Comments on: You’ll never work for the New York Times again … in three acts

By: Bob Riley

Bob Riley — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:13:06 +0000

Looking forward to Act 2; expose the history of the Times. Keep up the great reporting.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:47:53 +0000

NY Times covered up the number of people that Stalin killed prior to WW II and after the War. I’m happy to see the NY Times lose money . I would never trust what is written in NY Times. Only a fool would buy or advertise in N Y Times. I wonder what their real paid circulation numbers are ?

By: Sibyl

Sibyl — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:37:45 +0000

Its work done, Obama doesn’t need the Times anymore.

By: NRA Life Member

NRA Life Member — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:38:48 +0000

Marriu, tell me, does it ever bother you that the Times has to issue a lot of retractions and corrections for errors? Does it bother you the the Times has either no fact checkers, or incompetent ones? Do you read it because it provides credible and verifiable facts, or because it validates your opinions? What is your opinion of Jason Blair and the Times letting him go on making up stories for as long as it did? Do you think that Bill Keller has made serious changes to the Times that counteract Howell Raines’ poor leadership?

Look, if it you read it for entertainment, that’s your business. I suppose the Sports section can accurately report whether the Mets won or lost, but I can get that from ESPN. The larger question I have for a loyal reader is, if you read it for information, how do you square the fact that editorials frequently are masqueraded as news. There’s a reason why news is separate from opinion, but at the Times, there is not a semblance of an attempt to really keep the two separate.

Other than note it, I won’t even get into the release of the anti-terrorist banking surveillance policies of the Bush Administration, other than to note that this was at best, very poor judgement, and at worst, extremely unpatriotic.

By: Marriu

Marriu — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:03:51 +0000

“The Times was no longer worthy of respect.”
Well, that’s your opinion. I think it is still a great paper. I no longer subscribe either, but I have been reading it online for free for the last six years. And there are many, many thousands of freeloaders like me. Thus, there you have one of the financial dilemmas of modern day newspapers.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:00:20 +0000

“It has very little to do with its liberal bias or dishonesty”

I can only offer my own former loyalty to the New York Times as anecdotal evidence. At the beginning of this century, I was a Houston area daily subscriber. The price was not inexpensive, and I was not a wealthy man. Around 2003—I was no longer even interested in the Sunday edition. The Times was no longer worthy of respect.
A large number of former subscribers seemingly came to the same conclusion.

By: Marriu

Marriu — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:41:00 +0000

The Times has to adapt to the dramatic changes in the newspaper industry like all the media outlets. It has very little to do with its liberal bias or dishonesty, as you argue. So stop rubbing your hands in self-congratulation. Since we are on this theme of integrity, why are you dressed in that fatuous outfit like some cheap knockoff of Walter Winchell. You look like and sound like a jackass.

By: POPPABOB

POPPABOB — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:12:56 +0000

You mentioned the motto “All the news that’s fit to print” The reality is that selective ignoring of unpleasant news for the Times gives truth to the old derisive version of their motto” All the news that fits we print”.

By: EdSki

EdSki — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:09:29 +0000

Okay, here’s my personal opinion, which, along with 50 cents should buy you a terrible cup of coffee. But remember, you asked…..

You had me from the start, I find the subject matter fascinating, how so small a group of people could exert such a tremendous influence over so many people.

How ever, it felt to me mostly like it was a commercial for part II. You mention a few facts, but mostly seem to be looking for entertainment value that educational. If that’s your goal, that’s fine, but I’m more interested in the educational aspect of the subject. More facts, more names, more dates, less “flare.”

Again, you asked.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:33:52 +0000

Thank goodness that nobody took my investment advice in 2003. They would have lost a lot of money. It was obvious to me that the New York Times had finally lost its center-left readership. Only the far left was taking it seriously—and that meant the game was up. The rational thing to do was for the Sulzberger family to sell the paper. It was obvious that Pinch had no idea on how to save the Times from ruin. Alas, this did not occur. The Sulzgerger family has subsequently lost hundreds of millions of dollars. What were these supposedly intelligent adults thinking? Six years ago the Sulzbergers could have sold the Times for a huge profit. Who would want to buy it today? Could anyone turn the Times into a profitable venture, or is the paper only useful for those needing tax loses?