« Reid Praises Limbaugh For Record EBay Letter Sale
Why Don’t You Come With Me, Little Girl, on a Magic Carpet Ride: An Aerial View of World News »
The (N.Y.) Times They Are A-Changin’
It has been a tough decade for the venerable New York Times. After winning a record seven Pulitzer Prizes for post-9/11 coverage that exemplified the great journalism the newspaper has produced for 150 years, it has been pretty much all downhill.
To be sure, the Times has been buffeted by market forces beyond its control, but its problems are substantially of its own doing, including scandals involving reporters Jayson Blair and Judith Miller and other ethical lapses, forays into purple prose that would have been unthinkable in the past, and abject unobjectivity. And behind the scenes there has been a battle royal over whether the paper is being properly served by the Sulzberger family, the majority shareholder.
The answer to that question according to brokerage giant Morgan Stanley, is a resounding “no” as the Times‘ second largest shareholder this week dumped its entire $183 million stake in the Gray Lady.
Times stock dropped to the lowest it has been in a decade, but in a commentary for ABC News entitled “Silicon Insider: How The New York Times Fell Apart,” Michael S. Malone says that the actual damage is probably even larger than that.
He writes that the Morgan Stanley sell-off had been expected since April after Hassam Elmasry, managing director of Morgan’s Investment Management Group, failed in his attempt to challenge the Sulzberger family’s iron grip on the Times.
Malone says that on the surface, the battle appears to be all about power. After all, the Sulzbergers have run the Times for several generations, with family scion Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr., widely viewed as a lightweight in a heavyweight job, currently at the helm.
But, says Malone:
“When B-school students a half-century from now read the case study about the ‘death’ of newspapers, it will be the New York Times they read about.
“As hard as may be for younger readers of this column to believe, twenty years ago, the New York Times was unquestionably the newspaper of record for the United States and (with the London Times) for much of the rest of the world. It had the most famous reporters and columnists, its coverage set the standard for all other news, and its opinions, delivered ex cathedra from the upper floors of the Gray Lady on 43rd Street set the topics of this country’s political debate.
“Incredibly, almost every bit of that power has been squandered over the last two decades. It’s been a long time since anyone considered the Times to be anything but the newspaper of opinion for anyone but the residents of a few square miles of midtown Manhattan. Indeed, about all the newspaper has left of the old days under ‘Pinch’s’ dad, Arthur ‘Punch’ Sulzberger, is that old Times imperiousness — earned back then, and more than a little absurd today.”
Malone argues that the decline in the Times‘ reputation would have occurred without the emergence of the Internet and traces the turning point to the early 1990s when the paper began to more prominently display on its front page opinion pieces and features.
I happen to think that was a welcome change, but not Malone:
“At first, this was dismissed as a mere pandering to the changing tastes of a readership raised on television and gonzo reporting. But it was a first glimpse of the pandering to a supposedly hipper, more sophisticated audience that would become pandemic across the Times’ pages under the threat of the Internet age.
“At about the same time, I got an early glimpse of how the Times would mishandle the technology side of its business as well. One day, several years after I’d stopped writing my column for the paper, I received a letter from the Times demanding that I retroactively sign over all electronic rights to my stories and columns on file at the newspaper.
” . . . This controlling attitude towards its content — the antithesis of the desires of the providers of that content, who wanted to maximize readership and impact — only grew more virulent in the face of the growing Web revolution and its successful movement towards open content.”
Malone notes that the Times had plenty of company in trying to enforce an unworkable business model, but made another mistake which it alone could make and ultimately led to the Morgan Stanley stock dump and Times stock sell-off:
“Most newspapers adopted the always dangerous strategy of trying to become more like one’s competitors rather than establishing the defensible position of being even more true to oneself. Like most newspapers, the Times decided to become more timely, more hip, and more judgmental than the electronic media — when it should have become better reported, more objective, and better written; professionalism being the one arena where the new competitors would have a hard time competing.
“What made the Times‘ decision not to pursue this strategy particularly stupid was that it was, after all, ‘America’s newspaper of record’, a role in which it justly reveled. But you can’t hold that title while pandering to the political and cultural views of readers on the Upper West Side. And you can’t claim ‘all the news that’s fit to print’ when you neglect to notice that an American soldier in Iraq just won the Medal of Honor. In the old days, if the Times didn’t cover it, it didn’t happen. That insulation is long gone: if the Times doesn’t cover it, the blogosphere will — and millions of readers will starting wondering about the judgment and biases of the New York Times.”
