Latest news with #A.G.Sulzberger
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
The Anti-Press Playbook, in Charts
Last fall, I created a scorecard for the journalism class I teach at Yale. It listed five strategies that authoritarian-leaning leaders have used to crush the free press in their countries. I flashed the scorecard on a screen. 'Take a picture,' I suggested to the students, 'and keep track of which of those strategies might migrate to the United States.' I had culled the five strategies from a Washington Post essay, 'How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America,' by New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger. His piece focused on leaders in democracies like Hungary and India who have weaponized existing laws and norms to cripple the news media, deploying an arsenal that includes normalizing harassment of journalists, abusing regulatory authority, and exploiting the courts with frivolous lawsuits. Sulzberger's piece was intended to be a warning. The Trump administration apparently read it as a playbook. Like my students, I've been keeping score too. I've been around for a while — my first Trump-adjacent article was about the 'new' USFL (Google it!) — so I'm not surprised by much. But honestly, it is astonishing how quickly the scorecard has filled out. And it's growing longer by the day. By my latest count — and it is likely incomplete — there have been more than 100 actions that threaten American press freedom, most taken since the November election or shortly before. And that doesn't count recent headlines about Paramount allegedly offering Trump $15 million to settle a lawsuit over routine editing of a CBS 60 Minutes interview, in hopes of getting its Skydance merger approved. The suit is so widely considered frivolous that some execs fear settling it may lead to criminal charges of bribery. All of these measures have been reported individually. But the visual list is a gut punch — and a wake-up call. Here's the original scorecard: And for those playing along at home, here's where the scorecard stands today: Mainstream media, for the most part, has remained steadfast in the face of the onslaught. Reporting from major outlets, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and ProPublica, remains robust, as does that from smaller news organizations and independent journalists, like those writing on Substack. And to be clear, there are valid criticisms of the news media. Trust in the press has been declining for about half a century, long before the current moment, for a variety of reasons, including some that were self-inflicted. But what's happening now is an order of magnitude greater than anything we have seen before. And it's taking a toll — from threatening journalists' safety to prompting self-censorship among news organizations for fear of reprisals for factual reporting. Already, executives at news organizations from CBS and WNET to The New York Post have allegedly pressured newsrooms to tone down or even kill some coverage of the Trump administration. I'm a firm believer in the notion, which I realize some colleagues think is outdated, that the role of the news media isn't to be the resistance. It is to hold power to account and to seek the truth, regardless of who is in power. If this scorecard shows us anything, it illustrates that the watchdog role is more important than ever, and how crucial it is for journalists, and all of us, to hold the line. As Sulzberger rightly pointed out in a recently updated speech on the topic, 'Fear is contagious. But courage is also contagious.' This was originally published on Joanne Lipman's Substack. Journalist, mom, and bestselling author of That's What She Said and NEXT! The Power of Reinvention in Life and Work, Joanne Lipman is the former editor in chief of USA Today, USA Today Network, Conde Nast Portfolio, and The Wall Street Journal's Weekend Journal. She's now a Yale journalism lecturer and on-air CNBC contributor. The post The Anti-Press Playbook, in Charts appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Women Are Leading Media's Reinvention
I do my best thinking when I run. I love to run. So why don't I do it more? Where to start? Working full-time for decades while raising two kids, with most of my career rooted in office culture before remote work was even a concept. That meant late nights, early wake-ups, work events, and heels that wreck your feet, plus years of jet lag from endless travel. My family knows all the personal sacrifices I've made. But a recent run got me thinking. It was sparked by New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger's essay, A Free People Need a Free Press, originally delivered at Notre Dame's Kellogg Institute. Sulzberger writes passionately about the existential threats facing a free press, from economic collapse to political intimidation, and how journalism must stand as a bulwark in a time of profound civic deterioration. His message resonated deeply. My career has spanned legacy media institutions, each one in need of all the 're-' words: reinvention, revitalization, recalibration, and most of all, revenue transformation. We can't protect a free press unless we also make it a viable business. These institutions must be sustainable, not charitable. We are at an inflection point unlike any in media history. Journalism is under siege, attacked by our politics, by the economy and by technological change. As Sulzberger notes, a third of newsroom jobs have vanished in 15 years, and newspapers are shuttering at a rate of two per week. The attention economy is controlled by tech platforms that are indifferent, if not outright hostile, to quality journalism. At the same time, public trust in media is near historic lows, and the financial models that once supported enterprise journalism are unraveling. On the business side, media leaders are battling declining advertising revenues, rising content costs, platform dependency, and the relentless pressure to scale and innovate amid economic uncertainty. On the editorial side, journalists face growing threats, from political interference to online harassment. They are confronting the complex mandate to maintain editorial independence while navigating cultural polarization, disinformation, and now, generative AI. And yet, amid this upheaval, something remarkable is