The Times: How the Newspaper of Record Survived Scandal, Scorn, and the Transformation of Journalism

by Adam Nagourney

A sweeping behind-the-scenes look at the last four turbulent decades of “the paper of record,” The New York Times, as it confronted world-changing events, internal scandals, and faced the existential threat of the internet

“An often enthralling chronicle [that] delivers the gossipy goods . . . Like Robert Caro’s biographies, [ The Times ] should appeal to anyone interested in power.”— Los Angeles Times

For over a century, The New York Times has been an iconic institution in American journalism, one whose history is intertwined with the events that it chronicles—a newspaper read by millions of people every day to stay informed about events that have taken place across the globe.

In The Times, Adam Nagourney, who’s worked at The New York Times since 1996, examines four decades of the newspaper’s history, from the final years of Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger’s reign as publisher to the election of Donald Trump in November 2016. Nagourney recounts the paper’s triumphs—the coverage of September 11, the explosion of the U.S. Challenger , the scandal of a New York governor snared in a prostitution case—as well as failures that threatened the paper’s standing and reputation, including the discredited coverage of the war in Iraq, the resignation of Judith Miller, the plagiarism scandal of Jayson Blair, and the high-profile ouster of two of its executive editors.

Drawing on hundreds of interviews and thousands of documents and letters contained in the newspaper’s archives and the private papers of editors and reporters, The Times is an inside look at the essential years that shaped the newspaper. Nagourney paints a vivid picture of a divided newsroom, fraught with tension as it struggled to move into the digital age, while confronting its scandals, shortcomings, and swelling criticism from conservatives and many of its own readers alike. Along the way we meet the memorable personalities—including Abe Rosenthal, Max Frankel, Howell Raines, Joe Lelyveld, Bill Keller, Jill Abramson, Dean Baquet, Punch Sulzberger and Arthur Sulzberger Jr.—who shaped the paper as we know it today. We see the battles between the newsroom and the business operations side, the fight between old and new media, the tension between journalists who tried to hold on to the traditional model of a print newspaper and a new generation of reporters who are eager to embrace the new digital world.

Immersive, meticulously researched, and filled with powerful stories of the rise and fall of the men and women who ran the most important newspaper in the nation, The Times is a definitive account of the most pivotal years in New York Times history.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Journalism, Politics, Business, Audiobook, Writing

592 pages, Hardcover

Published September 26, 2023

About the author

Adam Nagourney covers national politics for The New York Times. Since joining the newspaper in 1996, he has served as Los Angeles bureau chief, West Coast cultural affairs reporter, chief national political correspondent, and chief New York political reporter. He is the co-author of Out for Good, a history of the modern gay rights movement.

Reviews

[Rolin · Rating 4 out of 5]

They call the daily publishing of The New York Times the "daily miracle" and with a rotating cast of back-stabbing self-righteous egos on top, it truly is a miracle they put out a paper every damn day.

This is a worthy sequel to The Kingdom and The Power by Gay Talese which covered on the medieval court intrigue at the highest levels of New York Times leadership up til 1970 ish. And that is this latest book's pitfall. It is perhaps too fixated on the methodology of The Kingdom and The Power to write an updated history of The Times. Nothing ever changes as everything changes. The ideas of the latest cohort of leadership dies on the vine and the new cannot be born. Sure, there's "new" stuff like the long stilted pivot to digital and a few token diverse faces among the sea of white men. But it all replicates the office politics fiefdoms that have long defined the company under Talese's telling.

Enamored with the gossip happening on top, the book elides much of the labor behind the daily miracle. In this telling, the reporters, editors, and photographers are largely faceless masses who offer as much life as a public opinion poll on whether they tolerate the top bosses. The only workers worth really knowing are the ones who commit colossal fuckups —Jayson Blair and Judith Miller. But as Nagourney accurately describes, The Times is an editor's newspaper. Maybe someone outta let him know there's a newsroom union that might be worth writing about beyond a passing mention.

The press loves navel gazing and gossip and Nagourney brings out the tea. But is there a different way of telling the history of The New York Times? He doesn't say. How Timesian.

[Kathleen Flynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book fascinating and well-written. My perception of it, though, is inevitably affected by my experience: I have been a (small, unimportant) newsroom employee of the New York Times for 18 years and have witnessed the events described here in the later parts of the book. In particular, the wrenching transformation from a print product based in New York (though trying to cover the world) to a 24-hour, global digital news operation competing with the likes of CNN, the BBC, etc. It is a strange feeling to have lived through these dramatic yet incremental changes, and then to read about them, all described in Adam Nagourney's orderly, logical and lively prose.

It is definitely an unusual workplace, stressful yet privileged, and I think this book captures well why and how that is the case.

But I don't know what I would make of this book if I were merely a reader of the New York Times. Would it be too much inside baseball? Or maybe not -- maybe readers love this behind-the-scenes stuff.

[Jason P · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not sure how interesting this would be if you’re not a fan of newspapers, journalism and The Times in particular- but luckily I qualify on all counts. This book isn’t really a recounting of what would likely be the much more fascinating tales of the reporters who create the newspaper, rather it’s a history of the business itself during the past 40 or so years and its remarkable transformation into a digital behemoth at a moment when many traditional news sources are dying. And it turns out that great newspapers have exactly the same kind of petty, personality-driven in-fighting that plague lesser media organizations! Bottom line - a great read if this is your thing!

[Dave Reads · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The Times: How the Newspaper of Record Survived Scandal, Scorn, and the Transformation of Journalism" by Adam Nagourney is a compelling exploration of the evolution of The New York Times, a publication that has played a pivotal role in shaping American journalism. The book takes us through the influential tenure of A. M. Rosenthal and his collaboration with Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, known as Punch, two key figures who left an indelible mark on the newspaper during a period of significant change.

