MovieChat Forums > Page One: Inside the New York Times (2011) Discussion > What is this film about?

What is this film about?

posted 13 years ago by achun
6 replies | jump to latest

I saw this film last night. I didn't understand what it was about. I thought it did not tell a very interesting story. Times are tough for newspapers, and the Times staff is doing the best they can under difficult circumstances. That wasn't enough to hold my interest.

I was surprised that there was little discussion of the paper's business model during this time of tumultuous change, and hardly anything about how the organization is trying to grow its new media business.

I did feel smug, though, that last year I took advantage of a promotional offer and now read the web edition of the paper for free, with no limit on how much I am allowed to read. :)

---
You want thingamabobs? I got twenty!

[–] rml3-1 13 years ago

I just got out of the theatre seeing this. It's about how the New York Times is the correct business model, and they're going to cling to that until the end.

For something that talked for so long about how the industry is dying, they did not really come up with any ideas to save themselves.

[–] goodf3lla 12 years ago

i felt the same, the docu really didn't hold my interest, it felt like a fundraising advertisement, the mantra drilled into me was literally:

"this institution is great, we shouldn't be going out of business, we do something that is good for society, but society is too silly to know it, other new forms of media just aren't us"

that. for 90 mins.

as a european i've not grown up reading the new york times, so the documentary really flopped for me,

[–] xPhenomenusx 12 years ago

But it's a well made documentary, and quite entertaining. You can't help what the talking heads have to say, just how it is presented.

The Muppets - 8/10

[–] Ripley333 12 years ago

I think it was pretty clear what the movie was about, and thought it did a superb job of presenting it. It's about the dramatic changes which have occurred in the newspaper business over the past few years and how The New York Times has adapted.

David Carr is introduced as the head of the Media Desk, which keeps an eye on new media and new types of journalism. Carr is an old-school journalist who is adapting to new forms of news delivery, while fiercely clinging to his journalistic integrity. Brian Stetler is introduced as the new type of journalist who has three computers going at all times and is constantly updating his Twitter account. This is filled out by a brief history of The New York Times itself and what it means as an institution. There are a few other main characters who appear throughout the film and explain the business model of the Times.

There are multiple scenes in the film wherein Carr is shown in debates about whether or not traditional journalism is dead. All of these debates bring up new arguments from both sides. It discussed the fact that while there are people (such as Michael Wolff from newser.com) who call traditional news outlets "antiquated," they actually get most of their content from those same outlets.

I'm really surprised to see someone write that they showed "hardly anything about how the organization is trying to grow its new media business." In one of the debates, Carr outlines all of the new media the Times outputs on a regular basis (such as short videos edited specifically for the web, Twitter account, iPhone app, etc.).

I don't know, guys. I thought there was quite a lot of meat to this thing for such a short, tight film.

[–] mcoupe33 12 years ago

I agree. There was plenty of meat.

Mostly that it cost real money and takes real human talent to do real reporting. People just think news appears out of nowhere and Google News and HuffPo and other aggregators just cherry pick NY Times stories while simultaneously kicking it and trying to tear it down. Also, about how real news takes time to develop (some of the stories took weeks to play out with interviewing sources and so forth) and on the other hand, as with the Stetler character, some news happens at the speed of Twitter.

I don't get into the whole libs and conservative name calling, it's too cheap on both sides, but, I think it's an interesting argument whether the NY Times is a self-righteous arbiter and filter and protector of "journalism" in the sense of trying to present the story or is the future of news just hard data like stock tickers, sports scores and thin wire reports without any backdrop.

I wish it was time shifted 6 months later to get into the whole paywall thing. I don't pay for the NY TImes. I wrote them a lengthy email saying I thought paying was fine, but not at those high rates. I thought a lower rate would mean more subscribers and more readers for their columnists and more influence and more noise and discussion, more ad impressions, but they went with a price more in line with printing and delivery in the age of internet. So, I don't read the NY TImes as much as I used to. I read the paper every day in college in the 90s. Now it's just an occasional click. Shame really.

[–] texasgal1976 10 years ago

It was unfocused, self - indulgent and even a little in denial. The whole too big to fail thing is played.