My take away from this article is that they acknowledge that a lot of trouble lies ahead. Ironically, they don't have the courage to state their current state i

My take away from this article is that they acknowledge that a lot of trouble lies ahead. Ironically, they don't have the courage to state their current state in a more factual manner. Instead they offer some vague statements and occasionally some outdated PR-speak > “The world is changing really rapidly,” David Leonhardt, a columnist who led the group’s work, said in an interview. “We have to keep up, and even get ahead of it.” > In a note to the newsroom, Mr. Baquet and Joe Kahn, The Times’s managing editor, endorsed the group’s recommendations, saying they outlined an “opportunity we have to produce an even more vital, more authoritative, more indispensable[0]’’ news report. Wouldn't it be a great ad for their product if they were demonstrating that it is possible for the Times to even report about themselves in a blunt, factual manner? While some admissions are there the overall article is quite humble-bragish. [0] more indispensable - what does that even mean?