decline and potential total implosion of the New York Times. But, really, is there any news organization that would benefit more from being wrested from its family control and given new ownership than the Times?

The so-called "paper of record" has been, since its inception, insular and incestuous, and has remained so by design. A nifty covenant drawn up in the mid-1980s guaranteed that the family's stock in the paper could only be traded within the "The Trust" for decades forward.

This insured little opposition in January of 1992 when Arthur Sulzberger Jr. -- often called "Pinch," but rarely to his face -- became the 5th member of the Ochs/Sulzberger family to run the paper. And by all accounts, the least qualified. From poor strategic decisions (buying Abuzz.com in 1999 for $30 million only to shut it down, taking a nearly $23 million write down, a mere three years later) to lax oversight, Sulzberger has been to liberal nepotism as the Bush clan has been to the conservative kind.

The issue isn't just that under Sulzberger's leadership the Times has occasionally gotten stories wrong. You can't have the world as your beat and not make mistakes. The issue is that the Times has built up a culture that prefers celebrity above journalistic ethics. How else could you explain a cycle of flawed reporting from its "best" writers?

The Wen Ho Lee reporting. Howell Raines's crusade against Augusta. Jayson Blair. Rick Bragg (among others) doing the "toe touch." Judy Miller's WMD reporting. Judy Miller's Plame reporting (and her showy stint in jail. And, considering their close past, Pinch should have completely recused himself from another entanglement with Ms. Miller). The Kurt Eichenwald mess (did he finance kiddie porn?). Right on up to Dowd getting a pass on plagiarism and Friedman taking speaking fees from government agencies. In every instance there were editors and higher-ups aware that the reporting was suspect or going to print with minimal fact checking. And in every instance nothing was done until the scandal broke.

Fox News may be a hack outfit, but they're up front with their bias. And despite their lowered bar of expectations, can you honestly name as many scandals of significance perpetrated by their "reporters" over a similar period of time?

The Times would dearly and severely benefit from new leadership that was more responsive and responsible to their shareholders. In that regard, the paper cannot change hands quickly enough.

For more perspective please visit That Minority Thing.com.

Comments

[SeaBlood]

I didn't always understand what you were talking about . I thought the Sunday Times was the most wonderful thing in the world. Then, joy-o-joy, little-old-me had the honor of being interviewed for a story in the Sunday Times. It felt like I had reached the big time! Then the edition came out---they kept my quote intact, yet spun all the surrounding sentences in such a way that it seemed like I was saying something completely different from what I had wanted to say, something that fitted what the reporter had wanted to say all along without my knowledge. Right then and there I knew what journalism was really about.

[grey sells]

Who was the reporter working for? And what was the spin? And what was your conclusion "what journalism was really about"?

[OtayPanky]

Folks who say (about the Times specifically and newsprint generally) that we should or should not "let it fail" are having the wrong conversation.

It's not a matter of whether we "should" let the NY Times fail. The plain fact is, it's failing.

So either someone needs to figure out how to make it viable, going forward - or it will be gone.

Of course, some will wring their hands about the demise - but most won't care at all. And that is the root of the problem.

To maintain a big operation like the Times, enough people have to care in order to support it financially. Whether we're talking about stockholders and other backers, advertisers, or readers, enough people have to believe in the Times in order to provide the ongoing cash. You can't run a business on red ink.

Mostly, what I hear from the "Save the NYT" crowd is a lot of upsetness - but little about how NY Times might actually fix its own problem.

Maybe it's just because the essential problem can't be fixed.

The individual functions that the Times once did well - particularly investigative journalism - will be picked up by any number of weekly and monthly magazines. The really good pundits, like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman, will find a home elsewhere, too.

[justthefacts17]

Don't worry about Krugman and Rich. They could go back shilling for
Enron and Broadway, respectively. Oops, Enron is gone and Broadway..­who cares?

[docron]

The NYT is living on its reputation rather than its product. The latest Sulzberger, as Mr. Ridley makes clear, has not been a positive. As a long time (40+ years) reader, I can definitely attest that today's version is a shadow of the Times of the 60s and 70s.

Unfortunately for the contemporary state of American print journalism, however, it is still among the best. The future, as everyone knows, is not print. The pages are getting yellower and yellower and soon they will fade away.

