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

[WoodyCPM]

For twenty years I've believed that the NYTimes is one of the most overrated newspapers in the world. Sure it has many fine features: the Science section, Arts & Leisure, the cooking, travel sections, the Book Review section, the half of the opinion page without Dowd, Friedman, and Kristol. Section A? Propaganda fit only for fish wrap.

[gaudete]

This is most appropriate, since the Times always opines for assisted suicide, so it is pleasant to watch its hari-kari. And may it take its little wannabe brother the Boston Globe with it. "Fox News may be a hack outfit, but they're up front with their bias." As a conservative, I agree, of course Fox is intentionally 'imbalanced.' But that has always been my gripe that the Times, Post, Globe etc. are not so much intentionally biased, but they truly think they are reporting the objective news, that they have no bias, because they live solely in the insulated northeast corridor-left coast ivory tower leftie redoubts, sneer at the fly over states, and like the maybe-Pauline Kael quote, 'don't know anyone who voted for Nixon [or Reagan, or either Bushes, or McCain etc.]'

[NoToGOP08]

The NYT may have made many mistakes, but the instances you cite account for maybe 10%....and oddly enough cite the very 'celebrity' reporters that make you angry.

I love the arts, business and world sections of the paper. And their multimedia stuff is really interesting.

No, the NYT cannot be allowed to implode. Though Maureen Dowd should be allowed to.

[DrCulturae]

Agreed about the 10%, but you fail to mention editorial decisions in all areas of the paper during the past 10+ years tended to slant toward forces in power, even - if you'll look carefully - in the sections you mention favorably. I suspect they have done this in order to become 'the nation's newspaper,' i.e initially to offset the threat of USA Today & Murdoch. It seems they did not notice that newspapers themselves could become inconsequential only if they abandoned their long-held journalistic practices and scruples. In the new economy cash flow won't come from access to power, but from credibility. Footnote: See Daily Show & Obama WH press practice.

Barstow's extraordinary series show all is not lost, but where WERE these stories before? Where was their Katherine Graham?

Rich ends up as one of the last remaining credible, incisive, readable writers there.

[SnapShots]

I interviewed w/ the NYT nine years ago for a position in their San Francisco office. At the end of that meeting we decided it was not a good fit, as I was already making triple what they were offering. That afternoon they called me back and asked me to fly to NY to meet the big guys. So I sacrificed my weekend, took an extra day off, and off I went. What the heck. A trip to NY is always entertaining. When I arrived, they hadn't booked my hotel and I had to use my own credit card to check in. When I got to their office the next morning, they were very unorganized. When meeting with one of the VP's, he said, "Tell me why you are the best person for this job." He expected me to get on my knees and beg him for a job that payed 1/3 what I was already making. I did no begging. Instead, I flew home and sent them an email the next day. In it, I said they didn't know what they were doing and asked them not to waste any more of my time. That's the day I lost respect for the NYT.

[TrollDiddy]

interesting post, SnapShots. Did they ever pay you for your trip expenses?

I cannot imagine wanting to live in NYC, especially at 1/3 the salary.

[PrinceHal]

Oh, Gee Whillikers, SnapShots, I guess you're right, If the Times isn't smart enough to hire ypu and me, or treat us like royalty, it deserves to fail, and this country deserves to lose its best and most important newspaper,

Too bad the Times doesn't have more unbiased, self-effacing folks like you, me and John Ridley contributing to its daily news report.

[SnapShots]

I wouldn't have fit at the NYT because they didn't want to hear what I had to say about the future of the newspaper industry. "Best and most important newspaper" is a matter of perspective. Most people don't need the NYT to understand what's going on in the world. There are plenty of other sources. As long as newspaper board rooms dictate self-censorship for any reason other than libel or slander, American newspapers will continue to become more hacky. Has the NYT invested in any national or international news bureaus lately? The internet and non-profit media has allowed true journalism to seperate itself from Wall Street. How the NYT incorporates such principles into its business model will be for us all to see.

[realpolitic]

You sound terribly self-centered!

[klondiker]

Pardon my saying so, but you sound a little full of yourself. I don't know where you currently work - maybe the place is as significant for the NYT. But, the NYT is an American, heck even a global, institution. Working for them is a privilege.

I also don't know what your family siutation is like. Maybe you really need the money, and that's perfectly valid. But, a lot of people work at NYT, just for the opportunity of having worked at a place like that, not necessarily for the money.

[SnapShots]

No, in my opinion, working for the NYT is not a privilege. If not kissing rear ends means I'm full of myself, then I gladly accept the appellation. The NYT's business model has been a dinosaur since the dot.com days. They are just a newspaper, for goodness sake. We're not only witnessing a major journalism paradigm shift, but one that's happening very rapidly, and in the case of the NYT, at the last minute, due to poor planning. Journalistic excellence is transcending into other realms. Read this again in five years and you'll know what I'm talking about.

[mrh3]

The NY Times is the worst nationally read paper in the country except for all the rest.

[WoodyCPM]

McClatchy papers are better.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

I can't prove it - but as far as I'm concerned this so-called "paper of record" has been full-square suppartive of the Clean Break policy since day one, when they obsessed after Bill Clinton's trivialities when Mr. Clinton had the guts to say no thanks to that madness.