Among the highlights from the book:

1. 2008 Recession and Industry Changes: The Times faced financial challenges in 2008 due to the recession, declining readership, and industry-wide layoffs.
2. TimesSelect Paywall (2005): An early attempt at a paywall called TimesSelect in 2005 allowed limited access but did not perform well initially.
3. Success of TimesSelect: Despite its initial challenges, TimesSelect eventually attracted 227,000 paid subscribers and generated $10 million in annual revenue.
4. Implementation of Website Paywall (2011): The decision to implement a paywall on The Times' website in 2011 was met with skepticism by the media industry but ultimately proved successful, with 390,000 digital subscribers by the end of the year.
5. Jill Abramson Becomes Executive Editor (2011): Jill Abramson took over as executive editor in 2011 and was initially supportive of the paywall but faced challenges in adapting to the changing digital landscape.
6. Abramson's Leadership Style (2014): Concerns about Abramson's management style and resistance to blending newsroom and business-side roles led to her departure in 2014.
7. Dean Baquet as Executive Editor: Dean Baquet succeeded Abramson as executive editor and embraced collaboration with the business side while focusing on digital innovation.
8. Impact of 2016 Election: The election of Donald Trump in 2016 drove an increase in digital subscriptions and accelerated the shift towards reader-driven revenue.
9. Transition to Digital: The newspaper's business model increasingly relied on paid digital subscribers as print circulation declined.
10. Expanding Content: The Times expanded beyond traditional news to offer a variety of content, attracting subscribers from around the world.

These occurrences reflect the newspaper's response to the challenges posed by technological advancements and changing reader preferences, and its efforts to remain relevant in the digital age.

Abe Rosenthal's remarkable career at The New York Times began in 1943, and he gradually rose through the ranks, making significant contributions to the paper as both a foreign correspondent and an editor. Rosenthal's dynamic personality and strong attachment to journalism defined the ethos of The New York Times. He understood that The Times held a unique place in American society, with its readership extending to presidents, policymakers, intellectuals, and the general public. It was the newspaper of record, a publication that influential individuals across the nation relied on for their information.

Rosenthal's leadership of the newsroom, however, was not without challenges. He held suspicions about the Washington bureau, viewing its staff as ideologically biased. The book reveals that newsrooms are often rife with turmoil, marked by self-doubt, competitiveness, and interpersonal conflicts, and The Times was no exception. Despite these challenges, Rosenthal's leadership was instrumental in maintaining the newspaper's high journalistic standards.

The dynamic partnership between Rosenthal and Punch Sulzberger proved pivotal in steering The Times through a changing media landscape. They encountered various challenges, such as the Pentagon Papers controversy and financial crises in the 1970s, which threatened the newspaper's survival. The two leaders adapted to shifting economic realities and evolving reader preferences, introducing new sections that featured arts, home decorating, cooking, and entertainment. These innovations marked a significant departure from the newspaper's traditional format.

A notable aspect of The Times was its adherence to strict ethical and editorial standards. The paper aimed to deliver news impartially and without bias, and it had a longstanding commitment to proper language usage and avoidance of profanity or explicit content. This adherence to principles had a lasting impact on the paper's reputation and identity.

However, the book also delves into the newspaper's shortcomings, particularly in issues of diversity and inclusion. The Women’s Caucus of The New York Times, founded in 1972, highlighted the newspaper's failures in hiring and promoting female employees. While some progress was made, it would take another thirty years for the first woman to be appointed as executive editor.

The book provides insight into the challenges of an era marked by social and cultural upheaval. It touches upon Rosenthal's discomfort with the feminist movement and his unease with homosexuality. These factors, among others, created a tense atmosphere for marginalized groups within the newsroom.

Ultimately, the book concludes with the changing of the guard as Punch Sulzberger, facing challenges and recognizing the need for a new direction, decided to replace Rosenthal with Max Frankel as the executive editor. Rosenthal's departure marked the end of an era, and the newsroom, for the most part, welcomed the change.

When Max Frankel assumed the position of executive editor of The New York Times in 1986, he made it clear that his leadership would be distinct from his predecessor, A. M. Rosenthal. Frankel's efforts to transform the newsroom and build a new team were evident from the outset. He accepted invitations from staff members and socialized with his reporters and editors, creating a more approachable atmosphere. He took steps to replace editors from the Rosenthal era, delegating more authority to their successors. Frankel also made structural changes, dividing Rosenthal's ostentatious office and implementing a policy allowing multiple bylines on the same story.

The transition was hastened by Rosenthal's abrupt departure in October, leading Frankel to make rapid appointments to shape his team. Frankel was determined to improve the newspaper's visual presentation, advocating for changes in typefaces, illustrations, and photographs. He voiced concerns about overly long stories and sought to make the paper more reader-friendly.

In Washington, where the Times had a prestigious bureau, Frankel aimed to boost morale and eliminate negative comparisons with The Washington Post. However, his effort to aggressively investigate presidential candidates' personal lives sparked controversy, prompting criticism from the media and even Times staff members.

The issue of diversity and discrimination within the Times' newsroom came to the fore during Frankel's tenure. The Women's Caucus and a group of Black and minority employees filed class-action lawsuits against the newspaper, alleging discrimination in hiring and promotion. While the Times settled these cases and implemented affirmative action plans, change was slow, and the subjective standards set by white colleagues remained a significant barrier for Black professionals.

