Transcripts For CSPAN Future Of The New York Times 20240622

This is one hour, 25 minutes. A good evening. I have the great privilege of being the president of this extraordinary institution hunter college. A great pleasure to welcome you to the future of the New York Times. This event is hosted by i were roosevelt house Public Policy institute. Thanks to the Arthur Sulzberger jr. And dean baquet and Jack Rosenthal more people rsvpd then roosevelt house Public Policy institute could handle. The roosevelt longer complex relationship with the New York Times. When he was in the white house Franklin Roosevelt begin each day by reading five newspapers and the first one is usually picked out was the New York Times. The times islam some supportive of his programs especially in the early years and endorsed him in 1932 1936. The times consider probusiness policies. The less issue irritated fdr since the times financial pages were showing strong economic growth. That prompted him his only public criticism of the paper. He said what it be nice if the editorial writers of the New York Times could get acquainted with their own experts . The times returned to fdr when he ran for a fourth time. It offered the assessment in the eloquent assessment of the new deal these measures were aimed at correcting abuses and extravagances by the depression. And in establishing a country a larger degree of social justice. Fdr was of course one of the lowlight a president who had their ups and downs with the New York Times from Abraham Lincoln to the current incumbent. This extraordinary history makes discussion on the papers future in revolutionary change and a media in general and newspapers in particular such a powerful draw. I want to express deep gratitude to the underwriters of this is some in a roosevelt houses. While we are expressing gratitude, a special order. Moderator Jack Rosenthal, was done a particularly superb job in the past year as the interim director of roosevelt house. This Evenings Program is special for jack because he spent 40 years at the New York Times wednesday Pulitzer Prize among his many roles for in 1980 71 Arthur Sulzberger, jr. Was a deputy holistic in 1981 when Arthur Sulzberger, jr. Was a deputy jacks report could be something give the readers the time any form they want great it was announced by print managers who dismiss digital as a passing fad. To the door credit, Arthur Sulzberger, jr. Resisted and took the advice and pressed the times to this as long online as an print. Arthurs colleagues realized it is not print or digital. It is what it has always been, did we get the story and did we get a right . The platforms may change but the times is dedicated to those gold, it has won wall. Prices. Has won wall full of prizes. Our motto is the care of the future is mine. We are trying to see what is around the corner and prepare the next generation of leaders for it. Fortunately, it cannot be a better team to lead to the time then arthur and dean. Were introduced we are interested in their success and we know our nation cannot be successful without a strong and active press. Our gratitude to you, arthur and dean, for being that this discussion in all youre doing to protect americas democracy. A very hearty thank you for your leadership and roosevelt house and putting together this wonderful program. Welcome jack, arthur, and dean. [applause] jack megane let me thank you both for accepting jack let me thank you both for accepting this invitation. Not quite as eloquent but nice. [laughter] jack i want to recall late one night probably around 1980 when i encountered arthur and the times lobby wearing a Leather Jacket and carrying a lunch pail. He was cheerfully headed downstairs on his way to work. In the press room as a fourthgeneration member of the sulzberger family, he do not necessarily have to work his way up the ladder but he worked every turn. His first job was in the Washington Bureau in 1978. Later, he sold ads and worked at the metro desk and became deputy publisher and then publisher and then chairman of the Times Company in 1997. In that time, as jennifer mentioned, he was determined to make the digital times as as long as it had been in print for more than a century. Our audience tonight reflect that public concern for excellence. This program sold out overnight. Dean baquet, the executive editor of the times did work his way of the latter t ladder twice. After winning a pulitzer in chicago, he came to the times is reporter and became deputy metro editor, National Editor and then hired away by the Los Angeles Times where he served as managing editor and as the editor. Dean came back to the New York Times is Washington Bureau chief, managing editor, and in may of last year, executive editor. That means he is the number one among 1200 jobs in the newsroom where is known for his approachability and personal interest and staff members. Our topic tonight is the future of the New York Times. For many in a this audience, i think theres concern about the future of the times in print. Lets start with the basic facts. How does circulation breakdown between digital and print . How much revenue now comes from advertising and how much from circulation . Am i right to believe that print subscriptions are dropping 4 or 5 per year . Is that is right, how long will the print continue . That is yours. Arthur thank you. First of all, thank you, jack for having us here. A pleasure to be in this auditorium and thank you for starting golf was such a nice, easy quite starting off with such a nice, easy question. So let me take those in pieces. I will start what i think is the most interesting. Jack, when you and i were in our positions in earlier life as the Editorial Page Editor and deputy publisher and that period of time, roughly the Revenue Breakdown for the New York Times was 90 advertising, 10 circulation. Now, because of both print and digital, it is more 60 , 40 . 