s s s s

 ‘Page One: Inside the New York Times’ released to critical acclaim this summer. Displaying meta-journalism at possibly its finest, the documentary chronicled the journey of one man given a golden ticket into the Mecca of journalism itself: The New York Times. Indeed, it takes but a few glimpses of the movie to capture what it is about this establishment that has unfailingly captivated the imaginations and aspirations of so many. The offices of the New York Times, for instance is described as ‘a soaring modern glass tower sheathed in heat-sensitive ceramic tubes in midtown Manhattan. At the new headquarters, technological and environmental advances abound – automatically controlling even the level of the window shades from bright sunlight streaming in from the west.’ The magnificence of its headquarters, its prominence over the years, the scores of learned and dedicated staff, all seem to ensure nothing but ‘happily ever after’ (modern day context: ‘burgeoning share prices for mother company’) lies in the horizon for this empire of wordsmiths.

Yet, it is the contrast between this appearance and the reality that Page One delivers its compelling shock value. The onslaught of the decade that was has brought unforeseeable challenges: in 2009 the Times Company were forced to sell the immaculate headquarters, entering a sale-leaseback agreement that only seems unlikelier they will be able to buy back with every passing year. Meanwhile, the Baghdad Bureau alone is costing 3 million dollars a year to maintain, and then to add insult to injury in walks a man named Julian Assange who carries enough information to outdo all the bureaus at once. Finally, let us not forget the ultimate nature of the industry. News is at the end of the day a commodity. So while the New York Times must have worked God knows how hard to distinguish their product and brand over the better part of two centuries, their brand is every bit as susceptible to scrutiny and challenge as it was the day it began printing, perhaps even more so. Indeed, how many more Judith Millers can the publication survive? (Editor’s Note: Ms. Miller famously reported that Saddam Hussein held in his possession weapons of mass destruction which later proved to be completely inaccurate) And if even the New York Times can stumble, one cannot help but wonder, has news ever been a truly sustainable industry?

We here at TDI were mighty fortunate to have an opportunity to speak with Kate Novack, the screenwriter and producer of Page One: Inside the New York Times on her thoughts regarding the conundrum of the New York Times, the changing landscape of journalism and possible solutions.

***

Did any aspect of the documentary affect you particularly and change how you viewed the industry that you yourself were a part of?

It really reinforced for me how drastically the industry has changed. I went to journalism school, worked with Time magazine for two years, and when I worked there, the culture was still very much in print. As opposed to now, the gap between what some people call old media and new media is closing and they were sort of becoming obsolete terms. New media and old media are really just combining to become media.

And if you had to narrow it down, would you say that this combination of new media and old is one thing you wanted audiences to take away from your documentary?

Yes, I mean I think that the two main characters in this film, David Carr and Brian Stelter embody that conversion. I mean, on one hand, you see David Carr practicing old-school journalism, but at the same time adopting innovative tools via Twitter, for example. He now has a twitter following of over 300,000 people, the size of a daily newspaper. Contrarily, Brian Stelter (Editor’s note: another reporter depicted in the documentary) really is a digital native first and foremost, but he is equally learning about how to be an editor, which is the traditional strength of the Times. Hence, those characters really embody what’s been happening in this industry.

With the influx of social media such as Twitter and Facebook now, will marquee journalists such as David Carr be increasingly able to leave their legacy media homes while maintaining of their following? Significantly, would this then would alter the conventional path of pursuing journalism? In that the norm could be to aspire towards a legacy media for a couple of years, then depart as a brand name of your own, and start a Twitter account?

Yeah, I mean we have some examples of that. A good example seems to be Ezra Klein, especially when we were having the healthcare debate a couple of years ago, he in fact really served as one of the leading voices and as a result was earning front coverage – all on his own. So there are successful examples of that we have already. And for example David Carr, as aforementioned, has a Twitter following of around 350,000 people, which on its own would be a publication. Obviously, Ezra Klein made a name from the Washington Post, David Carr has a big platform because he writes for the New York Times, hence it is plausible to see a trend from that.

In fact, the trend may forgo the pathway of legacy media altogether. Brian Stelter, before he came to be a reporter in the New York Times, built a website that had a big following: TVNewser, he has no legacy media home. It wasn’t a platform the size of The New York times at all.

What is the importance of legacy media outlets like the New York Times?

When it all comes down to it, certain kinds of reporting are expensive. If you’re working in Baghdad, you need translators, security, and lawyers for certain stories. The Baghdad bureau costs over 3 million dollars to run (Source: Vanity Fair - 'The New York Times' Lonely War"), and it is an inescapable reality that there are some stories given to the public that has to incur great costs. Someone working a big platform could do some original reporting, sure, and then go off on their own, but to sustain on the ground reporting, in a warzone for example, that would be very hard to do on your own.