In terms of leadership succession, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Punch's son, faced initial skepticism when he was proposed as the assistant publisher. The board was initially resistant, but Arthur's ascent within the organization was gradual. He eventually took on the role of deputy publisher, and it became clear that he was effectively functioning as publisher in all but title. His management style differed from his father's, as he believed in modernizing the newspaper and reducing the divisions between the newsroom and the business side. Arthur was also determined to address the mistreatment of gay men and lesbians within the newsroom and played a role in negotiating benefits for same-sex domestic partnerships, a move that differed from his father's stance.

Max Frankel's leadership marked a period of significant change and adaptation for The New York Times, as the newspaper grappled with evolving social, cultural, and journalistic dynamics. The transition of leadership from Punch Sulzberger to his son Arthur hinted at further transformations that would shape the newspaper's future.

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. became the publisher of The New York Times on January 16, 1992, marking the fifth generation of the Ochs-Sulzberger family to lead the newspaper since its acquisition in 1896. Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. brought with him the promise of generational change, and he was determined to demonstrate that, while he was his father's son, he had his own vision and approach.

During his twenty-five years as publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. oversaw a period of significant change and challenges in the newspaper's history. He was pragmatic and willing to depart from some of the paper's traditions to adapt to the evolving landscape. One of the significant changes he introduced was making the editorial page more lively and provocative to drive the national debate.

In the early 1990s, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. appointed Howell Raines to be the editor of the editorial page. Raines was initially reluctant to take the position, preferring to be a columnist, but Sulzberger convinced him of the importance of understanding the organization's hierarchy and organizational structure.
Raines was known for his unsentimental management style, and he set high standards for the editorial department. He was willing to make controversial changes, such as allowing one-sided editorials, and he enforced a no-food policy during editorial meetings to maintain a professional atmosphere.

During Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.'s tenure as publisher, the rise of the internet posed significant challenges to the newspaper industry. The New York Times struggled to adapt to this changing landscape and the questions of how to present content online, how to protect the paper's standards, and whether to charge for online access. The newspaper's website, nytimes.com, was launched in 1996, initially offering free access to readers in the United States.

As the newspaper faced increased competition from online sources and gossipy websites, Joe Lelyveld, who succeeded Howell Raines as executive editor, remained committed to maintaining the paper's focus on serious journalism rather than celebrity and personality-driven stories.

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. had a significant influence on the direction of The New York Times during a period of technological and journalistic upheaval, emphasizing adaptability and modernization while preserving the newspaper's commitment to quality journalism.

Lisa Tozzi was hired by Bernard Gwertzman to work on The New York Times website at the age of thirty. Despite being part of the Times organization, Tozzi and her website colleagues felt somewhat disconnected from the newspaper's traditional staff, who regarded them as young individuals who needed supervision. Some reporters and editors were interested in the website project, recognizing its potential significance for the future and the shifting balance of power within the newsroom.

Tozzi and her website team worked to update stories more frequently, shifting towards a round-the-clock news operation. The rise of digital media and the internet was prompting the newsroom to adapt to the demand for continuous updates and fresh information.

Howell Raines became the executive editor in 2001, recognizing the need for significant change in the Times as circulation figures indicated stagnation. He wanted to modernize the newspaper and make it more nationally oriented, appealing to readers across the country. Raines sought to be a change agent, emphasizing digital challenges and content quality.

Ultimately, Raines's tumultuous tenure was marked by controversies, including the Jayson Blair scandal, which highlighted the need for accuracy and fairness. His management style and conflicts within the newsroom led to his departure as executive editor.

Joseph Lelyveld stepped in as the interim executive editor and aimed to calm the newsroom after the period of turmoil under Raines. He emphasized the importance of journalism in the Times's future.
Bill Keller succeeded Raines as the executive editor and worked to restore the newspaper's reputation after the controversies. Keller was more reserved and focused on addressing the concerns of reporters and editors, helping the Times recover from its challenging period.

The Times newsroom had a unique culture, and reporters often had lifelong careers there, with few being pushed out despite performance issues. Despite the often demanding and competitive atmosphere, the newspaper had a compassionate side, providing support to its employees in times of personal crisis.

Like all news organizations, the Internet forced changes. Here is how the Times handled the transition:

1. In 2008, The Times faced plummeting revenues, declining readership, and layoffs due to the recession and industry changes.
2. The Times initially attempted a domestic paywall in 2005, called TimesSelect, which offered limited access but was not well-received.
3. Despite initial struggles, TimesSelect eventually attracted 227,000 paid subscribers and generated $10 million annually.
4. The decision to implement a paywall on The Times' website was met with skepticism from the media industry but was successful, with 390,000 digital subscribers by the end of 2011.
5. Jill Abramson became The Times' executive editor in 2011 and was initially supportive of the paywall but faced challenges in adapting to the changing digital landscape.
6. Abramson's management style and resistance to blending newsroom and business-side roles created tensions within the organization.
7. In 2014, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher, expressed concerns about Abramson's leadership style, leading to her departure.
8. Dean Baquet took over as executive editor and embraced collaboration with the business side, focusing on digital innovation.
9. The Times' transformation was accelerated by the 2016 election of Donald Trump, driving more digital subscriptions and a shift towards reader-driven revenue.
10. The newspaper's business model increasingly relied on paid digital subscribers, and the front page became less important as readers migrated to digital platforms.
11. The Times expanded beyond traditional news to offer a variety of content, attracting subscribers from around the world.
12. The transition from a print newspaper to a digital destination was marked by a decline in print circulation, with increased emphasis on page-view metrics and reader engagement on the digital platform.

[Barry Hammond · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1977 The New York Times, the so-called "newspaper of record," publisher of "all the news that's fit to print," was facing a crisis. It had been beaten out by The Washington Post on the biggest story of that era: The Watergate scandal. It was also, in a world of greater diversity of both race and sex, in danger of becoming a newspaper written and published by old white men for old white men. That year, A.M. Rosenthal, who'd been newly appointed executive editor set out to try and change that. This book by Adam Nagourney is a modern history of of The Times from 1977 to 2016.

