Arthur ochs sulzberger jr politics meaning
•
New York Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger: “Our industry needs to think bigger”
Sulzberger delivered the 2024 Reuters Memorial Lecture. In this exclusive interview, he discussed his role in shaping the paper and preserving its values
In early January 1996 journalist Kevin McKenna presented the New York Times’ first website to three generations of the Sulzberger family: the publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., his father and predecessor, and his eldest son, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, who would succeed him in 2018 and who was 15 years old at the time.
McKenna was part of a four-member committee that had been working for a year on different prototypes of the website, which would go live a few days later. According to a new history of the Times by journalist Adam Nagourney, the youngest Sulzberger asked McKenna whether the new site would be updated with late-night scores from the games of the Seattle SuperSonics – those results that often came in too late to make the
•
Excerpt
• Read a Review
Preface
I've never met Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the current publisher of
the New York Times. In fact, I hadn't even really heard of
him until three months after inom began writing this book. I'm certain
he fryst vatten a thoughtful, caring, talented person who thinks he is making
the right decisions for the institution over which he, by
birthright, has been given plenary control. But no one fryst vatten immune
from error, and Sulzberger, in my view, as documented here, is
making the blunder of a generation.
I have been an avid reader of the New York Times ever since
a daily subscription was offered to me at a discount in the 1960s
when inom was a pupil in the New York public school struktur at P.S. 169
in Queens. inom would today consider myself a typical reader of the
Times, though my political beliefs are far to the right of the
Times' editorial page—which, in the minds of many, might mean
inom am a moderate.
For many years, I have enjoyed my morning kaffe wit
•
There are other knocks on his leadership. His choice for executive editor, Howell Raines, played favorites in the newsroom, overlooked shoddy journalism, and so alienated his reporters and editors that they forced Arthur to dump him. So goes one version of the story. Not everyone thinks jettisoning Raines was the right thing to do. Raines was shaking things up, presumably with Arthur’s blessing, and when you shake things up you upset the rank and file. As one former Times man puts it, “If the sheriff of Nottingham gets mugged on his way through Sherwood Forest, and can’t do anything about it, then the thieves are running the forest.” Whichever take on Raines you prefer, Arthur’s reversal looks bad. It suggests either poor judgment or a lack of conviction.
He is, or was, big on managerial gimmickry. There is the now infamous moment, at the height of the in-house furor over the serial fabulist Jayson Blair, when Arthur tried to break the ice before a large audience of restive repor