It is a worthless waste of trees and only exists now to start a war with Iran - I wouldn't be surprised if they see the writing on the wall and are just trying to hang on long enough to get that accomplished.

That's my opinion.

[ReadyNow]

You can add Edmund Andrews to the list of stellar Times reporters. Imagine an economics reporters being part of the cause of the big meltdown he was supposed to cover.

[RealistDem]

Any paper that has Frank Rich, should never go under.

[annefuller02]

Frank Rich is the only column worth reading in the Times. But he is so good that he would get a job anywhere, any time.

[Bloggerrogr]

Rich is a great writer. I'm certain there are already offers waiting for him to jump this sinking (stinking?) ship

[WoodyCPM]

Frank Rich will live on. I adore him, but he's better than the NYTimes.

[jazzman]

Amen!

[laserbob]

We're having a similar problem up here in Canada, our case however involves our entire
broadcasting system!! The Asper family of Winnipeg went on a massive shopping
spree about 8 years ago and pretty much bought up every television station of any
significance, as well as our major movie studio "system", basically "Our MSM" is
owned and operated by this one family, where the figurehead father passed away
about two years ago and left it to his completely incompetent son. So, now they
are faced with $3.9B in immediate debt, with some $30M interest
that is going on six months late and has been delayed by the banks for
the 6th time to give them a chance to find a bail out. Meanwhile, our local
news stations that they own have been literally gutted, these brainiac's, in a move
to save money removed all the control rooms and moved all editorial control to
one location for some 5 major market stations. Not even a camera operator
remains during the news, only a talking head in front of a green screen showing
"news central".
This of course happened during the deregulation of cross
ownership brought on by our version of Bush Jr., "Harper Light"...
I don't know where they find these people!!
Sorry about the rant, I'm just disgusted with the media.. (these clown's just
sold off "The New Republic"), did I mention they also own our major news
papers too?
GRRRRRR.

lb

[apolloguide]

...thanks for putting the criticism between the eyes. They are the whores of the establishment. Thank you. kudos !!!!!!!!!

[kimk3]

And don't forget holding the wireless wiretapping story for over a year, decidedly not reporting it before the 2004 presidential election, which undoubtedly would have changed the outcome (in terms of giving Kerry a bigger majority than he already had so it would have been theft-proof by Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell and Mike Connell).

[fisharefreinds]

There are no scandals at the Wall Street Journal because it has long been the mouthpiece of Peggy Noonan (spell? who cares!) ugh!, and the neo con party. You said it yourself, I used to read it for the business news, but now that I have no money, it is useless.

I would hate to see the New York Times taken away from the Sulzberger family, perhaps they could find new blood and management while maintaining control. Who knows. There is no paper like it in this country and it has had difficulties--would love to see the Book Review get into the political and philosophical reviews it did in the past, lately it has been a bit fluffy. They have made the decision to be middle of the road, and that has hurt their reporting tremendously. (Can't be all thing to all Corporate sponsers) Still they really bring an intellectual focus to news that cannot be matched by the Seattle Times or LA Times or Boston Globe, you name it! Propaganda? OK, but so are the others....

[WoodyCPM]

"Intellectual focus" has nothing whatever to do with getting the facts right. The "News" section of the Times is a joke. McClatchy did a much, much better job of reporting the facts in the run up to the Iraq War than the NYTimes did. Much better...and where are they located? Somewhere in Kansas I think or Missouri. There are several good news reporting organizations in the country. None of them have anywhere near the reach that the Times or broadcast news has. The point is that the NYTimes does not deserve the reputation as "the paper of record." In fact, it's a dangerous and misleading honor. Historians rely on newspaper stories to write histories. Good historians don't rely on just one source. Bad, lazy historians do. As Orwell made clear, he who controls the past, controls the future.

[FatherKindly]

Your analysis is very sad but right on target and I am grateful for it. I used to be a daily subscriber to The Times but now limit myself to the Sunday paper for the book reviews, the magazine, the arts section, and Frank Rich, who has his head and his heart both in the right place. As for news through the week, I sift the Internet since no one source is either comprehensive or, worse, trustworthy.

[djwfutbol]

This, from a man who writes for Esquire? Please. The paper is struggling but it could return to its former glory with proper management. Other publications never had any glory to return to.

[Callyson]

Am I the only one with a divided view on this question?
On the one hand--no question the NYT has its flaws, as this column & some posters here point out. It does have a smug attitude about NYC, is not the most pro-labor publication, and has not always had the strongest fact checking, especially of its star reporters.
But: it is still the most well written and thorough daily in the US. The depth of its coverage, & especially the scope of its international reporting, are unmatched. As much as I enjoy the HP, it does not have as many stories about the world beyond American borders.
I am not saying the NYT should not be called out on its flaws, at all: but there is a big difference between being a critical reader and saying "let it fall." Let the NYT go, and what will replace it? The Fox Times? Yikes!

[TommyMcCarthy]

No, you are not..............

Like democracy,......the NYT is the worst..............except for all the others

Regards
tm