24 ms·

I think people are underestimating the importance of the NYT. If the NYT suddenly disappeared tomorrow, I'd argue that, at least in the near term, it would have

I think people are underestimating the importance of the NYT. If the NYT suddenly disappeared tomorrow, I'd argue that, at least in the near term, it would have far-reaching implications for the US as a society, as a political body, and as a culture. I think it would impact the course of global events in very real ways. The NYT, despite its market cap, is thoroughly integrated into the fabric of the US and serves a number of very important functions. If instantgram shut down tomorrow, it wouldn't matter at all. In fact, I think that if Facebook shut down tomorrow it would matter less than if the NYT did. I have no idea if the valuations are crazy, and I don't mean to be making a point about bubbles or anything else. I just think it might be a condition of contemporary capitalism that "importance" and "value" are in many cases unrelated.

_exec 15y ago
>>I think people are underestimating the importance of the NYT. If the NYT suddenly disappeared tomorrow, I'd argue that, at least in the near term, it would have far-reaching implications for the US as a society, as a political body, and as a culture. I think it would impact the course of global events in very real ways. The NYT, despite its market cap, is thoroughly integrated into the fabric of the US and serves a number of very important functions. Would you care to elaborate?
- ForrestN 15y ago
  Take politics for example. The NYT, far more than any other press organization, functions to expose or amplify information about scandals, secret agendas, government mistakes and abuse. It interviews, analyzes and reports on candidates for office in ways that routinely, as in maybe twice a month, significantly impact the trajectory of a campaign and subsequently an election. Another example is Wikileaks, where the NYT played a very important role on several sides of the story. The NYT is very much responsible, especially within the US, of amplifying, editing, and creating much of the narrative around the major Wikileaks dumps it was involved with. And they aren't always a force for "good", and have done a lot to damage Assange's reputation and helped marginalize Wikileaks. I don't think everything the NYT does is great, but they are a hugely important part of many many world-scale developments. You could write similar things about its role as an arbiter and editor of culture, about its influence on the public discourse and the ideas that permeate contemporary life, on its role in business and consumer culture (Foxconn, as a recent example). It touches so many things, and reaches so many, as those in tech might call them, "influencers," that it permeates American life, directly and indirectly.
- Aloisius 15y ago
  A shockingly large amount of non-PR driven, non-public event stories originate at the New York Times and are simply rewritten and repackaged by other news organizations. It is a good bet that what is printed in the New York Times in the morning, goes on tv at CNN, MSNBC and even FNC for the day.
pagekalisedown 15y ago
You may not be trying to make a point about bubbles, but I think many of us will come to the same conclusion. Come to think of it, didn't the last bubble start very similarly too? One over-inflated stock begat another and another..
coob 15y ago
How does societal importance relate to monetary value?
- ForrestN 15y ago
  Right, that's one of the questions I mean to be asking.
kami8845 15y ago
>if Facebook shut down tomorrow it would matter less than if the NYT did. maybe to you, but there's literally millions of people who think the other way around. Facebook is much more widely known around the world (especially to uneducated people) than the NYT is.
- ForrestN 15y ago
  I'm not claiming that the NYT is more famous than Facebook (I have no idea) and I meant to make clear that I'm only talking about the US (although I think the work the NYT does has effects throughout the world). My argument isn't that people would even be aware of the changes to society. I think if the NYT disappeared, many many areas of American life would be altered in important ways, as I attempt to flesh out in other comments.
- silentscope 15y ago
  and yet, the new york times effects every news reporting agency across the world. it's stories define the news cycle, make and brake candidates for president, redefine foreign policy and effect governments all over the entire world. facebook wishes it did that. if the ny times disappeared, there would be a hole that could not be filled by the other news networks. the quality of news, as a whole around the globe, would suffer. There is no comparison. we should remind ourselves to zoom out from the california coastline every once in a while.
  - metamatt 15y ago
    I'm trying hard to let your valid points stand out from the rampant homonym abuse (effects should be affects, it's should be its, brake should be break)!
    - algolicious 15y ago
      You are thinking of "homophone" rather than "homonym." Baseball bat and vampire bat are homonyms.
  - sbuk 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Gobitron 15y ago
I work for and believe in the mission of newspapers, but I beg to differ. I think a more accurate statement would be that if a critical mass of the institutions of journalism as we know it today ceased to exist, it would (and will) have far-reaching implications for society. We casually talk about the death of newspapers, and they will likely disappear, but I think we don't talk enough about the important things that may disappear with them and what we're doing to preserve those things. As far as the NYT goes however, I don't believe that the impact would be much more than sadness based in nostalgia. The talent that exists there today would still exist, and be applying their skills at other institutions, both new and old.