It's a history filled with triumphs and failures. On the failure side: the scandals of Judith Miller, whose discredited coverage of the "weapons of mass destruction" is partially blamed for George Bush's dragging the U.S. into war with Iraq and the serial plagiarism and downright invention of stories by Jayson Blair which threw a pall of mistrust on the newspaper. But there were successes as well: the Times coverage of the space shuttle Challenger disaster and its reportage of 911.

There's also the larger story of the newspaper's conversion to digital from print. It draws on hundreds of interviews and thousands of documents to tell the dramatic story of the people who shaped the newspaper and the flurry of events which took place in that period. A truly definitive account and fascinating read. - BH.

[Dylan Short · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good book

[Mark S · Rating 4 out of 5]

Who knew newsrooms had so much internal politics?

The Times is as much a political drama about the personalities and conflicts shaping the paper’s evolution as it is a thoroughly researched historical account of the paper’s catalytic moments. The dramatic elements give the book a narrative drive with genuine “character development” and the human emotion that draws one to biographies and memoirs, though it did leave me wondering if every executive editor and prize-winning correspondent is by nature both brilliant and off-puttingly egotistical.

Outside of the institutional politics, the book covered major events in world history and the editorial decisions shaping the Times’ coverage, such as the Challenger shuttle explosion, former president Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, the 9/11 terror attacks, the search for WMDs leading to the invasion of Iraq, and the coverage of the NSA’s illegal surveillance of citizens’ communications. These chapters were not the focus of the book, but instead served as scenes punctuating the main characters’ styles and decision-making. All the same, I enjoyed those sections as I imagined the newsroom deliberations over more recent stories like the unprecedented leaks of classified intelligence by Airman Jack Teixera.

Left unexplored were the effects of increasing political polarization and the attention economy and click-based metrics that shapes how stories are selected, written, and read.

For example, the epilogue noted a Times internal subscriber poll showed 84% of readers identified as liberal or very liberal. How much stock should we put in the Times’ reputation as today’s leading newspaper of record, as Nagourney calls it, given its readership represents a portion of Americans that are overwhelmingly predisposed to agree with its framing and celebrate provocative stories? Should the paper be defined by its own standards and perception of self or by its credibility with average Americans, including its critics?

I don’t begrudge Nagourney for a lack of answers, as my questions are the challenge of evaluating the credibility and reliability of all news media in modern America (and the book’s scope ends in 2016). The book is certainly a history, not a cultural commentary, and as such it might be useful to those in the media industry who want to learn from the past in preparation for an uncertain future. I found it an intriguing glimpse into the journalism business that affirmed the idea that there isn’t just one background, personality, or approach to become a successful journalist; what’s more, the skills that make someone an excellent journalist may not make them an excellent manager or colleague.

All told, The Times was well researched, engaging, and more detailed than the average reader might be expecting.

[Ja · Rating 4 out of 5]

An unflinching portrait of the successess and the egotistical backstabbing that ran through the heart of one of America's most recognized news platforms. As much of a behemoth you might think of this business is, it's actually filled with lots of moments where it was on the brink of not making it another year. Mostly, it seems, due to bad business leadership.

What's comical about this is that bad business leadership seems to be a common thread the more I read about the history of various organizations. Luckily, the Times was able to continue its dominance in the market by adapting to the changing times, even if it meant they were following their peers instead of leading the industry in a new development. This is in large part thanks to those who were vying for power, not necessarily by those who already had it.

As the book covers 40 years from its founding up to the 2016 presidential election, there's a lot of information. Some chapters felt much more enthralling to read than others, perhaps much like the articles from the Times itself. I appreciated the large amounts of interviews and first hand accounts of various situations the staff had to go through over its history which helped paint a fuller picture of what was going on behind the scenes.

If you're curious about learning more about the unfiltered history of the New York Times, give this one a read and let me know what you think!

[Marilyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed book about the NYT from 1976-2016. It takes us behind the scenes to the big personalities (I mean BIG) of the staff, with a focus on the publishers, editor-in-chief, desk editors and to a lesser degree reporters. As a relatively latecomer to the NYT (early 2000s) I was unaware of the back history of conservatism in the paper - the major discomfort with gays and sex, the total lack of women in leadership, the support of the government under dubious circumstances. Also we learn about the crises of confidence the Times had to weather. Hearing about the struggle for change, especially the digital age, was fascinating. It certainly sounds like it was a high-octane, hypercompetitive, difficult place to work, although most of the people were intensely loyal and dedicated. I wonder if it still is. Style is easy to read.

[Zach Jaworski · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must for anyone fascinated with journalism [a field that strives to objective] and the sometimes not-so-noble executives that wrestle for influence at the top of the United States' most prominant legacy newspaper. Thouroughly examines the tenures of three generations of Sulzberger publishers and the generational changes occuring during their stewardship. It also provides detailed accounts of the actions taken by the handful of executive editors that have helmed the newsroom over the last half century, highlighting the unique circumstances and timelines that surrounded each of their editorships.

[Sarah Carrillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

I greatly enjoyed ‘The Times’ and found it incredibly interesting, perceptive, and from an outsider’s view, fair. Nagourney highlights some of the newspaper’s challenges and triumphs through some of the past editor’s reigns. I was particularly interested in some of the more contemporary chapters, as they gave color to coverage I’d noticed but didn’t understand.

I highly recommend for anyone interested in journalism and media history. Also, a great audiobook!

[Jo Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started reading this book late in the afternoon and stayed up until 4 a.m. before I finally had to put it down. I worked for The Times during many of the years Nagourney covers, and I thought I knew many of the people he describes in his meticulously sourced book. But I did not know what was happening behind the scenes. Nagourney's book, as gripping as a novel, fascinated me. His description of the newspaper's transition to digital is a success story for our times. Highly recommended.

[Bonnieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

AUDIO VERSION: I was fascinated by this book, a history of the time and the Times--from the 70s to the election of Trump in 2016. Names familiar and unfamiliar were the key players of the story, from publisher to journalists. I was surprised at how engaging the book was...and it has served as an excellent RESET for me for both what the Times is and what to expect from it.

[Clarissa Hurley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Felt a little gossipy at times which I love

[Adam Valdez · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am finding myself drawn to books about the inner workings of industries that I’m not too familiar with. Obama’s A Promised Land comes to recent memory.

This was fascinating and genuinely intriguing to see past print journalism meet the present online content driven journalism.

Inspiring in a way I didn’t expect. Already planning a revisit with a highlighter and tabs.

[Clifford · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a digital subscriber (but sporadic reader) of the Times, I knew something of the internal squabbling at the paper, but I had no idea of the extent of it. This was fascinating.

[Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating account of how the NYT transformed from a newspaper to a brand.

[Clinton Van · Rating 5 out of 5]

Immaculate read, with incredible detail.

[Emily]

This book took me eleven months to finish 😭

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a worthy successor to Gay Talese's The KIngdom and the Power, and, since I've read the New York Times every morning since I graduated from college, I knew almost all of the names. A very good read!

[Shelley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very enjoyable read. Adam Nagourney takes us through the history of the NYTimes starting with the appointment of Abe Rosenthal as executive editor in 1976 and ends with the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Jill Abramsons' appointment as the first female executive editor and her trials and tribulations. I remember wondering how it would survive when news went digital. The quality of writing was always important but now they had to attract digital subscribers. The references to my mother-in-law, Betsy Wade, were stories that I had already heard but I was glad to see her in this book. The one story that I had not heard was that the then editor, Max Frankel had dismissed a survey that found the Times ranked last among major newspapers in quoting women on it's front page. He told the interviewer from the Washington Post: "If you are covering local teas, you've got more women then if you are the Wall Street Journal". " Women, among them Betsy Wade, turned up at work with tea bags affixed to their lapels".

[Mal Warwick · Rating 5 out of 5]

A CANDID HISTORY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, WARTS AND ALL

The editors of the New York Times are apt to regard it as the most influential newspaper in the world, and they’re probably right. Despite all the tumult in the business of disseminating the news since the advent of the World Wide Web, the Times now boasts 9.7 million subscribers. They support 1,700 journalists reporting from more than 160 countries. And, more to the point, it’s the rare leader in government, business, finance, or the arts who doesn’t read the paper every day. Their attention has shifted from the printed page to mobile and laptop screens. But that shift, which has doomed many of the country’s other leading newspapers, has moved the Times solidly back into the black after many rocky years. And reporter Adam Nagourney details how the leadership of the paper managed to pull this off in The Times, his eye-opening look inside the New York Times.

A FOCUS ON THE LEADERS OF THIS FAMILY-OWNED PAPER

The Times is, in fact, a study of the paper’s leadership—its publisher and top editors. As Nagourney notes at the outset, his history “begins with the appointment of A. M. Rosenthal as executive editor in 1976 and ends with the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016.” The earthshaking events that transpired during this forty-year period surface from time to time but, with a handful of exceptions, largely as background. Nagourney’s focus is squarely on the three publishers and seven executive editors who ran the paper during that period.

The Times is family-owned, and has been since 1896. Eighty years later, when Nagourney’s account begins, publisher Arthur Ochs “Punch” Sulzberger (1926-2012) was the grandson of Adolph S. Ochs, who’d bought the money-losing paper before the turn of the century. Punch handed off the reins to his son, Arthur Ochs “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. (born 1951) in 1992. And twenty-four years later Pinch in turn passed the paper’s leadership along to his son, Arthur Gregg “A.G.” Sulzberger (born 1980). Nagourney portrays these men in detail, keeping a respectful distance but pointing to their weaknesses as well as their strengths.

A FOCUS ON THE PAPER’S EXECUTIVE EDITORS

In book publishing, editors keep a low profile. They often don’t surface outside their industry until their obituaries appear or in the acknowledgments of the authors they publish. But the same isn’t true of major newspapers. At the Times, habitual readers are likely to be well aware who’s at the top of the editorial hierarchy at any given time. So, for those of us who’ve read the daily paper for decades, the names A. M. “Abe” Rosenthal, Max Frankel, Joe Lelyveld, Howell Raines, Jill Abramson, Bill Keller, and Dean Baquet are all likely to be familiar. (All were former Times reporters whose bylines frequently appeared on the paper’s front page.)

With each of these executive editors in turn, Nagourney digs deeply into their relationships with the publishers who were their bosses and the men and women of the newsroom. In the closing years covered in the book, corporate executives on the business side of the New York Times Company enter into the picture, too. Then, the shift to digital operations forced the editors to relinquish their treasured isolation from the dictates of commerce and begin to think about how to expand the ranks of Times subscribers.

THE NEWS THAT SHAPED THE TIMES

Naturally, Nagourney’s story would be incomplete without some recognition of the news that filled the paper’s pages. Major events—most prominently Watergate, the civil rights and feminist movements, the rise of the internet, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the invasion of Iraq—play roles both large and small. But in every case, the author sticks to his guns, drawing our attention to the publishers’ and editors’ response to these events. For example, when the Times had to take a back seat to the Washington Post in its reporting on Watergate, then-executive editor Max Frankel frantically, and in vain, threw additional resources into the story. And the failure of the Times to reach its diversity goals by hiring enough women and African Americans to fill senior editorial positions bedeviled everyone in the paper’s leadership for decades (and still does).