Turning to the New York Times, David Carr (the protagonist of the documentary and a reporter of the NYT) repeatedly emphasizes his adamancy that the Times will survive. Is this a view you share, that the New York Times can still survive despite producing high cost articles on one hand and facing competition from mere news aggregates that operate at a fraction of their budget?

I definitely do think the New York Times will survive, and I agree with David that the NYT does not need to be a monolith to survive. In fact, I don’t think it can be a monolith anymore, and it is much less of a monolith than what it used to be.

You once mentioned that Wikileaks is a metaphor for changing times. To clarify that, is it a metaphor because it represents a change in the nature of how sources are obtained, of whether they need to be obtained through all the ‘proper’ channels, or is it rather a change in the level of involvement of the source in the reported story?

I think I can best answer this question by referring to the chapter in the book when we interview Susan Chera, who was then the foreign editor of the NYT, on the emergence of Wikileaks. One of the things she said that really stayed with me was when she candidly admitted ‘I think we are all a lot more humble about what we think we can control’. And while it’s definitely metaphoric in many ways, I think the most significant one is the almost psychic shift in newsrooms, in the once all-powerful news rooms, that the world has changed, and technology has shifted and dispersed powers to some extent, and that they may not have as much control over the knowledge people are privy to. 

Finally, many times contributors in the book align the survival of New York Times with a cornerstone of democracy. Is this a view you share?

On-the-grounds original reporting that is carefully edited is vital to democracy. It is important to note that these can come into many forms, it can come over the internet, it can come from individuals. A significant study done in Baltimore, for instance, looked at several indices after the newspaper in that region was severely curtailed or went out of business. These figures include voter turnout, corruption in government. Turns out voter turnout visibly went down, corruption went up, so clearly there is a measurable impact to a community when good journalism disappear from the area.

To add to this though, I wanted to be clear that the existence of the web is good for democracy, and we’ve seen that with social media also. And the truth is we’ve seen a good example of the power of the web through Wikileaks disclosure of the diplomatic cables. There were cables that were about Tunisia, and about how the rich were living so large there. Ultimately, there is evidence that it helped spur the Arab Spring. So that is an example of the web playing a role in democracy. So I don’t want to sound as if my view of the web is the death knell of democracy. I don’t believe that.

With the telling indication of that previous study then, I venture this follow up question – do you think it is an existing possibility that quality journalism could convert to a public good directly supported by the government, in order to resolve the tightrope between commercial enterprise and public welfare?

Right, this is not a totally black or white issue, in fact, the government nowadays already subsidizes magazines to some extent for instance. They get a cut rate on postage. But the idea of a government funded newspaper, I mean we asked Carl Bernstein (Editor’s note: Carl Bernstein is a renowned journalist who among other things, uncovered the Watergate scandal for the Washington Post) this question, and he said there was absolutely no way that it could work. David Carr says the same thing. Carr’s argument is even if he didn’t feel like he couldn’t chase down a senator, who was responsible for funding his paper, the perception of that would be debilitating.

Finally, onto the premise of future journalism, with so many outlets for journalism now, what advice would you have for aspiring journalists who really want to stand out in this information, if not news, era?

I would say that an aspiring journalist should learn and hopefully respect the fundamental values of journalism, which to me is most importantly adhering to original on-the-ground reporting, making sure you do everything you can to make sure the report is accurate and fair. And at the same time, I think developing young journalists should exploit their identity as digital natives, after all, they grew up with this technology. It is critical that future talents of journalism aggressively and seriously embrace new technology, and think outside the box about the platforms available for journalism. Tied to this idea, there is in fact a story I love, of when we interviewed Paul E. Steiger, who was the editor of the Wall Street Journal, and is now a founding member of Propublica, a hybrid media outlet working with legacy media. He mentions that when he was hiring to create a newsroom for Propublica, he could have filled the room with Pulitzer winners, after all, he knew the best journalists in the business, but he didn’t want to do that. He said he wanted it to be a split between those people and young people who had grown up with this technology. And he wanted there to be cross-pollination between the two. So what he really envisioned was for the old timers to teach the tricks of the trade, but he said what has been a big surprise is the degree of learning that had gone in the other direction. I think that should be, most of all, a story that should be heartening for young journalists.

***

The accompanying collection of essays to 'Page One: Inside the New York Times' is now available for purchase at major bookstores. The documentary itself can be purchased at Amazon.