60 circulation 40 on advertising. And that is actually a story. I know it sounds like it is not. The strength is the stability of the circulation in revenue. It gives us a firmer footing on which to build our future than many of our traditional and even nontraditional competitors have. So few of them have had a digital subscription plan that has succeeded to the degree we have. And when i say succeeded, we are at somewhere around 950,000 digital pages since paid subscribers. Jack compared to what in print . Arthur i am struggling with the numbers. I say around 800 print around 800,000 a daily. That sounds about right. More on the weekends. What is interesting, you see circulation declines, all printed declines, all newspapers have. Where most of it has really been hit is on street sales. Not Home Delivery. Home delivery what we have seen over the past 10 15, 20 years, home sales are shockingly stable. If you have to your subscribers or more. Getting people to 2 years to subscribe to print the times and weekend and weekday. Find that people stay first. They really are more or less for life. That is a great debates. The digital revolution continues. People are moving hopefully, they moved to the website, to the screen no no, the homepage. [laughter] arthur i am struggling. They moved from the desktop is what im trying to say and now increasingly from the desktop to mobile. What we are seeing more and more is people come to a variety of devices over different periods of time. People will see us on the smartphone first thing in the morning and see us on the desktop at lunchtime. They will see us on their ipad later at night. And print is woven into all of that. People are across multiple platforms and that is the future. Jack their raise a question for dean. With such a large proportion of younger readers especially online can the times display is traditional high quality onto the tiny screen of the smartphone without dumbing down . Dean yes. Can i back of one second . At the heart of the question which is a question i have been asked a level four is how long was the lifespan of the print New York Times . I think the question of print versus digital has become such a distraction from the real fundamental question about journalism. I think the fundamental question about journalism is what the great Journalistic Institutions will survive . How will they survive . I guess i do not buy at all that the phone means readers of the New York Times want to read something lesser or dumber. All the evidence is people read long series on their phones. All evidence is people read we have more almost, if the goal of a newsroom and a leader of a newsroom is to be read which has got to be my fundamental goal, vendor number of readers we have in the digital era is astounding unimaginable. Take a series like the story we did on the conditions at nelson lund across the country, across the nell salons nail salons across the country, 5 Million People read it. Go to the print era where you have to readers of the print paper, that wouldve been unimaginable. My view, people want to read smart, sophisticated stories in every format. My job as the editor of the New York Times is to figure out ways to make stories in every format as smart as all full and hardhitting as possible. All evidence is we can do that. Jack arthur, a year ago you received report of your innovations committee. Called for many changes. A main point was stop being so complacent about your readership. For decades, the times has worked provides a highest quality coverage. But that is no longer good enough in the internet era. The innovations report encourage what he called Audience Development. Find a variety of ways to reaching out to potential readers. How have you responded . Arthur a great question. In the business and newsroom. I want to go back to the earlier. When i gave the 800,000, i forgot, i can clear it up. It is 1. 1 million print subscribers when you included the weekend. I want to get the number of back to where it belongs on the weekend, sunday paper. The innovation report was a wonderful wakeup call. As you might recall, it it was written on behest of dean and jill abramson, then the executive editor and empower 18 of some of our best journalists to look deep it ourselves. And then it was leaked. It was never written to be linked. At first, without it was awful. Only a few days later that we realize the power of what had happened. People around the world embraced the fact that the times had to be c the courage to do a deep journalistic dive on its self and really say what is what we are done right and what we must improve on. And ive got to say within a month, i cannot tell you how many calls i received from other Newspaper Publishers around the world asking for too common meet with the people who did the innovation report. It really was a wonderful wakeup call. When dean became executive editor at the same time, one of his first steps was to reach to our business side and take out and make for a mass executive in charge of Audience Development. As you noted, one of the great findings was the journalists must take greater responsibility for building their audience. Welcome to the world of social media. Fewer people come to our home page and more to want to engage with our journalism on facebook and other platforms. How do we get people to engage in that way . And i dare you to name the last business side person who became a head executive on the other side. There isnt any. It was a really bold move. It has worked extremely well. Well done subsequent work to say here is what were door right and what we need to push what we are doing right and what we need to push harder. As soon as you catch up, the digital universe shifts. You have to start saying, it is not as much about the search as he used to be. It is now more about social. How do we adapt . Jack of the audience all the New York Times has risen by 25 dean the audience of the New York Times has risen by 20 fibers that. I am an editor who wants the journalism of the New York Times to have impact. I do not want to do big, lush Investigative Services stories and have them going to vacuum were nobody reads it down. We have tools to make sure more people read. That is terrific. Just bang when you look at the times globally, almost 75 million users. Arthur let me head back to the relationship with business and new side. Jennifer spoke about trust in the times. Traditionally the time to try to maintain the trust by scrupulously maintaining a chinese wall between new side and business side. Now, they are not just two sides, there are the resize print news, business, and technology. There are three sides. An example was the wonderful work on nail salon workers. In my day, the times when the times launched a series, it would be a splash on page one on sunday. This one was launched online and on thursday. It led some print subscribe that why are we getting the scales the on sunday print stale stuff on sunday. Jet arthur to be clear, very few complained. We are learning and adapting. If you do not have the courage to try new things and grow, you are going to fail. Thatis the reality of the world we are in. I applaud what the dean and his colleagues did which is to increase increasingly say lets put the story out when the story is ready. There are some people who are going to read it then and others will read it later on a different in print. Not about the device. When i say device, i mean print as well. As you so eloquently