- ForrestN 15y ago
  I'm not intimately involved with this, as it sounds like you are, but it feels to me like the NYT as a paragon of American journalism won't be easily replaced. It's true that the people who work there would find other jobs (at least most of them), but I don't think the value of the NYT is just the sum of its people. How do you recreate the culture that comes from a history of unrivaled excellence and the role of being the "paper of record" for so many generations? That's not an easy mantle to pull out of thin air. How do you convince a younger organization, or even a smaller organization, to continue to devote resources to cover unprofitable stories like the continuing developments in Tunisia, for example. Same with Apple, I would argue. Take all the people that work there and spread them out to competing companies and you don't necessarily get the same results.
eternalban 15y ago
NYTimes is an instrument of the power elite. The content matter that is interesting (culture) and relatively benign is the product of the talent (and they can go elsewhere). Politically, I personally would welcome the day that says RIP to NYT -- it would be hugely helpful in getting our political system back on the track. We desperately needed intelligent and critical oversight of the state during the past and current decade and NYTimes completely (willfully, imo) dropped the ball. (They completely lost all credibility post 9/11 in my eyes. Please show me the front page headline with pictures of the huge ("tens of thousands") anti-war demo in Washington D.C. prior to invasion of Iraq. We've all seen the one for Egyptians ...)
- ForrestN 15y ago
  This very well may be true, and I'm not arguing that the NYT is a benevolent force (although I might argue that it's more benevolent than most of its competitors, but that's not relevant here). Only that it's very important and influential. One way of arguing for my claim from this worldview would be that the NYT is obstructing systemic change and preserving an elite. Any one company whose demise would be "hugely helpful in getting our political system back on the track" must be important, right? Would Facebook (not social networks in general, mind you) closing hugely affect our political system?
- jpancake 15y ago
  I'm sure I'll be modded into oblivion for this, but, oh well. I'm really curious, and not trying to be snarky: how old are you?
  - eternalban 15y ago
    > how old are you? Regardless of your stated intent, you should be aware that your query comes across as a subtle form of ad-hominum. Let's discuss "all that is fit to print" and not my white chest hair ..
    - jacques_chester 15y ago
      Ad hominem. It's not an ad hominem if your age has a relationship to your argument. It may or may not, we don't know because your interlocutor hasn't followed up.
snowwrestler 15y ago
Consider that Facebook is probably how a lot of people find NY Times articles these days.
- ForrestN 15y ago
  It looks like as of May 2011, Facebook accounted for about 6% of NYT web traffic. That obviously doesn't include people reading the paper. I'm not saying Facebook isn't hugely important, it is. But I think Facebook is less important than the NYT, and also might be more easily replaced.
fudged 15y ago
As I mentioned in a comment earlier this week: to many people, Facebook is the default communication medium for a large number of people. You can bet your ass it would matter! There are many sources of news that people can reach to. But people tend to stick to only a handful of communication mediums. Could you imagine if 'email' shut down tomorrow?
- ForrestN 15y ago
  Didn't say it wouldn't matter. The NYT isn't a vehicle for conveying news. That aspect of what they do is replaceable. They are, moreso, a discoverer of news, and also an editor of both news and culture. I both roles, they are incredibly influential per my other comments.
mcbaby 15y ago
If the NYT shut down can you give a few examples of some of the "implications"? Granted, the NYT is a prestigious, old publication, but you've given me no reason to believe there would be far-reaching implications "far-reaching implications for the US as a society, as a political body, and as a culture." Honestly, that sounds a bit farfetched to me. The New York Times is a newspaper. It has a print circulations of less than 2 million people. If Facebook were a country, it'd be the third largest country in the world. Hundreds of millions of people use it daily, the New York Times--even in America--doesn't have nearly that type of penetration.
jacoblyles 15y ago
Facebook has added way more value to my life directly than the NYT. I have a million sources of news and commentary, mainstream and indie. The deadtree papers represent the old megaphone model of information dissemination (hi capital, few speakers, many listeners). It's been obsoleted.
- ForrestN 15y ago
  As someone else pointed out, a lot of that news if it pertains to current events (as opposed to, for example, startup news) either comes from the NYT or from press releases or PR people. Again, not claiming Facebook isn't very important, nor that it doesn't impact individual people directly more than the NYT. But the NYT doesn't just reflect what's happening in the world. In doing so, they also profoundly influence what's happening.

