> The New York Times remains a newspaper with a website attached. I think it's more accurate to say that the internal culture at the NYT is fragmented - there'

> The New York Times remains a newspaper with a website attached. I think it's more accurate to say that the internal culture at the NYT is fragmented - there's a portion that either is or wants to be digital-first, and a portion that still doesn't understand that. Furthermore, they are dealing with existing infrastructure and organizational structures that were originally optimized for a print-first business model, so the inertial "default" ends up being biased slightly towards print-first. That said, this is the same shift that all of the traditional "old media" establishments have to make. Most (if not all) of the companies that the Times is being compared to in that document were created in the digital era (Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Gawker, etc.)[0]. I'd still say that the NYTimes has made the "new media shift far better than any of the other traditional, "old media" establishments. Perhaps all of those publications will end up failing - it's certainly possible. But if any succeed, my money would be on the Times. [0] Also, as pointed out elsewhere, they all are primarily resellers of content, as opposed to companies that primarily generate their own content. They are also certainly not known for the quality of their own original journalism the way to the extent the Times is.