stated from decades ago, we must of the platform agnostic. Go to where the people are. And increasingly that means mobile. And as you probably know, we are doing a test right now at the New York Times. Dean there is a myth, is remarkable to me as much as people look at journalism and journalists and newspaper so closely how a group we are of the history how ignorant we are of the history. Act as l. A. Times if i had a big project that was going to run about Orange County government that was the giant plate next to l. A. , next to a life and death competition. If i had a big story that was going to run about Orange County i would go to the circulation director and say please tell me which today you will have the most papers distributed in Orange County. If they said to me, monday, i would run it on monday. To me, the question i asked myself i want a story to be read. I wanted to have impact. I am fundamentally an idealist about journalism and the idea i want as many people to read it. I want it to have impact. I wanted things to change as result of hardhitting stuff. The only way you could do it is to be widely read. This permits arthur is referring to is to make sure everybody in the building knows how many of our readers are on the phone. We made it so if you type onto your laptop, it takes you to the phone app. Jack which side of the chinese wall is Audience Development lie on . Dean my view is it lies, part on my side. Probably a little bit in advertising. Can i back of one thing . The chinese wall has never been in newspapers between newsrooms and the entire business side. That was never the case. There is always been promotion. The wall of existence between newsrooms and advertising. Not a newsrooms and technology. Not newsrooms and circulation. Not newsrooms and promotion. That has always been the case. Jack talking about Audience Development, what new forums lie ahead . I would be interested in your experiments with instant articles on facebook and apples new news app. Dead what kind of stories are we doing dean what kind of stories are we doing . Jack i can make a complicated question. Risking a lot when you give these articles out for free. Arthur dean here to me is the risk. I keep going back to wanting to be read. The biggest risk is not the goal where your readers are area the biggest risk is to not to go to places where there are millions and millions of people who want to read. The biggest risk is to stay out of that world. That is why we felt we had to experiment with people like facebook and apple. Jack if the spirit is not making any money . If the experiment is not making good morning any money . Arthur that is not the case. If you do not risk knowing you were not fail, you will fail automatically. You know the famous case. Umm what was the . I am blessed without the next. The titanic fallacy. The titanic fallacy is the question, what was the fatal flaw of the titanic . Some people will say you know, the captain trying to set a worlds speed record. Some people note they do not have enough lifeboats. Some they do not build the walls high a note to ensure it was unsinkable. The answer is none of that. Even if the tide has safely made it to new york harbor, it was still doomed. Because a few years earlier two brothers had invented the airplane. So, we are in the world where we must shift the industry is great and it is there and we have boats for all of you. We must become an airplane company, too. That means trying things testing, having the courage to invest and not just financially. And say, that work on how do we build on it . And that did not work, next. Thats what were trying to do. The key point, you have to increasingly go where the audience is. That does not mean our journalism is going to change but our presentation may change. The way we scroll on the small devices is totally different experience than on a laptop. We have to adapt. Jack let me ask dean a question. A lot of airplanes in the air now and they are faster and more more nimble dean but they are not a better. Jack the tradition of careful editing, going way into latenight deadlines. A lot of nimble startup sites including welcome honestly be called parasites. [laughter] jack how do you compete . Dean whenever theres a big news story, if you want to use the example of the plane crash in the alps. People go to the New York Times by the millions. First, we break the story is pretty secondly, we do not make mistakes. Certainly because i will get to those. We are indeed a human enterprise. We do make mistakes. Lets keep going. Anyway, the New York Times is is fully edited as it was in print. People still come to us for news. If you ask me, who my biggest competitors are, largely the same competitors we had in the predigital era. The News Organizations, and some european papers. The party and the guardian, the wall street journal, they keep me up at night and they kept me up and i 20 years ago. I want to go back to mistakes. Ive said, we make mistakes. What the dean is saying its really important in this sense. We are both seen the being such a critical element in digital age more so than earlier print era. Everyone wants to be first. All of a sudden, oops. Turns out they were not the boston bombers. They were innocent kids. People were saying the Supreme Court has ruled on the health care bill. And then, going out with the wrong ruling. We what dean is trying to say is we pride accuracy so much that we are prepared we are not prepared to be first and wrong. We are prepared to be fourth fifth and right. That is a core value. Dean let me inject some humility into my answer. Here is what we try to do im not the Supreme Court issues its ruling on the obama Administrations Health Care plan. We knew it would be this huge, complicated ruling. We knew if we tried to assess it quickly in realtime we would get it wrong. We wrote a memo on our website and said that. Please indulge us. Give us time to read it. What other organizations did they read the first half the ruling flipped in the middle. We did not. We waited as adam said there was enough time to write it. We work really hard not to make mistakes. We dont let speed i understand that the greatest currency we have is that we work hard to be accurate, edited and truthful as possible. I understand i cannot squander that. Jack ive talked to some talented tech people who said they left the times because the News Department people patronized them as Service Assistance rather than recognizing them as innovative partners. Is that a fair criticism . Dean i bet you that is a fair criticism. I bet there was a period i will hope that the assessments would be different now, but i bet people would have said for a long time that we did