![]() Its board remained faithful to the Sulzberger family that has owned the Times since 1896. The Times remained stubbornly faithful to its news report and expanded globally. It never succumbed to Wall Street’s short-term demands or made crippling cuts to its newsroom. It wasn’t that long ago that The Atlantic (in 2009), predicted that it would be the Times that would soon go bankrupt.ĭespite being initially thrown off course during the digital transition, the Times had the confidence and will to stick to its core strength-the news-even during years when the company was saddled with heavy debt and shareholder rebellions were brewing. The Times, meanwhile, hit its goal of 10 million paying subscribers a year ago and aims to have 15 million by the end of 2027-more than enough to sustain its large news-gathering operations. But in the last few weeks it’s been gobsmacking to see Vice facing bankruptcy and BuzzFeed shuttering its news division. Reversals of fortune are nothing unusual in the news business. Out of the blue, these digital newcomers to news were threatening to eat our lunch. BuzzFeed was building a first-class investigative reporting unit on the back of its usual fare-exploding watermelons and viral sensations like “What Colors Are This Dress?” Both companies had big and devoted younger audiences, manna for advertisers. Its valuation at one point was touted as being close to $6 billion. From its origins as punk magazine in Montreal, Vice, with a slate of YouTube channels, suddenly had a production deal with HBO, operated at least one cable channel, and was winning Peabodys for news. The Gray Lady was looking every bit her age and she was stumbling in the age of social media. During the last years of my run at The New York Times, it seemed possible that digital news start-ups, like Vice and BuzzFeed, could eclipse old, legacy news organizations like us.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |