That’s Fit to Print”—says what the paper aspires to. Every day it
renders judgment on what’s important, on what we should know. Of
course, the Times has its prejudices—every human institution does.
But Times journalists pride themselves on keeping these judgments
(somewhat) in check. They see themselves upholding progressive
Western values—and steer us away from the news that’s not fit to
print, whether porno or propaganda or advertising disguising itself as
news.
The editors at the Times curate our view of the world we inhabit.
When Times editors choose the stories for their front page, they set the
agenda for TV and radio news, for the whole mainstream view of the
world. The stories circulate across the Old World (40 percent of the
leaders of nations receive some version of the New York Times each
morning) and the New (Facebook and Twitter).
Journalism is hard, sometimes dangerous, work that pursues truth
vs. just the commercial. The New York Times does it better than any
media firm in the world. However, increasingly, the paper is not good
at extracting value from the skills and risk taking demonstrated in the
newsroom.
In fact, Google and Facebook do a better job extracting value from
Times journalists than the management of the Times. I believe if the
Times had refused to let any of its content on the Facebook or Google
platforms, those younger companies would be worth at least 1 percent
less. New York Times articles give these platforms tremendous
credibility, and the Times in return gets... very little.
NY(low)T
In 2008, the gap between the growing Google and the flagging New
York Times was smaller than today. Google already was well into its
stride, with a market cap that topped $200 billion. But the Times was
enormously relevant.^23 With the first iPhones arriving and tablets
three years into the future, platforms and devices needed content—and
the Times had the best. Without New York Times content, Google
would have been at a disadvantage to anybody who had it—not least
the Times itself.