not quite understand how Much Technology people in the whole of the New York Times had to offer. Arthur dean made another important hire in kenzi wilson. Dean hired a new head of digital who used to be at npr. Kinzie came to the times, but what happened is after he settled in the newsroom as the head of digital, our new ceo mark thompson, recognized yes that is who we need on the business side as well. Kinzie wilson is a joint report to dean and our ceo with Technology Reporting to him across. That is critical because what we need to do is be faster and be more nimble. We need to make decisions less complex. In other words, i dont have to have seven bosses, each of whom have three. That speed to market issue is a critical one and, to your point of critics you have spoke with, it does empower our digital team news and business, to feel equal. Jack two different people. Mcacallum and kinzie wilson, do they have revenue ob ligations . Direct revenue obligations . If you increase the size of the audience, you increase the number of subscribers. You get more advertisers. Doesnt she have any direct revenue does she have any direct revenue obligations . She does. It is part of the business side largely. It tries to design stuff for the future. In the world of print it wouldve been the group of people who created the food section. But now where likely to take we are likely to take products out of the journalism we produce. Arthur lets not pretend they started to rethink the paperback in the 1970s that there was not fundamental need for revenue. They recognized they had to meet that. This is not unique. This is just transferring that to a digital era. Jack what papers do you read in the morning . [laughter] dean i start out by looking at the New York Times on the phone to find out what i missed at night. Partly to get a sense of experience. I read the New York Times pretty thoroughly in print. I read the journal the post, the guardian. The Washington Post. [laughter] arthur no, but then i read the New York Post on the subway. I dont pretend i read every word. Dean i spin through other sites that have specific stuff. I look at courts for business stuff and media stuff. If a lot of it depends on the big news story of the day is. We regionally look at buzz feed or reddit. I look at facebook pretty regularly which gives me a glimpse into old another realm into a hold another roundwhole other realm. Jack do you tweet . Arthur i dont. Dean there was a famous quote from sally who said you could work for the times or you could read it. But you cannot do both. I sometimes feel unlike dean, i go to it first on my phone. That is how i will catch up on the morning reading stuff. Nyc is engaging. What i have what i have learned is i go to the pieces that we suggest we go to. Jack i want to ask a business question. Why is Digital Advertising so cheap when it produces relatively little revenue compared to print even though it has many more readers . Arthur that is a great question to ask. Google. The first reason is the cost is much less. The cost of producing Digital Advertising is less. Obviously, there is no paper no trucks, no mailers and drivers. The cost of getting Digital Advertising is significantly less than print. That is one reason. The second is there are so many places to go. What we are learning over time is how little affect some of those places really have on affecting actual purchasing. But, it is a evolving process. Many of our advertisers recognize the value of both. There are times you want to be in print because it has a much greater sale possibility. People will actually focus on it and make a purchase decision. If you are telling a story digital is a remarkable tool. One of the great creations of our head of revenue is the creation of an inhouse Storytelling Lab for advertisers to use. That has been, that branded content has become a great tool for advertisers. That is not a little popup ad, that is an immersive experience. People really do gravitate to that. There are lots of new Digital Tools we are using and Getting Better at. Dean that leads to the ultimate financial question. Jack even assuming, how is your pension doing . [laughter] jack not the same as years. Ours. Even assuming you succeed in developing a larger digital audience, given how cheaply people can buy Digital Advertising, can you generate the serious revenue necessary to pay for quality journalism . 200 million a year. Arthur the answer is yes. We have to do that. The mission of the times has not changed since it was founded in 1851 since 1896. That mission has to be funded. That is to produce the quality journalism that attracts a quality audience that we in turn sell to quality advertisers. But, the value of our subscription plan, digital subscription plan has made it such that it is much it is as much getting the readers to engage with us in such a way that they say yes, this subscription is worth it as it is to build that advertising base, also critical. As we go back to those original numbers, the subscription value print or digital is one of the cor that will give use the ability to support that journalism that they are doing so well. Again, dean, congratulations on your pull it surprises Pulitzer Prizes. Lets not pretend advertising is not a critical part of the picture. Jack understood. Arthur it is a combination of the two. The final thought i have is as we continue to grow and continue to grow our base of readers that advertiser will play a deeper role. It is an evolving picture and it is Getting Better. Jack dean, i want to ask you a question as a sometime victim. Dean you or me . Jack you. How are the public editors jobs working out . Dean i used to think when i was at the l. A. Times we had a discussion about whether we should have a public editor. The late john carroll and i decided not to. I have to say i think having a public editor is a great thing. Im surprised i feel that way. [applause] dean i think it is a great thing for budget reasons. First off, i think it gives people even though in the digital era, many people can criticize. It is not hard to get to us. It does give people a sense that the institution is listening even though i have no power over here. She can criticize me and she often does. She i think people feel like there is some place they can go in the institution. I think she is often right when she beats us up. I think even when she is wrong she is reasonable and fair. It is probably not a bad idea for newspaper editors to understand what it is like to be on the other end of criticism and questions. Even though there are times when i would like to sort of lock her in her office and unplug her computer in the long run, it is good im speaking