happening: many of the world's leading media companies are now being led by women. CEOs at AP, Bloomberg, Business Insider, Fast Company, Forbes, Fortune, The Guardian, Hearst, The New York Times, NPR, PBS, Politico, X, and yes, TIME are all women. What do we share? Quite a lot. We are operators. We've been responsible for P&Ls. Many of us came up through commercial roles: CROs, CFOs, COOs, CCOs, CBOs. We've run companies through digital disruption and audience fragmentation. We've moved legacy organizations from print to digital, from linear to streaming, from traditional to social, and now, into the AI era. We've done the work not once, but repeatedly. We've operated through cycles of boom and bust, advertising highs and market contractions. Several of us have worked for high-profile owners who acquired these institutions not just for passion but as forms of civic responsibility. Some will label this a 'glass cliff' moment, one where women are being appointed to leadership roles during times of crisis or downturn, situations where the risk of failure is high. But this doesn't feel like a glass cliff. There are too many of us. We're not symbolic hires or last-ditch efforts. We're experienced, prepared, and yes, resilient. We didn't arrive at these roles by accident. We've earned the opportunity to lead, and we are doing so in one of the most consequential moments in media history. We're not here to disrupt. We're here to rebuild, smarter, stronger, and more sustainable businesses. I'm writing this to recognize this moment and to recognize the women leading it. To the men who supported me, mentored me, or made space for me—thank you. To the women who came before me, especially pioneers like Katharine Graham, who shattered ceilings in eras far less welcoming, we are standing on your shoulders. And to the women rising behind me, I see you. Oh—and this summer? I plan to run more. I do my best thinking out there. Contact us at letters@
Time Magazine
19-05-2025
- Business
- Time Magazine
How Women Are Leading Media's Reinvention
I do my best thinking when I run. I love to run. So why don't I do it more? Where to start? Working full-time for decades while raising two kids, with most of my career rooted in office culture before remote work was even a concept. That meant late nights, early wake-ups, work events, and heels that wreck your feet, plus years of jet lag from endless travel. My family knows all the personal sacrifices I've made. But a recent run got me thinking. It was sparked by New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger's essay, A Free People Need a Free Press, originally delivered at Notre Dame's Kellogg Institute. Sulzberger writes passionately about the existential threats facing a free press, from economic collapse to political intimidation, and how journalism must stand as a bulwark in a time of profound civic deterioration. His message resonated deeply. My career has spanned legacy media institutions, each one in need of all the 're-' words: reinvention, revitalization, recalibration, and most of all, revenue transformation. We can't protect a free press unless we also make it a viable business. These institutions must be sustainable, not charitable. We are at an inflection point unlike any in media history. Journalism is under siege, attacked by our politics, by the economy and by technological change. As Sulzberger notes, a third of newsroom jobs have vanished in 15 years, and newspapers are shuttering at a rate of two per week. The attention economy is controlled by tech platforms that are indifferent, if not outright hostile, to quality journalism. At the same time, public trust in media is near historic lows, and the financial models that once supported enterprise journalism are unraveling. On the business side, media leaders are battling declining advertising revenues, rising content costs, platform dependency, and the relentless pressure to scale and innovate amid economic uncertainty. On the editorial side, journalists face growing threats, from political interference to online harassment. They are confronting the complex mandate to maintain editorial independence while navigating cultural polarization, disinformation, and now, generative AI. And yet, amid this upheaval, something remarkable is happening: many of the world's leading media companies are now being led by women. CEOs at AP, Bloomberg, Business Insider, Fast Company, Forbes, Fortune, The Guardian, Hearst, The New York Times, NPR, PBS, Politico, X, and yes, TIME are all women. What do we share? Quite a lot. We are operators. We've been responsible for P&Ls. Many of us came up through commercial roles: CROs, CFOs, COOs, CCOs, CBOs. We've run companies through digital disruption and audience fragmentation. We've moved legacy organizations from print to digital, from linear to streaming, from traditional to social, and now, into the AI era. We've done the work not once, but repeatedly. We've operated through cycles of boom and bust, advertising highs and market contractions. Several of us have worked for high-profile owners who acquired these institutions not just for passion but as forms of civic responsibility. Some will label this a 'glass cliff' moment, one where women are being appointed to leadership roles during times of crisis or downturn, situations where the risk of failure is high. But this doesn't feel like a glass cliff. There are too many of us. We're not symbolic hires or last-ditch efforts. We're experienced, prepared, and yes, resilient. We didn't arrive at these roles by accident. We've earned the opportunity to lead, and we are doing so in one of the most consequential moments in media history. We're not here to disrupt. We're here to rebuild, smarter, stronger, and more sustainable businesses. I'm writing this to recognize this moment and to recognize the women leading it. To the men who supported me, mentored me, or made space for me—thank you. To the women who came before me, especially pioneers like Katharine Graham, who shattered ceilings in eras far less welcoming, we are standing on your shoulders. And to the women rising behind me, I see you. Oh—and this summer? I plan to run more. I do my best thinking out there.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The New York Times' publisher worried that Trump would crack down on the press. He was right.
