NYTimes: Our goal is to manage the transition from print to internet (Uncertain if printed in 5yrs)

Haaretz ^ | Februrary 7, 2007

[SevenofNine]

Shut that damn newspaper down

[Constitution1st]

Darn right it cannot happen fast enough! This article is filled with sulzberger's fantasies. Even now, with reality hitting him in his face, he still lies to himself and everyone within hearing distance. The sign of utter corruption that is so decayed you can count the moments until it collapses. I am buying a bottle of the best champagne for that day.

There is nothing impressive about him nor his rag; it is filled with lies. AND it is a local paper to boot; that is the legacy of POS pinch.

1.5 million subscribers, and who cares what the average age, is nothing compared to 300 million, or even 150 million -- and he knows it :-)

So, sail right on into oblivion on the internet; it is a less public place to fail than on the streets of NYC ;-)

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

"Quick, save the deck chairs!"

[shrinkermd]

"..."I really don't know whether we'll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don't care either," he says...

I don't imagine his employees feel the same way as the statement above.

He intends to charge for the Internet version of the NYT. Good luck.

This Pinch fellow has taken his business and thrown it under the bus. He feels he has accomplished a lot if he defeats the US and President Bush. What a price for all to pay!

[Constitution1st]

sulzie does not talk to the press because they lie, as he well knows :-)

[DenairGuy]

"Save the trees"

A great comment.

I have always been interested in someone researching just how many trees have to be cut down, how many barells of oil consumed, etc., to cut down the trees, convert them to paper, transport the paper to the printing press, to print the newspapers and then to deliver them, followed by how much energy is used in picking up the paper that is not recyled and how much landfill is paper, how much energy again goes into recycling the paper, how much "earth warming" gasses are released in the process of all this, etc.

All so that these people can print their propraganda while preaching at everyone else that they should cut back on their energy use, preaching that we should not drill for any more oil, preaching that the world is coming to an end because of human caused global warming, etc.

I strongly suspect that newspapers use a tremendous amount of natural resources and energy and release a huge amount of "global warming gasses" and it would be great if someone could quantify that amount so that we could call them to account how they justify their use of natural resources and ask them to "lead the way" by shutting down their print presses so as to "save the earth".

Ron B

[george76]

"I really don't know whether we'll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don't care either," he says.

[george76]

Will it be free?

No, Sulzberger says. If you want to read the New York Times online, you will have to pay.

[george76]

the scandal about Jayson Blair, the reporter caught plagiarizing and fabricating, hurt the brand, not the business, he says.

[Milhous]

The Times, in fact, has doubled its online readership to 1.5 million a day

Slimesselect alleges revenues of $9 million for 2006. Those numbers do a great job of vindicating Buffet's take that "owning the dominant news Web site in a region is not enough to guarantee sustained profitability for newspaper firms."

Meanwhile McClatchy Vice President Howard Weaver talks the talk by offering up Capraesque propaganda:

Why we fight

Mr. Weaver, if you were 30 or 35 years old, would you keep working for a newspaper company?

That question at lunch in Fort Worth last week nicely framed everything I'd been talking about during two days at the Star-Telegram. Given all the uncertainty in our business - the hiring freezes, the layoffs elsewhere, McClatchy's sale of the Star Tribune - how can anybody feel good about our profession?

I struggle with those questions myself. Though I'm at a different stage of my career, I still wonder now and then why it's worth getting up and going into the office to fight through another round of unpleasant troubles. Most of my 40 years in newspapers have been richly rewarding (hey, I started in high school, okay?) but none of those years were anything like the last one.

Well, so what? My answer is still unequivocal and clear: yes, I'd absolutely stay - and for the same reasons that I did in the first place.

I simply ask whether what I'm doing is still mission-driven: does it help hold the government accountable, speak truth to power, build community cohesion? Can I still feel at the end of the day (and the end of a career) that what I did was worthwhile, and that it made some difference?

I said here last November that "it looks like we are going to be the generation called on to save American journalism." It sounded kind of over-heated when I wrote it, but I'm more certain all the time that it's true.

I'm working on a longer post that builds on recent discussions about these questions in Modesto, Sacramento, Tacoma and Fort Worth. But I can pass along the conclusion right now: stay and fight, because it's worth it.

[Constitution1st]

Today's propagandist media does not deserve to be saved, and does deserve our utmost to bring it to an end; the new development of blogging and the few truthful newspapers out there are the only things worth saving, and deserve our utmost endeavour to build into a truthful media that can take the place of the liars.

And that work has just begun. We have a lot of work to do in that arena.