[corwin]

That's true.And Rupert Murdoch's empire is bleeding money ,paying 14 % to a Mexican Multi billionaire for loanjs, asking their emplyees to take % 5 cuts, breaking the unions....­. Oh, wait.

[John Horner]

"Fox News may be a hack outfit, but they're up front with their bias."

Fox News claims to be the most unbiased organization in the game, so how can you say they are "up front"? Your article went completely off the rails there.

[jbatch]

I was with you right up until the Fox News bit. Can I name a scandal from Fox comparable to NYT? Yes. last night's news .. seriously. They reported on Cheney's speech as if it were gospel (it contained numerous lies, distortions and omissions) and Obama's was grossly misrepresented.

Look, the NYT is bad -- you even forgot their most eggregious lapse ( their refusla to report on illegal wiretapping unitl after the 2004 elections) but they don't compare with Fox as a font of misinformation.

[danceswithtrees]

R.I.P. NY Times and all other MSM outlets that were cheer leading for the "One" this fall. Clear thinking moderates are voting with their pocket book NOT to buy form these one sided media outlets. I will thoroughly enjoy watching them all go away one by one as their phony reporting and lousy business skills seal their doom.

[goldcoastsailor]

"All the news that's fit to print" is sort of an elitist statement to begin with. The paper was pro Iraq war because of its huge pro Israel bias. They are not credible, and irrelevant outside of NYC proper.

[lwaldmann]

i cannot think of one. New leadership, new direction, non-profit, all great ideas. Bring them on.

Lary Waldman

[bobdob]

And Mr. Ridley, would you consider constantly referring to themselves as "Fair and Balanced" an example of Fox being "up front" with their biases?

[Sandy Goodman - Huffpost Blogger]

The New York Times has won at least 25 Pulitzer Prizes for excellence in journalism since "Pinch" Sulzberger became its publisher in 1992. I challenge Mr. Ridley to name a newspaper that's won anywhere near as many. Sure, as he says, the Times has made its mistakes. But it's one of the few newspapers in this country that's run more for public service rather than for profit and while the present publisher may not be a genius, he's doing his best to keep up its reporting. Who would Ridley like to see take over the Times from the Sulzbergers? Rupert Murdoch? I don't think so. Let him read Murdoch's New York Post for a week as an example of what a newspaper shouldn't be. As for Fox News, which Ridley claims is "up front with their bias," that's nonsense. Remember, Fox's mottos: "Fair and Balanced;" and "We Report, You Decide." Not exactly up front.

[gaudete]

Everyone (except Mr. Goodman) apparently, knows that Pulitzer prizes are 'in the bag,' so they constitute no proof of a paper's quality. I might as well myself a blue ribbon for my blog comments. Yes, a conservative, i freely acknowledge that Fox is conservative, but the 'fair and balanced' mantra is a spoof, which apparently you and others don't understand. it's not so much balanc-ed, as balanc-ing, to abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc, cnn, npr etc. etc.

[noaxe397]

Pulitzer prizes are in the bag. That's what Rupert Murdoch thinks of them. That's why WSJ hard news people wanted an internal review board to keep Murdoch's Page 6 mentality from turning the WSJ into the NY Post.

[Flybynite]

"Fair and balanced" is a spoof? Well, that's news to the rest of us. I wonder if you would agree that the Republican Party's proposed solutions to America's problems are a spoof as well. None of it is a laughing matter, my friend. You can't palm off lies and deceit as spoofs and expect to be taken seriously.

[realpolitic]

Funny how conservatives say everything is in the bag from Pulitizer's to climate change science. It is a very lazy and cynical world view.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Winning prizes might just mean the competition has quit the field. Do they take some of the prizes away every time you pull a "yellowcake?"

"Has made it's mistakes" - they are not mistakes, they were policies. Whipping up a war with Iran is another such policy.

I don't think anyone is talking about a Murdoch taking over - they are talking about the lying NYT disappearing. To suggest it MUST exist, and the only question is who owns it, is a false choice.

Finally, that Fox is horrible does not make the NYT good. That also is a false dichotomy.