Donald Trump has spent years complaining about the media. In his second term, he appears to be turning those complaints into actions. That should worry anyone who values a free and independent press. It definitely worries A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times. A.G. Sulzberger saw it coming. Last September, the New York Times publisher warned that if Donald Trump was elected again, he and his administration might emulate crackdowns on the press we've seen in other countries — particularly Viktor Orbán's Hungary. In those campaigns, he argued, populist leaders don't necessarily shutter newsrooms or jail reporters they don't like. But they do make it harder for independent journalists to do their jobs, and they "reward news outlets that toe the party line." And in just the few months since Trump's election, we are seeing evidence of that playing out in the US: Trump has been able to extract settlements from publishers and platforms in First Amendment lawsuits they would normally have a very good chance of winning. His administration has blocked the Associated Press from the White House, while offering more access to Trump-friendly outlets. Meanwhile it is starting investigations of big media companies that own news organizations. But it's one thing to see it coming, and another to figure out what to do about it. Sulzberger is hopeful that some combination of American idealism, good journalism, and the court system will keep press freedom intact in the US. But the day-to-day questions Sulzberger faces — like how to respond to the AP ban — don't necessarily have good answers. Sulzberger and I talked about other issues he's dealing with, including the Times' lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, and the economic uncertainty generated by Trump's tariff wars, and you can hear the whole thing in my Channels podcast on Wednesday at 6 a.m. Eastern. Below, you can read an edited excerpt of our conversation. Last fall, you published an op-ed in The Washington Post, warning that government attacks on the press around the world might be replicated in the US. What was the point of publishing it, and what did you think would happen after it ran? A.G. Sulzberger: At the end of Donald Trump's first term, his anti-press rhetoric started to shift into anti-press action. More notably, over the course of his [reelection] campaign, he and his supporters became more explicit about their desire to crack down on the free press in the United States. And it was clear to me that there was a playbook that they'd be drawing from if they followed through on those promises. I thought it was really important to study that playbook. To get my own organization ready for what might come, but also to encourage other leaders in media and other journalists to get to know that playbook, too. Because of the high likelihood that it would be employed here. I think it's essential when our industry is under pressure for us to be preparing as much as possible and steeling ourselves for what may come. I have to say, I've never written something that I wished to look, in retrospect, so off-base and hyperbolic. It has been dispiriting to see how quickly the central concerns have been validated. There's a line in there I wanted to highlight: "These leaders have realized that crackdowns on the press are most effective when they're at their least dramatic — not the stuff of thrillers but a movie so plodding and complicated that no one wants to watch it." I've been writing about some of this stuff over the last few months. And there is not a huge audience demand to learn about what's happening at the FCC and how they're interfering with a "60 Minutes" interview or how Trump is suing The Des Moines Register over an inaccurate poll. But I'm also not surprised that there's not a lot of audience for that. It seems like the 2024 election was, in a lot of ways, a referendum on whether people consume news. Broadly, it seems like people who consume what we would consider news, traditional news, voted for Kamala Harris, those who didn't voted for Donald Trump. I think there's a little more nuance in that, but certainly... And I'm just wondering if making these kinds of arguments is almost kind of beside the point because there's no one in authority who's gonna pay attention to them. Look, I'm a big believer in the American system. A free press in this country has not been a partisan ideal. It's not a Democratic ideal. It's an American ideal. The Founding Fathers were a politically and ideologically diverse group of people. And this was one of the few points of true unanimity — the centrality of having a press that would arm this country, this democracy, with the information it needed to lead itself. And also provide a central check against abuse of power; against incompetence; against corruption, self-dealing. And that model has continued to be a bipartisan ideal over the last century. At the Supreme Court, one of the most regular points of consensus are around the free press and free expression and First Amendment rights in this country. So I remain extremely hopeful about this. I also think that we need to explain ourselves to the public. Why should they care? The press shouldn't just matter to folks like you and me who are employed by news organizations. The press is asking questions on behalf of the American public. There's talk about whether the press should engage in some sort of collective action on behalf of the Associated Press (which the White House has banned from press conferences and events in a dispute about the Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America.) Do you want to see a concerted effort? Would you condone having your staff not attend press conferences?It's a great question. Me and many of my peers have reached out to the AP and asked how we can be supportive. There's not a serious news organization that doesn't have major concerns about this — including some news organizations on the right. There was a powerful quote from a Fox News White House reporter talking about the dangers of allowing a president to take an action like this. In the past, when Fox had been kicked out of some briefings by the Obama White House, my organization was among the many news organizations that said "We're not going to attend them, either." What's trickier in this moment is that the White House is very plainly trying to remove organizations that are willing to ask the tough questions, the questions that the president doesn't want to answer, and to replace them with organizations that are less independent, that maybe are more openly supportive of the president and his agenda, so that they won't be challenged. Is the concern this time that "Well, if we walk out of the briefing room, we'll never get back in?" Look, I don't know about that. You know, "never" is a big word that copy editors in The New York Times ... I mean, if you were willing to walk out of briefings during the Obama administration, why not this time around? Without getting into too many private conversations, I think it's important to not accidentally stumble into the very reaction that the White House is hoping for. Which is to have a bunch of serious journalists willing to ask tough questions on behalf of the American people, independent journalists — remove themselves from a position to do that. Read the original article on Business Insider