Forgive me, but I get a little touchy when I read pieces like Malone’s because he makes an assumption that I find way off base — That the Times and newspapers in general should be run like any other capitalist venture, be it the manufacture of widgets or running a trucking company.
I get touchy because I watched my beloved Knight-Ridder go down the tubes because its stock price became more important than the quality of its newspapers. That also is at work at the Times, and it’s a frickin’ shame.
I have a second problem, as well: Implicit in Malone’s indictment is that the Times should not have changed in fundamental ways and should have remained the newspaper of record. That’s silly.
Incidentally, the Times “isn’t covering the fire in its own building,” according to blogger Don Surber, who is a vocal part of the peanut gallery who would like nothing more than see the newspaper founder.
That’s a little too strong for me, but the Times‘ own story on the Morgan Stanley bombshell raised more questions than it answered, and included an offensive “no comment” from the paper’s own spokeswoman.
27 Responses to “The (N.Y.) Times They Are A-Changin’”
[...] House The (N.Y.) Times They Are A-Changin’ » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
The Sulzberger’s dual-class NYT stock scam is indicative of the collapse in values at the Times.
The practice of non-voting shares is a perversion of capitalism and responsible corporate governance…and it is perhaps reflective of the collapse in values at the Times. Morgan Stanley’s decision doesn’t mean anything in one way, as all those millions in stock they sold are non-voting. The Sulzbergers rigged the system years ago, like the Robber Barons of old, giving themselves total control.
Worse, while the NYT has always had a liberal bias – not endorsing a Republican presidential candidate since 1956 – it is becoming more biased as its readership shrinks to the Upper East Side, the professorate and a handful of liberals.
Its refusal this past week to even acknowledge in a couple of lines a New Yorker being awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously – heroism recognized by every other paper in the city – is indicative of the Times’ editors bitterness towards the US military which is only thinly disguised these days.
It’s not uncommon practice, though, is it?
It is hard to feel sympathy for any left of center newspaper having financial difficultites. For decades such newspapers have support policies that would lower the number of potential readers.
Didn’t the NY Times realize that a policy of open borders and unlimited immigration would fill NYC with people who have no tradiation of newspaper reading, with people who are not literate in English, and with people who see the Times as something that only rich whites read.
Didn’t the NY Times realize that when NYC schools decided that social engineering was much more imortant than academic learning, that the number of future readers would steadily decease as the schools turned out people who cannot read at the high school level.
Didn’t the NY Times realize that when it promoted soft on crime politcies that it would push the middle classes out of the city and into the far suburbs where they would get up too easly in the morning to be bothered to read the newspaper?
OMG you did NOT just call the NYT Liberal!
OK! There’s more to being liberal than liking buttsex and abortion!
Damnit MarloweC, go read the Daily Howler. Dig through the archives. Read about what Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd (“Liberals”) wrote about Al Gore. Learn about Seelye.
Go back farther, and remember Wen Ho Lee: the Times ruined a man’s life to try to get Clinton! Remember?
The Times’ endorsements have been a dainty fig leaf over a raging, plutocratic hardon. The NYT hates major democratic hopefuls. They are just anti-theocracy and anti-gun, so this makes them “liberal” to some people. It’s just not true! The NYT, Sulzberger’s little masturbatory club of greedy, LIBERTARIAN, elitist douchebags, is just as committed to imperialism and low taxes as the next gaggle of millionaires.
Yes, MarloweC, “libertarian” is the word for people who are anti-tax, pro-war AND pro-choice! Not liberal! They are obviously a bunch of rich douchebags who really, really hate people who might raise their taxes! Look at the John Edwards’ haircut episode!
And this is true throughout the press corps, so let’s hope the same thing happens to the Washington Post, et al. Those guys are really not even trying to be journalists anymore.
See, the WSJ will put funky stories on the front page to serve the editors’ agenda, but the stories are actually good, i.e. they have journalistic integrity, facts, accuracy, yes, those. In the other big papers, folks like Sulzberger and Graham hire pet douchebags to just make shit up, essentially. And it’s not really liberal. Gah, just stop parrotting that right-wing myth. When you’re Ruper Murdoch, everything looks like a liberal conspiracy. Go to politicalcompass.org and tell me how left-wing things really are!