[truthbetold99]

Pulitzers are like Oscars--they don't go to the best, they go to the most popular. Sure, sometimes the two line up, but not always. Also for fun, someday check out which newspapers are represented on the Pulitzer board and then which papers win the most...you­'ll see there's a lot of overlap.

[realpolitic]

You're right, sir! What conservatives hate most is a factually driven press. They really despise any medium that does not simply re-enforce their ideology and preconceptions. Conservatives are rigid in their world view. For example, after Bush devastated the economy with tax cuts for the weakthy, conservatives wanted the remedy to be more tax cuts for the wealthy. Ridley gets on really crazy terriority when he excuses Fox News. O'Reilly insists every night he is non-partisan and that the existence of Alan Colmes shows Fox is "fair and balanced," even though they cast aspirations at Obama night and day. To compare the New York Times and Fox, as Ridley does, is like comparing the National Enquirer with the Times. It is an example of the intellectual laziness on the far right.

[realpolitic]

"Fox News may be a hack outfit, but they're up front with their bias. And despite their lowered bar of expectations, can you honestly name as many scandals of significance perpetrated by their "reporters" over a similar period of time?"

The existence of Fox News is a scandal. Their attempt to silence any dissent of warmongering is a scandal. Their constant use of disinformation, misinformation, and the shouting down of reasonable, rational voices is scandalous.

Wake up, Ridley!

The New York Times has the occasional rogue journalist in the pocket of government, like Judith Miller. On Fox News, the conspiracy is driven by management . Their journalists must tow the ultra-conservative line. What other organization reads RNC talking points as their own reporting?

[zaz33]

The MSM is like many problems we have in this country.

Tear them down and either start over again or let something else replace them.

The MSM have failed the American people.

[realpolitic]

The conservative constant attack on the media and on any factually driven press, and on science is insidious and over time is self-defeating. What is the alternative? Perhaps not being informed. I am sure conservatives would love that and it would be easier for them to fill our heads with misinformation. Conservatives are at war with any medium that does not accept that whatever one believes is true, science being an example. Many conservatives deny climate change just because they don't believe it. America and conservatives in particular must realize that believing something does not make it true. In fact, it often has little significance. To the far right, ego is everything and if they believe somehting then it is beyond dispute or protected by the first amendment or some such nonsense.

[gaudete]

Ah, the old lib speak, where only they have the "factually driven press," because they are (think they are) smarter than us. And so humble--and condescending. There are responsible, accredited scientists who disagree with the algore establishment on global warming, but the science leadership is like the old politburo but not as kind--you get drummed out of the profession if you dare disagree with the all knowing wizards of Oz, the men behind the curtain, our self-appointed high priest in white coat vestments.

[jbatch]

Wow. You, sir, are a testament to how one can hold onto a biased view against all odds.

We don't desire a "factualy driven press because we think we're "smarter than you." We do so because we like to deal in facts.

Which brings me to your "algore" slam. If by "credible scientists" you mean Ihoffe's collection of weathermen with 6 weeks training, statisticians and others with no training in climate, forget it; they aren't experts, they're ideologues. Name one climatolgist who doesnt' think we're causing global warming and that it's bad. Singer and Michaels' vote cant count until they quit accepting all that money from coal and oil boys.

[jazzman]

John your correct. The NY Times has made some serious errors. None were greater than it's reporting regarding on the efficacy of the intelligence building up to the Iraq War. Judith Miller, the famed imbedded journalist disgraced journalism with her synchophantic reporting and yes,Jayson Blair knocked a hole in the paper that has continued to stain it to this day.

However, overall the NY Times has been and continues to be the best news organization in the United States. With the growth of outlets like CNN, USA Today, FOX News, MSNBC, The NY Post, and, yes, the Washington Post (not to mention the Washington Times), I shudder to think about what the journalistic landscape would look like without a NY Times. Yet, the only thing it seems, keeping the NY Times from becoming another corporate version of Pravda for the Right that fills our news stands these days are the Sulzbergers.

Yes, the paper is bashed daily by all those conservatives that salivate at having the last major news outlet that's not controlled by huge corporate and right wing interests fall but I hold out hope that the paper will continue and that a family like the Sulzbergers, imperfect as they are, will continue to guard it from becoming the next prostituted jounrnalistic organ in this country.