of margaret largely because she has been editor in my time it is a good institution. It has been helpful for the paper. I support it now. Jack let me ask one more question and well turned to the audience. Arthur, critics sometimes cry nepotism about the fact that you [laughter] jack and your son and half a dozen other family members arthur i thought you would be attacking my father. [laughter] arthur Say Something nasty about punch . Jack let me in large the question then. [laughter] jack the fact is that kind of criticism has seemed to be misguided. It ignores the fact that other famous journalism families like the chandlers in los angeles the binghams in louisville, the cancrofts. It goes into secondgeneration. They get greedy or some members of the family want to sell shares and the papers subsequently lose the determination to put out a quality product. How does the family, now into a fifthgeneration, managed to assure the same thing does not happen to the New York Times . Arthur that is a good question and one my family has been working on for many years. There was a story in the paper yesterday that noted that only the number of Family Businesses that can move from thirdgeneration to fourthgeneration is 3 . Only 3 . Jack not just newspapers. Arthur all Family Businesses. We are now looking at the transition to a fifth generation where there are six members currently working at the New York Times which is very exciting. They are working in the newsroom, the business side. And doing amazing work. The family has a fundamental commitment. We have this wonderful trust created by our greatgrandfather that lays out the mission of the company and the mission of the company is to protect the quality journalism. The mission makes no mention of profitability. There are eight family trustees. We are responsible to the bshares. They elect the majority of the board of directors. We meet as a family at least twice a year. Once for a twoday meeting to learn about how the business is going and engage with andy rosenthal, your successor, dean and their news and business colleagues. And hear how the business is going. Then, we have a meeting, a Family Reunion to remind ourselves we are a family and that we just have a great love for each other. It is something we have invested an enormous amount of time and effort in and making those connections deeper as the family grows is something we take seriously. Jack another generation . Arthur no question at all. There is no question about that. Jack lets turn to the audience. There are microphones on both sides. Let me ask that you, number one keep questions short because they will be a lot of people who want to ask questions. Number two in order to maximize the number of questions, please lets take three questions at once and we will answer those successively. The left side . My name is victor. I started reading in Junior High School when they gave us a discounted copy i would bring home and you suckered me in. [laughter] i started working and reading the wall street journal. I also read the financial times. My impression is that i know the New York Times is doing buyouts. Pthe headcount is going down. I know sections have disappeared. The style section is gone. Metro is folded into the first part. Chess is gone, bridge is gone. Culture seems not as deep as it was. The journal on the other hand is no longer familyowned they have added a new york section. They have added a section my wife likes to read. Some of the names i read in the times are going over there. It seems to be increasing their coverage. Why the difference . Jack we are holding off for three questions. Sir . I used to work for some of you. [laughter] i thought i was here for part of the discussion some kind of emotional commitment to the print paper other than the kind of business this is. I desperately want to keep the printed paper. I would like to be assured that the digital paper, the one ona a screen, will look like it does now like a newspaper on the web so that the model is the paper the paper we started with. Jack ok. I would like to know why the New York Times signed an agreement with peter to promote his book. I would like to know why amy another rightwinger, covers hillary clinton. I thought the New York Times was posted be fair and balanced. [laughter] [indiscernible] dean that is not accurate. Amy and he was a reporter who covered media. She worked for the wall street journal. There is rightwing bias. Dean i actually would disagree with you. She was a reporter for the wall street journal. We did not sign an agreement. That has been mischaracterized. We took information from him as we take information from any other service. [indiscernible] [laughter] dean we take information from all kinds of crackpots. [laughter] dean that is called reporting. When i spent my time as an investigative reporter, you take information, you checked it and you use it accurately. I think that is an inaccurate portrayal of amy. Arthur i would love to respond to the wall street journal question. There were a lot of editorials i think it is a good Journalistic Institution. There are better in covering business but that is your personal point of view. I had a meeting today with about a dozen of our new hires, three of whom were from the journal. So, at least two maybe three. We lose people sometimes and they go to bloomberg or the journal or elsewhere but this is a circle and we get people from the journal as well as others. The quality of the journalism and their integrity is the critical part of their being hired. Cnaan i say the first question yes, we have made a lot of adaptations for the times in the last 15 years. We have been forced to. Sometimes it was cut because of the financial pressures we were under. We adapted to a new era. Lets also note we have more foreign journalists today than ever in our history. All right . We are investing in our journalism. Has there been cuts . Absolutely. Have we been hiring back . Yes. We have the same number of journalists in the New York Times as we had 5, 10 years ago . More than when you were there. We had more National Correspondents than ever. We have created new sections. How many bureaus . Dean 40. 