Two scandals inside the paper also loom large in Nagourney’s account. As any longtime reader of the Times will recall, reporter Judith Miller’s stories confidently promising “weapons of mass destruction” that never turned up in Iraq nearly destroyed the Times‘s reputation when the truth became known. And the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal only made things worse for a time. A lot worse. So, Nagourney’s subtitled reference to “surviving scandal and scorn” is right on target.

THE SECOND BIG HISTORY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

Half a century ago another New York Times reporter wrote another bestselling account peering inside the New York Times. Gay Talese’s book, The Kingdom and the Power: Behind the Scenes at The New York Times: The Institution That Influences the World, appeared in 1969. At the time, observers credited it with starting a trend toward books that portray the inner workings of the journalism establishment. Nagourney’s The Times continues in that tradition. It’s a worthy successor to Talese’s book.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Adam Nagourney is a national political reporter for the New York Times based in Los Angeles. He was born in 1954 in New York City and earned a degree in economics from the State University of New York at Purchase. He worked as a journalist for other New York area papers and for USA Today before joining the Times in 1996. There, he has taken on a succession of posts ever since, moving into and out of covering politics. His brother, Eric, is an editor for the Times. The Times is his second book.

[Jim Manning · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’re inclined to think the country and the world are better off because of the continued existence of flawed but basically good institutions, this book will encourage you to hope. Also, there is something very pleasant about a book that takes such excellent advantage of the fact that almost everyone involved was constantly writing down their thoughts in clear and polished prose - whether in personal journals, interoffice memos, employee performance evaluations, or in the columns of the newspaper. At least a couple of times the author acknowledges the sin of navel-gazing, but to the extent that is the case, it is navel-gazing of a very high quality.

[Norman Carleton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have read that many journalists were inspired in part to join the profession after reading Gay Talese’s, The Kingdom and the Power, a book published in 1969 about the New York Times, and the Watergate book, All the President’s Men by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. No young person, though, will read Adam Nagourney’s book, The Times, and come away convinced that The New York Times has been a great place to work, whatever they may think about journalism as a career.

The book dwells on the challenges and the missteps of The New York Times from 1977 to 2016. During this period, there was the challenge to newspapers’ business model relying on advertising by the rise of the internet, and The New York Times committed serious journalistic errors, such as publishing Judith Miller’s articles on Iraq and Jayson Blair’s made-up stories, among others, which damaged the paper’s reputation.

The story Nagourney tells, though, has a happy ending. While the paper was slow to embrace the internet, it finally bowed to the inevitable and has regained its financial footing. It did not have to do this the way The Washington Post found its financial salvation by selling itself to a billionaire savior, Jeff Bezos. The New York Times has in recent years become more a digital news outlet, with more of its revenue coming from digital rather than print subscriptions. However, missing in Nagourney’s telling is the role of Carlos Slim, a Mexican billionaire, who is barely mentioned. Mr. Slim provided loans and investments which enabled the New York Times to survive difficult financial times.

The book’s focus is on how the two publishers and seven executive editors during the period covered coped with the challenges. Other employees of the paper appear when they become important to the top people. There is much detail concerning personal rivalries, maneuvers to get promoted, management style, and so on. It makes for an interesting and long story.

Nagourney, himself, a longtime political journalist who eventually gave up his mostly national politics focused beat when he moved to Los Angeles, nowhere appears in the book. For a while, he was the Los Angeles bureau chief and then a cultural correspondent and now is back to covering national politics, though still based in Los Angeles. For some of us, it had been a bit of a mystery of what he had been up to, but now we know. He was writing this heavily researched and detailed book.

As a longtime reader of The New York Times, I wish there had been more discussion of its editorial and op-ed pages. For example, while William Safire’s controversial hiring in 1973 took place before this book begins, there might have been some mention of his success at being a mostly conservative columnist who also wrote a brilliant column on language for the paper’s Sunday magazine supplement. (Safire had been a speech writer for Vice President Spiro Agnew and was famous for phrases heavy in alliteration, such as “nattering nabobs of negativism.”) The New York Times has not been as successful in hiring other interesting conservatives as columnists. The book’s discussion of columnists is mostly about their being consulted by others.

In addition, missing is much discussion of how the reporters were impacted by this tumultuous period, except in broad generalities. Also, there is no discussion of the work life at foreign bureaus or U.S. regional bureaus, with the exception of Washington, DC. The tensions between the home office in New York and the Washington, DC bureau does play a significant role in the narrative.

Nevertheless, this book, while both long and limited in focus, is interesting, especially for devoted readers of The New York Times. For all its troubles and missteps, the Times is undoubtedly the most important English language newspaper in the world, and its influence is broader than its readership, because it plays a significant role in setting the news agenda for other news outlets in the United States, including for television and cable news.

It is reassuring that the story Nagourney tells has a mostly happy ending. That was not inevitable; the paper could have disappeared in a bankruptcy proceeding. It is also reassuring that the Washington Post, with a significant assist from Jeff Bezos, is providing serious competition. This makes both papers better. In addition, The Wall Street Journal does provide some competition in its news pages. I wish that other papers, such as the Los Angeles Times, would provide more competition at the national level.

To an extent, the British newspaper, The Guardian, provides web competition for U.S. papers, especially because it provides significant coverage of U.S. news. During the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, I thought The Guardian’s coverage was more reliable than that of U.S. papers, including the Times. It turns out I was right.