Frankly, the last real liberal with any power in the news media was Dan Rather, and they got him! Oooweee!
I know that the penchant to turn the comments thread to most every post into a partisan tug-of-war is uncontrollable for some of you folks, but the Times‘ ills have little to do with its political bent.
We’re talking about bad business decisions and bad journalistic decisions, including a relaxation of standards. Please note that an awful lot of the papers that have foundered and failed in recent years are decidedly right-of-center.
Komrad Marlow – Capitalism and greed is good, let the market dictate the fate of the NYT. But, I thought that the market leads to efficiency and choice. Look at Kirkorian’s manipulation of GM and Chrysler. The Germans at Daimler were suppose to fix Chrysler, they rob the bank at the corporate and pension levels. Without functional oversite, the free market and government (Iraq)are both a mess.
Shaun,
Of course, the biggest bad business decision was to continue to believe that they could sell a newspaper in a city where the number of people capable of reading an English language newspaper was decreasing. The NY Times is in the same business situaiton was the white-owned mom-and-pop dinner in South Texas. There just is not enough potential customers in their geographic area to sustain the business.
What makes it humorous is that the entire editorial staff at the NY Times had to pretend that everyone in the U.S. is culturally the same while the business collapse because of differences in different demographic groups in the NYC.
Shaun,
Of course, the biggest bad business decision was to continue to believe that they could sell a newspaper in a city where the number of people capable of reading an English language newspaper was decreasing. The NY Times is in the same business situaiton was the white-owned mom-and-pop dinner in South Texas. There just is not enough potential customers in their geographic area to sustain the business.
What makes it humorous is that the entire editorial staff at the NY Times had to pretend that everyone in the U.S. is culturally the same while the business collapse because of differences in different demographic groups in the NYC.
Superdestroyer:
Thank you for yor predictably racist tail wagging. You are off base as usual.
The Times, unlike the Daily News, Post and Newsday, does not live or die by its metro circulation.
Nice try, but no tamale.
Shorter SuperD.
It’s the BROWN PEOPLE!!!!
You’re always talking about the coming irrelevance of the GOP.
I think there’s a bit of projection in play there.
SD-
Once again, you just ‘know’ all about how many people speak English in NY, etc.
Since I do live in NYC, I can tell you that your font of knowledge has long run dry.
NYC is an international Babel, with ethnocentric enclaves. Successive generations of immigrants emerge from their new arrival status… speaking English They join the native born Americans to
keep English alive and healthy.
It would really help you if you tried learning instead of “knowing’.
Shaun,
Any newspaper that depends upon circulation outside of its metropolitan area is also making a business mistake. How buys out of town newspapers when you can read them on line.
There is nothing racist about pointing out that Asian Americans read newspapers at about half the rate of Whites. Most newspapers know that blacks are more likely to read the newspaper than either asians, Hispanics, or Eastern European immigrants.
Look at all of the newspapers that have tried to add Spanish language section while refusing to admit that very few Hispanics can actually read Spanish.
There is also the problem that immigrants who do not feel part of the community. They are not going to be interested in reading the community happening section of the newspaper. Do you really think that someone living in an all Hispanic neighborhood where all interactions are conducted in Spanish is every going to read a newspaper?
To refuse to face the problems that “diversity” has created for schools, local governments, and even the media demonstrates that newspapers are so locked into political correctness that they are incapable of developing a business plan that will be profitable.
Davebo,
Actually the decline of newspaper reading goes hand in hand with the decline of republican/conservative voters. There is a high correlation between newspaper reading and voting Republicans. As fewer Americans are capable of reading English in a newspaper, the number of people who are possible Republican voters also goes down.
domajot,
It is hard to argue that ethnic groups become newspaper readers when newspaper readership is so low in those very ethnic groups. Do you really think that anyone who belong to the Korean Merchants associations is interested in reading a newspaper that announces which rich white person is marrying some other rich white person?
As I have argued before, as the demographics of the U.S. become to resemble the demographics of California, the politics and political habits of current day California will become the political environement of all of America.
Superdestroyer:
The Times does not “depend” on those newly arrived and recently assimilated people of color that you obsess about week in and week out. It is a national paper with the most read Internet edition in the U.S., a steady and growing source of online ad revenue.
The NYT is the paper everyone loves to hate, but if it fails to reverse its misfortunes, it will be the paper most sorely missed.