18 professional bureaus and 32 national bureaus. Arthur at the time when so many of our competitors at the Washington Post and the l. A. Times have really cut back on their foreign and national having people there we have been investing. We created new sections. T magazine was a famous section we launched. Mens fashion more recently. We are finding more ways but it is a bit of a change. Change can sometimes be tough. Dean for one not say anything critical of the News Coverage of the journal or ft, those are good competitors. I think you will find they also had to cut. I think you will find they had to close sections. This is a really difficult time in the life of newspapers. I think the core of what we try to do is to hold on to the stuff that defines us and the stuff that i suspect most people in this room care most about. That stuff we have not cut at all. I think every News Organization has had to rethink how it does business in little bit but we will protect mightily the core of the coverage. Jack lets agree there are many people in this audience who adore print. It is our responsibility to keep print going. [applause] arthur for as long as we can. It could be going away anytime soon so please do not walk away thinking that. Obviously, the degree to which people subscribe to print and get Home Delivery really matters. If you people want to keep print alive, get more of your friends and family to subscribe. Home delivery. Thank you so much. Jack i thought you were going to say the numbered. 1800 maam . Im a former u. S. Department of state for foreign service. I live in harlem. Im a home subscriber. I was writing letters to you to get to the five ws in the first paragraph please. Thank you. Now, i just want to say two conversations one is thank you for the nice stories on my law enforcement, nypd. Second of all, thanks for giving me more stories in the travel section on america. Thank you. [applause] arthur thank you. Jack maam . During sweeps week, i had a conversation with a press representative from the marine corps who had traveled through the middle east with secretary gates. He was very candid in saying the military will ask a National Press to cold stories because of the sensitivity of the u. S. Relations with arab countries. I wonder what kind of criteria the times would apply holding a story . How high up in the organization does the decision go . Jack very good question. Dean can i take that one . Im a professor at political theory here. None of the questions so far have really addressed in the future of journalism at the New York Times. I wondered what your thoughts are about that. That is to say is the constitution of news going to be different 10 years from now and what role do you see the times playing in that new constitution . Jack good question. Dean can i take a cut at that one . The way it works is anytime anybody from the government wants to ask that a story be held or that anything be taken out of a story, it has to come directly to me. Sometimes there are obvious cases where all of News Organizations do not publish things and i wonder if that is what your friend was talking about. That is the basic stuff like if you are embedded with a military group because you are covering the war and they are about to do a land invasion on tuesday at 6 p. M. Nobody will put that in the newspaper. Land invasion expected in three hours, keep an eye out. That is a basic tenantet of journalism. What you are talking about is when somebody wants to ask National Security it has to come to me. I would say 95 of the time, i say no. I can think of a couple of times when i said yes. I can think of at least one time when i said yes and came to regret it because it was a mistake. I think i did not consult enough reporters. There is a very tiny tiny number of instances in that it would jeopardize life. That is pretty much my criteria. I dont buy the argument that its going to jeopardize relationships with foreign governments. In every instance, when that has become the reason, i always say no. And the times i said yes, which would been years ago, i have come to regret. My rule is, you really have to make the case that its going to put somebodys life in danger. There are a very small number of cases in which i said yes as a result. But i always insist they come directly to me. They are very, i think theres a mythology that another government comes in and wield its muscle with us, these are really really difficult decisions. Would you like to tell stories about being summoned to the white house . No not really. Although it has happened. Most obviously, when the president s president bush this was the case of internal wiretapping in effect, and we held off on that story for a while. For i think good reasons, but over time, we saw that the reasons they given us to hold back those reasons had seem to have less and less value. And we got to the point where we were going to go with the story. Thats when the president called, and we had a good discussion, and we ran the story. That happens on occasion. And its happen on occasion that we held off on stories. The famous jack kennedy discussion with the publisher in 1960 one. Bay of pigs. We knew about the bay of pigs that it was being planned. And the president asked us not to print the story. To be fair, we printed the fact that we were training. That there was a training process going on but we did not say and by the way were going to be invading the bay of pigs. We all know that was a terrible failure, and he yelled at for them publisher afterward saying, if only youd printed that story you wouldve saved me from this. So occasionally that happens to. I want to give a specific example. This is one of those questions thats is really important especially in the post9 11 era. I think theres a mythology thats big News Organizations like mine sit on stop all the time. Let me give you a real example of when we held that later came out. I think its important understand the context. I lead with you wikileaks coverage. Me and the New York Times and the guardian got together. We worked with Julian Assange the agreement we had is that the New York Times would take the lead in going to the government to show them stuff we thought was sensitive so the government could make their case with there was ever a case to be made that someone could get killed. There was one particular cable that i thought was one of the most remarkable cables ever. It was a cable that described Muammar Gaddafis visit to the united states. And it was this richly detailed portraits of what his requirements would be in his hotel. He wanted a tent on the ground. It was very controversial. It was really richly detailed who traveled with. He traveled with free female nurses. How he was in such bad physical shape that the police dont give him a hotel room with stairs because he would get out of breath. Really richly detailed. We were about that whole cable in the New York Times, the guardian was going to use it Julian Assange was going to use it area and then government called up and said ok, take a look closely at the cable. To see the names of the bottom that described the people who were accompanying qadhafi who do you think gave us all that information . And