Nagourney ends his book on an optimistic note concerning how The New York Times has reinvented itself and continues to provide much needed journalism. I agree with that and can recommend his book to those interested in journalism in general or The New York Times in particular. The book is well-written and, for all its length, never boring.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a sucker for a good story about a powerful institution. Ultimately, any institution is just a collection of people with a shared goal and agreed-upon standards. In other words, the story of the institution is essentially about the people in it. And given that the people who are driving to write "the first draft of history" are by definition interested in the world around them, they tend to be very intriguing people themselves.

Adam Nagourney's "The Times," provides a thorough history of the hallowed New York Times from essentially 1976 to 2016, and by holding up a critical eye to the Times, Nagourney also chronicles how America and American business has transformed during that stretch. By necessity, thanks to covering forty such dynamic years, the book focuses on the personalities at the highest echelons of the paper (or those who became the most consequential due to their sins), so this is not a book about shoe-leather journalism like "All the President's Men." This is more of a book about editors and publishers.

In the early years, the culture of paper resembles "Mad Men." The publisher, Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger Sr., presided over a newsroom of hard-charging editors and newsmen (almost all white men) who broke some of the biggest stories in the country, such as The Pentagon Papers. This is a world where cocktails were expected to be served at five, and publishers and editors were fixtures at the finest restaurants in the city. Homosexuality was in the closet, and women were generally running families or serving administrative roles. The paper was a successful money machine, and the Times was a family business.

That was reflected when Arthur Sulzberger Jr. took over as publisher in 1992. And while his father had run the paper during Watergate, the Challenger disaster, and other key moments, his son would see the paper confront even bigger challenges. On the plus side, the Times eventually broke its monolithic hiring and promotion practices to welcome professionals besides white men into its highest ranks. But this was not a smooth, happy time, as the Jayson Blair fabrication/plagiarism scandal and the rocky tenure of Jill Abramson as the paper's first female executive editor revealed.

Sulzberger Jr. also had to lead the paper as first the Internet and then smart phones utterly transformed how news was delivered. The Times had been a financial juggernaut for decades thanks to pages and pages of classified ads in addition to paid subscriptions to the printed paper. The paper was printed in classic black-and-white, lacking even color photos. With the Internet, the Times had to confront the collapse of classified ad revenue while also figuring out how to pay top-notch talent in an era where news consumers could get great news content for free. The Times also had to build - from scratch - an online newspaper that somehow was able to publish content instantly without the friendly confines of the print media publishing schedule.

Nagourney writes about all of these developments with an eye on personality and the killer details. This is fast-paced book even though it's a bit of a tome. I've read some reviews that complain that there is little new "news" in this book, and that's in part because all the players of the Times believe so much in their own celebrity that they either give long-form interviews about themselves or publish their own memoirs. But if you're not steeped in the lore of the New York Times, this is a fascinating book - and an inspiration to read the original great history of an earlier era of the New York Times, Gay Talese's "The Kingdom and the Power."

Highly recommended.

[Nancy Traver · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Nieman Lab, which keeps tabs on American journalism in all its forms, recently reported that 7 percent of journalists in the U.S. work for the New York Times -- a reflection of the Times’s news industry dominance, as well as the dearth of healthy news organizations across the country. If you want to be a journalist, or if you are a journalist, you hope to -- someday -- work for the New York Times.

But if that is the work place you aspire toward, this book says, get ready to be unhappy, even miserable. According to Adam Nagourney’s narrative, the Times is staffed by solipsistic, insecure, power hungry, egotistical people. Sharp elbows? You’d better be good at mixed martial arts if you plan to go to work for the Times.

The book carefully chronicles the revolving door of executive editors from the late 1970s with the leadership of A.M. Rosenthal to that of Dean Baquet, the paper’s first black executive editor. The bodies of many others are strewn along the path: Max Frankel, Joe Lelyveld, Howell Raines, Bill Keller, Jill Abramson, Baquet and Joe Kahn, who currently holds the job.

Apparently the Times staff was miserable under Rosenthal, who was brilliant and also a tyrant who belittled and humiliated his staff; his excesses were fueled by alcohol. Frankel’s goal was to steady the news operation. (Nagourney calls him the not-Abe.) His successor, Lelyveld, was accused of making the paper “boring,” but Raines was guilty of favoritism and oversight. Indeed, it was under Raines that Judy Miller was allowed to preach the dangers of WMD under Saddam Hussein, leading the nation into a costly and catastrophic war against Iraq. As if that were not enough to take deep chunks out of the paper’s credibility, it was under Raines, again, that the paper endured the scandal of Jason Blair, a young black reporter who fabricated stories while using cocaine and alcohol.

In the book, Nagourney followed the editors as they struggle against the vicissitudes of the economy, with all its ups and downs, and the loss of revenue as advertisers ditch the Gray Lady in favor of social media. It was left to a hapless Richard Meislin to write a memo early in the 2000s entitled “What is the Internet.” Abramson (the paper’s first woman executive editor) led the struggle against integrating the paper version of the Times with its digital offspring; her opposition eventually cost her the job.

Towering over the newsroom was the ever-present Sulzberger family: first Punch, as he came to be known, then his son, Arthur, and lately his grandson, A.G. Sulzberger. The father-son-grandson succession approved the selection of top management, controlled the finances, demanded staff cuts and attempted to stay out of the day-to-day news decisions -- except, of course, when they hurt the bottom line.

Fascinating to those who know all the players, this book is also a litany of inside baseball, a series of names, many of them locked in mortal combat. The word “elites” seems to have gained traction in recent years and the Times staff deftly inhabits the profile; we follow a trail of expensive dinners at upscale Manhattan restaurants, foreign junkets and top salaries, all of them north of $1.3 million per year paid to top executives. One is left wondering how small news organizations all over the country could have been saved if just some of that largesse had been spread around.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a newspaper junkie and have been a daily reader of the New York Times since I moved to New York City from Buffalo in 1976. I came back to Buffalo, but kept reading the Times. I have always found books about newspapers to be fascinating and was eager to read this book, which covers roughly the last 40 years. This has been a tough time for newspapers, as hundreds have gone out of business due to the loss of advertising revenue and competition from various internet news sources. It has been a sad development, as many citizens who formerly obtained their news from actual journalists now rely on unvetted gossip and disinformation spread on social media.