With all its faults, warts and missteps, it delivers something unrivaled: something for everyone.
By reading its arts and entertainment section, for example, even the housebound can keep up with the latest developments. Keeping up by reading a one package deal instead of flitting around the Internet to get bits and pieces is a quality experience. At the very least, it provides a starting point on hundreds of topics that can then be further explored through other channels.
All these rants about MSM are an example of not seeing the forest for the trees. The alternative on the horizon is the Murdoch paradugm of sole source news control producing a lobotomized nation of news consumers not even bothering to question or criticize.
I, for one, hope that there’s life in the old NYT yet.
Re: SuperDestroyer
Dear Everyone,
Please don’t feed the troll. Thank you.
Sincerely,
beaverton_jewboy
Anyway, thanks, Shawn, for ignoring my points and trying to bury them as mere partisanship.
The lowering of the Times’ quality is part and parcel with what I was talking about: They’re a bunch of rich douchebags who just write what they want! It’s all about “Narrative” and good journalism be damned!
Trying to separate that from the paper’s right-wing bias and just saying “partisanship” is absurd! Judith Miller! Wen Ho Lee! WTF, Shawn, don’t tell me the NYT’s problems aren’t just as much about that BS as its not having a good web business model! Right-wing bias = low quality journalism! Stop trying to gloss over it!
Morgan Stanley said they were dropping their shares because of Sulzberger’s influence and control! What does that mean to you, if not Democrat-trashing and war-boosting?
Damnit Shawn, stop trying to obfuscate your way into the mainstream press corps. You’ll just lose your soul. And don’t just follow what ABC says, that’s just Disney Corp’s line, for chrissakes. The first rule of the mainstream media: don’t talk about the BS that goes on in the mainstream media!
But everyone knows its crap that’s coming down, slowly but surely. In a few years, the networks will be having problems, too.
I found a story in the New York Times about decreasing circulation. What is odd about the story versus other types of market share stories, is the total abscence of demographic data. If a television network loses viewers it is reported that they lost in the 20-35 Y/O white, male demographics. Television ratings are reported for different demographic groups. But newspapers seem very intent on ignoring the changing demographics of their marketplace and the changing life choices of anyone who is a possible newspaper reader.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/business/media/31papercnd.html?ei=5088&en=e085b0aa9ab0ddb3&ex=1319864400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1192903209-SF1acvvAMFa7sJgnT3Vq6g
Not feeding trolls is an excellent idea.
Jinkies!
This post went everywhere, didn’t it.
I thought Shaun made a good point, though. When I first came here in the early 90s I loved the Times on Sunday.
One could spend an afternoon getting sitting on a patio and reading page after page of generally good writing.
Shaun is right…one has to distinguish between their bad business (cf. the white elephant Pinch is building)…and their bias.
BJ has a sorta point. The friends of the Times on the Upper East Side may consider themselves righteous liberals, but they are certainly plutocrats.
Anyhow, thought this a good post. Ah well…
You’re right, it’s not racist. It’s just a “fact” made up out of mid air with no basis in reality.
Rudi the Red…
Fraternal greetings, comrade. Have missed you, and hope you are well.
I’ve had to be travelling a lot on family health crises these past months…so not at TMV much.
Cheers
Davebo,
You can look at
It states that
At the beginning of the 21st century, readership is lowest among the country’s two fastest-growing minority populations – Asians and Hispanics
and it also states The newspaper industry is failing to attract newer immigrant groups. The backbone of the industry remains non-Hispanic whites and African Americans, the two population groups not growing much.
Beaverton_Jewboy,
Your comment demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of libertarianism.
Libertarians are not “pro-war” as you claim. On the contrary, they are extremely anti-war. The Libertarian Party vehemently opposed the war back when half the Democrats in congress voted for it.
And the New York Times is hardly libertarian. The New York Times is pro-establishment…hardly a libertarian value.
Nick-
You’re right. Apologies to the libertarians. There’s no clear political label for whatever the greedy, cloistered, self-righteous elitists who work at the Times are. At a loss, I used libertarian, since it really is the closest. Sorry for the offense. I’ll try to make a neologism or soemthing next time.
-bjb
[...] The (N.Y.) Times They Are A-Changin’The Moderate Voice – and columnists, its coverage set the standard for all other news, and its opinions, delivered ex to face the problems that “diversity†has created for schools, local section, for example, even the housebound can keep up with the latest [...]