The New York Times: making as well as breaking the news

The New York Times has been liberally making the news as well as reporting it over the past week, first because of pay cuts and lay-offs, then because of Vanity Fair writer Mark Bowden's profile of Arthur Sulzberger in which he blames the publisher for the paper's woes, next because of the International Herald Tribune's redesign and online merger with its parent publication, and lastly because of speculation over its intention to cut the City pages. As Bowden phrased it, the fate of the NYT "is of special importance: it is the flagship of serious newspaper journalism in America," and will be followed by all those who admire it, as well by as its critics.  

According to Mark Bowden, the paper's problems stem from the fact that the fourth Sulzberger to run the dynasty "has steered his inheritance into a ditch." Sulzberger may "be able to ride his inheritance into the digital age," believes Bowden, and if he does it will be an impressive achievement indeed. However, the "more likely outcome is that he will lose the Times to someone with deep enough pockets to carry the enterprise at a loss until circumstances sort themselves out." Bowden puts it down to the fact that Sulzberger is "a careful steward, when what the Times needs today is some wild-eyed genius of an entrepreneur." Bowden's general impression seems to be that although the publisher is truly committed to maintaining good journalism, he is just not a good businessman, and sadly in the current financial climate the latter quality is all too important. Guardian journalist Dan Kennedy, amongst others, believes that Bowden was too harsh and indeed "it's hard to see how anyone else could have done much better."

And indeed, it is not as if the New York Times is failing where others are succeeding. Many US papers are suffering significantly, with closures and bankruptcies being reported regularly. The recent decision to cut employees' pay by 5% and offer two weeks of unpaid leave - essentially a furlough - is a move that has already been made by other major players. Indeed in financial terms, the paper seems to be in a similar state to that of many others, and its website is doing far better in terms of visitors, but due to its reputation it is bound to undergo closer scrutiny.  Other steps it has taken that are less directly related to money matters, however, have deservedly prompted more consideration. Both of the following moves seem financially motivated, although it is unclear in the case of the IHT integration where exactly the cost savings or increased revenue will lie.

The IHT's redesign has been met with some criticism, as has the fact that it is taking some time to direct old IHT links to their new home on the NYT global edition site. Follow the Media's Philip Stone, who has read the paper for more than 30 years, was distinctly unimpressed by the way that the paper has been made to appear more consistent with the NYT. "Stripping away the IHT's own personality is a pity, and it's a mistake," he believes. He does not like the way that the paper looks and feels "like a mini-NYT," he thinks the masthead is boring, he feels it is not colourful enough and overall, the new paper is a "perfect example of why one doesn't want to buy print any more." Changing a paper's identity is without doubt a controversial step and will always alienate some readers. In this case it might be particularly significant as the key differentiators in the papers' titles, 'New York' and 'International,' do have very different connotations and is it wise to assume that readers will welcome this change in the paper's branding?

The NYT's plan to eliminate its stand alone weekly City Section (currently in its Sunday paper) is as yes unconfirmed by the paper, as are plans to axe other regional sections. It has been suggested that all regional sections might be combined, in a move that would surely give them a less local feel. Meanwhile, at the beginning of March the paper announced that it was to launch two new hyperlocal websites that will cover five communities in New Jersey and Brooklyn. Each will be run by just one NYT staff member and a team of citizen journalists, so will not cost much. These two developments together seem to suggest that the paper is following a path of moving its local news online, and subsequently reducing the resources that it allocates to this.

When looking at this apparent decision to reduce its city and regional news in conjunction with the NYT's decision to further incorporate the IHT as its global edition, one conclusion seems to jump out: the New York Times seems currently more concerned with promoting its global presence than covering local news. And in the current financial situation, decisions about priorities have to be made. But is this a move in the right direction? The US has very few truly national papers, making the future of the New York Times all the more important within the country itself. By steering resources away from the city that gave the paper its name and focussing on an undefined global audience, is it neglecting its duty in favour of bigger and better things?