_exec 15y ago

>>I think people are underestimating the importance of the NYT. If the NYT suddenly disappeared tomorrow, I'd argue that, at least in the near term, it would have far-reaching implications for the US as a society, as a political body, and as a culture. I think it would impact the course of global events in very real ways. The NYT, despite its market cap, is thoroughly integrated into the fabric of the US and serves a number of very important functions. Would you care to elaborate?

ForrestN 15y ago
Take politics for example. The NYT, far more than any other press organization, functions to expose or amplify information about scandals, secret agendas, government mistakes and abuse. It interviews, analyzes and reports on candidates for office in ways that routinely, as in maybe twice a month, significantly impact the trajectory of a campaign and subsequently an election. Another example is Wikileaks, where the NYT played a very important role on several sides of the story. The NYT is very much responsible, especially within the US, of amplifying, editing, and creating much of the narrative around the major Wikileaks dumps it was involved with. And they aren't always a force for "good", and have done a lot to damage Assange's reputation and helped marginalize Wikileaks. I don't think everything the NYT does is great, but they are a hugely important part of many many world-scale developments. You could write similar things about its role as an arbiter and editor of culture, about its influence on the public discourse and the ideas that permeate contemporary life, on its role in business and consumer culture (Foxconn, as a recent example). It touches so many things, and reaches so many, as those in tech might call them, "influencers," that it permeates American life, directly and indirectly.
Aloisius 15y ago
A shockingly large amount of non-PR driven, non-public event stories originate at the New York Times and are simply rewritten and repackaged by other news organizations. It is a good bet that what is printed in the New York Times in the morning, goes on tv at CNN, MSNBC and even FNC for the day.

pagekalisedown 15y ago

You may not be trying to make a point about bubbles, but I think many of us will come to the same conclusion. Come to think of it, didn't the last bubble start very similarly too? One over-inflated stock begat another and another..

coob 15y ago

How does societal importance relate to monetary value?

ForrestN 15y ago
Right, that's one of the questions I mean to be asking.

kami8845 15y ago

>if Facebook shut down tomorrow it would matter less than if the NYT did. maybe to you, but there's literally millions of people who think the other way around. Facebook is much more widely known around the world (especially to uneducated people) than the NYT is.

ForrestN 15y ago
I'm not claiming that the NYT is more famous than Facebook (I have no idea) and I meant to make clear that I'm only talking about the US (although I think the work the NYT does has effects throughout the world). My argument isn't that people would even be aware of the changes to society. I think if the NYT disappeared, many many areas of American life would be altered in important ways, as I attempt to flesh out in other comments.
silentscope 15y ago
and yet, the new york times effects every news reporting agency across the world. it's stories define the news cycle, make and brake candidates for president, redefine foreign policy and effect governments all over the entire world. facebook wishes it did that. if the ny times disappeared, there would be a hole that could not be filled by the other news networks. the quality of news, as a whole around the globe, would suffer. There is no comparison. we should remind ourselves to zoom out from the california coastline every once in a while.
- metamatt 15y ago
  I'm trying hard to let your valid points stand out from the rampant homonym abuse (effects should be affects, it's should be its, brake should be break)!
  - algolicious 15y ago
    You are thinking of "homophone" rather than "homonym." Baseball bat and vampire bat are homonyms.
- sbuk 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Gobitron 15y ago

I work for and believe in the mission of newspapers, but I beg to differ. I think a more accurate statement would be that if a critical mass of the institutions of journalism as we know it today ceased to exist, it would (and will) have far-reaching implications for society. We casually talk about the death of newspapers, and they will likely disappear, but I think we don't talk enough about the important things that may disappear with them and what we're doing to preserve those things. As far as the NYT goes however, I don't believe that the impact would be much more than sadness based in nostalgia. The talent that exists there today would still exist, and be applying their skills at other institutions, both new and old.

ForrestN 15y ago
I'm not intimately involved with this, as it sounds like you are, but it feels to me like the NYT as a paragon of American journalism won't be easily replaced. It's true that the people who work there would find other jobs (at least most of them), but I don't think the value of the NYT is just the sum of its people. How do you recreate the culture that comes from a history of unrivaled excellence and the role of being the "paper of record" for so many generations? That's not an easy mantle to pull out of thin air. How do you convince a younger organization, or even a smaller organization, to continue to devote resources to cover unprofitable stories like the continuing developments in Tunisia, for example. Same with Apple, I would argue. Take all the people that work there and spread them out to competing companies and you don't necessarily get the same results.

eternalban 15y ago

NYTimes is an instrument of the power elite. The content matter that is interesting (culture) and relatively benign is the product of the talent (and they can go elsewhere). Politically, I personally would welcome the day that says RIP to NYT -- it would be hugely helpful in getting our political system back on the track. We desperately needed intelligent and critical oversight of the state during the past and current decade and NYTimes completely (willfully, imo) dropped the ball. (They completely lost all credibility post 9/11 in my eyes. Please show me the front page headline with pictures of the huge ("tens of thousands") anti-war demo in Washington D.C. prior to invasion of Iraq. We've all seen the one for Egyptians ...)

ForrestN 15y ago
This very well may be true, and I'm not arguing that the NYT is a benevolent force (although I might argue that it's more benevolent than most of its competitors, but that's not relevant here). Only that it's very important and influential. One way of arguing for my claim from this worldview would be that the NYT is obstructing systemic change and preserving an elite. Any one company whose demise would be "hugely helpful in getting our political system back on the track" must be important, right? Would Facebook (not social networks in general, mind you) closing hugely affect our political system?
jpancake 15y ago
I'm sure I'll be modded into oblivion for this, but, oh well. I'm really curious, and not trying to be snarky: how old are you?
- eternalban 15y ago
  > how old are you? Regardless of your stated intent, you should be aware that your query comes across as a subtle form of ad-hominum. Let's discuss "all that is fit to print" and not my white chest hair ..
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    Ad hominem. It's not an ad hominem if your age has a relationship to your argument. It may or may not, we don't know because your interlocutor hasn't followed up.

snowwrestler 15y ago

Consider that Facebook is probably how a lot of people find NY Times articles these days.

ForrestN 15y ago
It looks like as of May 2011, Facebook accounted for about 6% of NYT web traffic. That obviously doesn't include people reading the paper. I'm not saying Facebook isn't hugely important, it is. But I think Facebook is less important than the NYT, and also might be more easily replaced.

fudged 15y ago

As I mentioned in a comment earlier this week: to many people, Facebook is the default communication medium for a large number of people. You can bet your ass it would matter! There are many sources of news that people can reach to. But people tend to stick to only a handful of communication mediums. Could you imagine if 'email' shut down tomorrow?

ForrestN 15y ago
Didn't say it wouldn't matter. The NYT isn't a vehicle for conveying news. That aspect of what they do is replaceable. They are, moreso, a discoverer of news, and also an editor of both news and culture. I both roles, they are incredibly influential per my other comments.

mcbaby 15y ago

If the NYT shut down can you give a few examples of some of the "implications"? Granted, the NYT is a prestigious, old publication, but you've given me no reason to believe there would be far-reaching implications "far-reaching implications for the US as a society, as a political body, and as a culture." Honestly, that sounds a bit farfetched to me. The New York Times is a newspaper. It has a print circulations of less than 2 million people. If Facebook were a country, it'd be the third largest country in the world. Hundreds of millions of people use it daily, the New York Times--even in America--doesn't have nearly that type of penetration.

jacoblyles 15y ago

Facebook has added way more value to my life directly than the NYT. I have a million sources of news and commentary, mainstream and indie. The deadtree papers represent the old megaphone model of information dissemination (hi capital, few speakers, many listeners). It's been obsoleted.

ForrestN 15y ago
As someone else pointed out, a lot of that news if it pertains to current events (as opposed to, for example, startup news) either comes from the NYT or from press releases or PR people. Again, not claiming Facebook isn't very important, nor that it doesn't impact individual people directly more than the NYT. But the NYT doesn't just reflect what's happening in the world. In doing so, they also profoundly influence what's happening.