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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
While I find the NYT a valuable resource, I read it with a grain of salt. One should always keep in mind that it's the mouthpiece for elite consensus. It also acts as a conduit for right wing disinformation, especially in regards to foreign policy and has a strong pro-business, anti-worker bias, as do all the other major media outlets. Judith Miller was no fluke, and I suspect more than a few of its "journalists" actually work for the foreign policy establishment.
Whatever, the NYT exists on its old reputation as the USA's only newspaper of record. 20 or 30 years ago other papers in America became newspapers of record (LA TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, WSJ). For a very short time the NYT still was a newspaper of record too, But, in a short time, the NYT became unreliable. At least 25 years ago, the NYT no longer was a newspaper of record. The NYT now is unreliable & it is dying. The NYT will fold soon. It is far too late to make the NYT a reliable sheet. The NYT won't ever become a newspaper of record again. There will be blogs, articles & books that will tell the story of the NYT's decline.
John Ridley may do a book, artricle, blog or aid in writing a book about the NYT. As of now the NYT is as reliable as the National Enquirer or the Johnson Family Daily Blute. The NYT is fated to fail, maybe before 6/30/09. No infusion of money is going to save the NYT at this late date. Senor Slim will supervise closing the NYT. He won't let anybody buy the NYT, even somebody with ready money & a record of success as a publisher. The NYT & Pooch Sulzberger will fade into oblivion--very soon.
A general question I've been wondering about for a while--
How can blogs replace conventional newsgathering entities? Is each individual blogger going to pay reporters to cover the stories? Aren't the blogs--for the most part--commenting on news generated by the more traditional methods?
I can understand the idea that online news will replace traditional newspapers and weekly newsmagazines, but that's just altering the form. Not the content.
I like to think of blogs as a watchdog for conventional news. I expect traditional media will have to adapt and go with a more online focus, but I think they will remain the primary source with the blogs replacing the institution of paid punditry limits the debate.
*paid punditry that limits debate.
Bill Kristol was the end of the NYT for me. It wasn't his conservative views but his sloppy, lazy thinking and writing. I will never forgive Pinch for hiring him.
Yeah, like Pravda, the Times should be 100% pure ideologically, not just 98%. The herd of independent minds.
I quit buying the NY Times sometime after about 9 years ago for a variety of reasons, including increasing prices, but most importantly due to their declining quality, unprofessional behaviors and biases. Their ultimate act of hubris is their new building that I go by every working day. They may be beyond redemption due to changing technology, but we still need major newspapers to do deep reporting of local and national issues.
If you lived in Osh Gosh, Michigan or Yakama, WA you would change your mind in a heartbeat.
made a mistake in readin your entry, so sorry, see you believe in print too. But I would miss the NYT so much if it disappeared, does it need to come back from the rightward plunge? Absolutely
not o forget the shady and biased ME reporting.
Jees I love the Times and have for years. You can probably find fault with any organization their size, but the Times is an American institution and I for one would miss it terribly. I had a high school grad friend who worked their for years and loved it. Sorry you feel this way, John.
Therein lies the problem. Your nostalgic affection for the Times as an institution rather than the desire for an objective and accurate paper of record allows them to put out a glossy product with little substance. This is not to say that they do not have talented reporters who do their job with integrity, but it is the editor's responsibility to put out a quality product. They have done a disservice to their readers by burying stories and even printing misleading information. It is wrong to make excuses for an institution burdened with the responsibility of giving accurate information to the public by saying "You can probably find fault with any organization their size." I don't want the NY Times to disappear either, but what good are they if they don't fix the obvious problems they face.
They have buried stories since the papers beginnings, this is not a recent behavior. so?
From Cannonfire:
The Obama administration has decided to oppose the reinstatement of a civil lawsuit filed by outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson.
Obama’s Justice Department says the Wilsons have no legitimate claim to sue. They also put forward another startling claim.
“The Obama administration has gone one step further, suggesting Mr. Wilson failed to provide any evidence that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby harmed him,” Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility reported on their blog Wednesday. “This is particularly ironic because the government had moved to have the case dismissed before the Wilsons had the opportunity to uncover the details of how Ms. Wilson’s covert identity was revealed.
This is vengeance, pure and simple. Joe Wilson supported Hillary and now he must pay.
Oy Vey, John John John. I'm too tired to respond (this NY heat is killin' me), but I can't let this one go.
Your pointin' out 5 or 6 red flags over the last 10 years or so. Even Babe Ruth only batted... (what?)... .375 lifetime.
As a 12 yr. old, I recognized the value of Ray Bonner's reporting of the El Mazote massacre in El Salvador. I don't have the time nor energy to counter your post, but from the Pentagon Papers to coverage of 9/11 to any number of things, the Times has provided the most in-depth, mainstream news-gathering and reporting operation in the world, bar none! (Well, the Guardian ain't bad, and too Frankfurter Zeitung, Die Welt, Reforma [Mexico] and Le Monde), but the Times access, staff, standards set the bar for daily news coverage and investigative reporting among mainstream media. Surely, there are issues, but, man, are you taking a knee-jerk, glass half-empty approach.
2 words that prove john is right maureen dowd
One thing I can't stand is when somebody toots their own, or somebody elses' horn for being an "award-winning" writer without being specific about what the award was for. I searched all over for some details on this writer's Emmy award and all I could find is that it was a "non-news" award. If it was a "non-news" award, why is it used to establish the writer's "bona-fides" for this type of commentary. And what does that say about this writer's credibility when he says that his work has been chosen as "best of the year" by none other than the NY Times and then he turns around and says that they need new leadership? Personally, I don't think the problem is that the NY Times isn't "responsive to their shareholders". I think the problem is that they have shareholders at all. As long as their main goal is to turn a profit for their shareholders, we can't expect much more from the corporate media and their "award-winning" writers than scandalous writing that prefers celebrity to journalistic ethics.
Fox News is not upfront about their bias. They claim to be 'Fair & Balanced'.
Like it or not, you see Sean Hannity bringing on guest's with opposing points of view frequenlty. Just saw Jesse Ventura and Farrell...
with all the times has going for it, it should be the last paper standing and not one of the first on the endangered list. ridley has got it right. the leadership is pathetic, its celebrity journalist are not as good as their reputation. friedmans iraq war cheerleading was , yes , repulsive but at least he remains interesting and unpredictable. dowd is a waste of time and herbert, though i thoughtful gentleman, is as predictable as can be. a lot less tears will be shed for the nytimes then ever once seemed imaginable for a lot of their demise is their own fault
Well, It must be easy to get lost up there with all that snow?
I agree with your post because I see it from a sad perspective watching entropy grow faster than hope.
I figure that within a few years, all information will come from blogging, tweeting, etc. It's pretty much a lost cause to try and save newspapers and TV.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