what you think is going to happen to them . When to dock this is that cable and the New York Times with a description of how is in horrible shape, is a little bit of a not job etc. Whats going at those people . So not only did i agree to all the cable back into later when qadhafi died, Julian Assange agreed to hold it back and the guardian agreed to hold back. Thats the kind of stuff that you wrestle with. Just future of journalism question, i think honestly that journalism will look profoundly better 10 years from now than it looks today. I think. If you look at the coverage, ill use hours are it not be arrogant, but because its what most intimate with. If you look at the coverage of ebola, and you think about what the coverage of ebola wouldve looked like in a predigital era it wouldve been fine. It would been fabulous. We wouldve a great newspaper stories, you wouldve a great photography. You would affect courageous journalists, you wouldve had all the stuff. But you would not have had the videos on the New York Times website that described for instance one young man writing outside of a hospital with his hair and screaming because there was not room for him in the hospital. You would not have had the video and the New York Times website produced by us, in which an ambulance driver drove to the streets of monrovia looking for ebola victims whose family didnt want to touch them so he compiled them in the back of his truck and try to find a hospital that would take them. Lets put over here the debate over print versus digital. Journalism is better today than it ever was, because in many more tools, i grew up in new orleans. I grew up reading afternoon newspapers. I only had access to one newspaper. The same kid who grows up in new orleans in a workingclass family now has access to as many newspapers as you can push a button for area has access to video, and he has access to the whole world area and we should not get so caught up in the debate over the form, and we should not get up so caught up in the romantic aspects of journalism which believe me i grew up in, to forget its better, and is going to be better 10 years from now. [applause] let me add a fiesta that. Could you talk about the influence on future of journalism of iphone cameras. You mean the fact the reporters can take down pictures now . Anybody can. Just think. Im sort of to be frank passionate about the future of journalism. , we are now seeing an upheaval in the way Police Departments are covered. We are seeing cases that we would never have seen. Just imagine if iphone cameras that existed during the civil rights movement. Just imagine what we wouldve seen, how that would change the course of history. This stuff is better for us. It may be hard, it may give me a headache. It may give us all a headache about how we are going to finance it. But this stuff is better for the country and its better for society. So we worry about the times and video . I think we turn the corner this year on video. I think a guy named percent loan who is the editor we put in charge of video pulled it off. When video first was introduced into the newsroom, if you go back and look at those videos, they were almost like waynes world. It was heartbreakingly bad. Not because of the videographer, it was because we didnt know what to do with it. We thought, we put to not particularly attractive reporters or editors, ill include myself in that to sit at a table and just under talk for a little bit clumsily. One of those was david carr, it did work very well. I was speaking of myself. I think we produce the video the video for a bowl of, you are allowed to submit 10 things for a pulitzer. At least two possibly three of the stories we submitted were videos. I think the New York Times has cracked the code of journalism and video. Not just us, i think the journal and others to great up to area but its enhanced us, its made us better. And if i can quickly note that our editorial site is also done extraordinary well. With other elements we make use of now that are also fabulous. The retro report. One of went up today on transgender in history that, its a really insightful piece that engaging audience. And advertisers also love that experience. Thats good for us. My name is leticia, im a student columbia. Going back to the nail salon question, story. That story was available in more languages than english, and while that was to target most likely the audience actually affected by the subject matter, i want to know to what extent multilingualism might become a part of the future of the New York Times or the international New York Times . Im gave sherman. Im a writer in new york magazine. What rule what role do you think your son will play in the future how a succession different this time around than when your father punch was running the paper. Were looking further question and maybe a fourth. Thanks all three of you for your work of your careers. Its a great part of my life. Thank you for the New York Times. My question is how might you talked about building audience. As you start to have your journalists become social media brands, is there any risk of diluting the brand of the New York Times, particularly when they go elsewhere and take their audience with them . Three good questions. Multilingual. We translated that particular story if im not mistaken into four languages. Korean, did extraordinarily well. It was just remarkable. And we also do a lot of translating and other specific stories, youre going to see more and more of that. We obviously have a chinese liquid website thats an upper number of years. Its been blocked by the Chinese Government ever since we did an amazing story that one of pulitzer about the wealth and the corruption of chinese leaders families. This is a great opportunity for us. We are already a global News Organization. Not only digitally, but in print with the international New York Times. And the herald to be on Herald Tribune as part of our offering. But global is the next great step for us. Its one that we have news and business colleagues working very diligently on to find the right way to make things happen. That would be that question. And one thing to that question. I can detect this is an audience who cares deeply about the Public Service mission of journalism. As well as the economic mission. Part of the reason you translate a story like the nail story and other languages is because to me, it would be heartbreaking to do a major investigative piece about people who you think were being abused and it wasnt available to them. For my money translating it wasnt just an Audience Growth effort. It was my god. If we can figure out a way for the people impacted by this to read it too