End-of-semester deadlines prevent me from immediately reading Ken Auletta’s big piece on New York Times Co. chairman (and Times publisher) Arthur Sulzberger Jr. But Mark Jurkowitz has some highlights. Mark’s take on Auletta’s take: “[E]ven in his mid-50’s, Sulzberger is too unseasoned and undisciplined for the role.”
Following the Judith Miller meltdown, speculation was rampant (if unfounded) that Sulzberger might be pressured into giving up one of his jobs — most likely the publisher’s position. The buzz died down. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Auletta’s piece starts it up all over again.
Kaus thinks that despite the missteps of the past several years, the family isn’t quite ready to give up on not-so-young Arthur: “A cool-headed outsider perspective suggests that at least one more anti-Pinch tidbit or scandal will be required for the Class B shareholders to end their family nightmare. Or at least start a new chapter.”
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lis Riba
Have you been following what’s going on in the Washington Post between the ombudsman and Dan Froomkin?http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2005/12/john_harris_res.html
Anonymous
Hmmmm….I don’t know if I’d like to see Pinch out or not. I do not like where he has taken the paper – or maybe where he HASN’T taken when he should have in a critical time. I don’t like his insular attitude where you can feel he deson’t feel threatened and put forth quickly how ‘The Family’ is strongly behind him. He doesn’t feel threatened but would like to be thought of as another GREAT scion of the family.I am not sure I want him to leave either. Who would replace him? Would that person be worse? At the helm of the most important paper of the land, I don’t want to chance who takes over.I just wish he’d get a backbone.I salute Auletta’s column despite a possible conflict of interest. His wife I believe is Keller and Miller’s agent. He is not talking about those two characters as a focus in the piece but I commend his taking the subject on so boldly.Here is what he said about his conflict of interest in regards to his wife, how he views his profession :” I don’t think a lot about it, frankly. I don’t write about my wife, and I’m not going to write a profile of someone who’s one of her clients, for conflict reasons. And if I did, hopefully my editor would catch it and kick my ass. One of the things I don’t like about journalism today—and this is another theme of my book—is journalists thinking that they’re stars, that they are personages in their own right. When you appear regularly on television and give these lectures and are asked to express opinions, you lose the essential thing you need to be a good journalist, which is being a good listener. I mean, yes, you’ve got to be a reasonably clear writer and reasonably intelligent and reasonably careful and get your facts correct, but the first thing you’ve got to be is a good listener, to listen to what the other person is saying and actually hear them, and shut up so that you’re not talking all the time because otherwise they won’t talk. I’m a listener, and hopefully I retain some humility to listen. I don’t feel when I walk into a room that I am a personage; I have enough control of my ego that I don’t have to out what I think or fill the void. My job is to shut up and listen.”From Media Bistro.Are you listening Woodward??? N.