i feel like my obligation is to make that happen. [applause] the other question, are promised to members of the family who come and want to work at the New York Times and have skills necessary is to give them careers. And its not to give them any specific job, but to give them careers. And also we created a process a very well thought process to begin thinking about how we build a successful career for individual family members. In such a way that when the time comes to for me to announce a successor, which by the way is not tonight so put down your pens, that weve got a process that involves our board of directors, obviously they have a stake in this. The family, because obviously they have a stake in this, the trustees who represent the family in a context like this. And management. Because they have a stake in this. And we created a a part of our process to do just that and to begin to help build careers and then guide those who wish to take up more senior positions into that process in a more thoughtful way. And the very core of it is process. And thats what perhaps was most missing in the previous generational shift, was a clearly defined understood laid out process that all of the members of the fifth generation understand and get to work on. Then there was another question. I didnt register, did you . Branding of your journalists. The journalist as social brands. By putting our journalism on facebook and others, were do we risk of diluting the brand . The journalist is social media brand . Our member david carr one speaking to a member about that very subject, do we risk building the brand of the journalist separate from the New York Times . So that she or he and the answer is yes. And by the way, was there brand called Scotty Reston . Was there brand called bill safire . Weve had great journalists who then left and made successful, even greater careers. Again, you cant let fear get in the way of moving forward. And yes, we do have journalistic brands like david carr, god bless that wonderful man. Who saw thats they were bigger than the times but decided to stay because they were committed to the mission. Do we lose talented journalist . Of course, but thats been the case for a long time. It also works both ways. If friedman writes a best selling book, it lends authority to his columns on the editorial page. Same for paul krugman. Same even more so for the kristof and his wife. I blog at the huffington post. I think the times, as we all know is the greatest new paper to ever exist. I still applied a lot of your series. I particularly am fond of the justice series in the bronx that was a fabulous series there. But, is that where your audiences . Do you always want to go where the audiences . Sometimes you have to leave the audience to where they dont want to go, to the bronx. Im a little nervous abouts the emphasis on the video. If the times becoming another form of television . Is that a danger, whereas television lettuce . A number of questions there we can pick it up. Im an alumni of hunter college, you talked a lot about the use of technology as a presentation tool. My question is, what is your vision of how to Leverage Technology as an investigative tool using data science and thats a thing . First of all, thank you for the kind comment. By the way i dont know why you feel that people dont naturally want to go to the bronx, im sorry you had that bias. I like the bronx myself. It doesnt matter how many people are going to come to any story we write about the war in afghanistan or the situation in iraq. Are we going to cover that . Yes. Because thats our commitment. We will not be driven to say, no one really cares anymore. Thats not the way to go. There is a commitment we have to the core of journalism that is fundamental. An investigative series, some of them do spectacularly, and quite frankly some of them dont do quite as well. But they are Still Critical to meeting our mission of quality journalism. That is a commitment that is fundamental to our core purpose. And to our brand identity. If we lose that, then we will lose our reason for being. We will lose the audience that values the times. And thats the end of our ability to translate our financial future. Theres a correlation there its critical. Does it mean we also need to have great restaurant reviews . And great fashion coverage . Of course, all those things are also true. But how many people read the Rikers Island series that we did . I cant tell you the answer to that and i dont care. That was fundamental. Imagine the service you . I think i would say, if you look thats lets say the last 15 investigative projects the New York Times did which would include rikers, which would include the beasley did about three weeks ago about three quarters houses, which would include the nail salon series, this past week the story about the death of your garner, i do think you said something important. That one of our jobs is to show people the world that they might not otherwise have seen. That actually fits perfectly into the mission. What i would say to the question about the commitment to use technology in newsgathering, i dont how many of you follow the upshot, the upshot which i think will go down i did not create it it was one of the creators of the upshot is in the audience. The upshot is largely a Journalistic Institution i would call it that is built on data journalism. David hurt runs it, and his goal is to look for ways to use data to jump on big stories of the day. How many does that how many staff does upshot have . 17 people. Its a mix of graphic people, writers, editors, people who are good with data. Their role is to come in every day looking for ways to use data to tell stories. 538 was its predecessor. 538 which largely flourished in the campaign which was sort of a part of the New York Times, i cant remember the name of the guy who ran it. It silver something. Anyway, he left and he took that with him. So david at the upshot the upshot was designed as its predecessor. It had something to the makes. It doesnt just to politics. Its done great stuff like a portrait of middleclass america and how people regard themselves as middleclass in different parts of the country. Its used data for a whole range gentlemen, thank you so much for coming. Perfect timing also a microphone. On the next washington journal, the New York Times talks about the obama administrations new plan to expand overtime benefits for american workers. Also, more on the 2016 president ial race with the american prospect, and the washington examiner. We will also take a look at the greek and puerto rican debt crises and their potential effect on the global economy. A former Senior Writer for bloomberg busi