The author, who writes for the Times, was able to obtain a lot of inside information from publishers and editors at the highest levels of the newspaper. Controversies involving the paper, including its difficulties promoting women and African Americans, are thoroughly aired out in the book. The strengths and weaknesses of various executive editors are also examined in detail. Much of the book is involved with the transition from a primarily print newspaper to a digital product. Editors and reporters accustomed to preparing stories for a daily deadline had to get used to producing stories for a 24-hour news cycle and it wasn't an easy transition for many of them. Still, the Times' transition, unlike those of numerous competitors, has been successful. So there is a bit of a self-congratulatory vibe to the book.

My main gripe with the book, and it is a big one, is that there is little here about actual journalism. There is mention of various Pulitzer Prizes won by the paper, but the subjects of the winning stories, and their authors, are rarely mentioned. There is a good section in the book about how the newspaper mobilized to cover the 9/11/2001 World Trade Center attacks, but its coverage of other big stories is mostly absent. We rarely meet any reporters or columnists, unless they are mentioned as being eased out of their positions. As an example, Jim Dwyer was a reporter and columnist for the Times for nearly twenty years. He was part of the 9/11 coverage and wrote an award-winning book, 102 Minutes, about the attacks, with Kevin Flynn, an editor at the paper. Neither Dwyer nor Flynn is mentioned in the book. Frank Rich, a tremendously influential theater critic whose career at the Times lasted more than thirty years, receives one brief mention.

The author does thoroughly examine some famous Times scandals, including the Jayson Blair incident and the role of Judith Miller as one of the main cheerleaders in favor of going to war in Iraq. He is less forthcoming about the Times' role in electing Donald Trump through its relentless screaming headlines about Hillary Clinton's emails. There is a rather fuzzy discussion about the conflict between printing what readers ought to know vs what they want to see, usually stories that are more entertaining. Since this is a fundamental question of editorial judgment, I would have hoped for more.

In summary, an interesting, valuable book, but too skewed toward top level editor politics and too little about the most important aspects of newspapering, the stories and how they are written and chosen for publication.

[Brendan Daly · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a dedicated NY Times reader who has worked for years with many NYT reporters, I really enjoyed Adam Nagourney's juicy tome. The book, in the tradition of Gay Talese's 'The Kingdom and the Power," is a fun read and exhaustively researched (more than 50 pages of footnotes!) as it tracks the story of the Times as it enters the modern era. There's a lot of back-stabbing palace intrigue and a detailed chronicle of the major scandals and errors in the Time since the mid 1970s.

Though not for everyone, I enjoyed the inside baseball reporting that permeates the book because Nagourney is a good writer and weaves a strong narrative tale about the Times and the societal forces that slowly, and I mean slowly, force their way into the hypercompetitive newsroom where everyone believes they know best.

Nagourney, a 28-year veteran of the Times who still works there, pulls no punches and hammers all the top editors. In fact, it's hard to know who was the biggest jerk as executive editor -- though my vote would be for Abe Rosenthal, with Howell Raines and Jill Abramson right behind him -- and who made the biggest errors. Again, there are many to choose from, but here Raines would get my vote for his mishandling of the Jayson Blair episode and his allowing Judy Miller and other Times reporters to cheerlead for the Bush Administration as they led us into a totally unnecessary and huigely costly war in Iraq. The top editors at the Times all had their talents but each was deeply flawed and too slow to realize the Times needed to modernize and move away from the print edition to remain relevant in the modern, digital age.

The only one who comes out with his reputation somewhat intact is Dean Baquet, who made plenty of mistakes: Hillary's emails and the fraudulent Caliphate podcast series, among others. But he also stopped resisting the push for digital dominance and worked with the two generations of Sulzberger publishers and Times business executives to transform the Times from a print product to a 24-hour, global digital news and information behemoth that offers online games, cooking recipes and product reviews. Given how many other newspapers, including my own beloved Patriot Ledger in Quincy, Mass., failed miserably in that digital transition, the financial and journalistic success of the Times should be cheered.

My only quibble with the book is that it effecively ends in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump, yet was not published until 2023. The intervening years have been quite eventful with huge challenges to journalism and to democracy, to say the least, and Nagourney tries to sum them up in a brief epilogue but it inevitably falls short. Maybe they'll be in his next book.

[Chevron Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love good journalism. Democracy cannot survive without it. America’s founders knew this when they included freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights.

The New York Times has long been the standard of American news organizations. Thus, it receives closer scrutiny than most. When I purchased Adam Nagourney’s biography I expected to learn more about how the newspaper achieved such a stellar reputation. What I got was a lengthy chronicle of power struggles and bickering among its executives.

The book begins in 1962 with the appointment of Abe Rosenthal as executive editor. Rosenthal described The Times as “the greatest paper on earth” and held his reporters to high standards with his bullying management style. Over seventeen years he steered it through the Pentagon Papers crisis, New York City’s financial crisis of the 1970s, and social changes that resulted in restyling the paper to accommodate a new generation of readers.

Nagourney’s account reminds us that news organizations face the same kinds of economic pressures as other businesses—no subscribers, no advertisers; no advertisers, no revenue; no revenue, no newspaper. Thus there is always conflict between business interests and ethics.

For this reason I was surprised to find rare mention of the courageous journalism that made The Times “America’s newspaper of record”. You’d expect more details of how it handled the Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers case, Watergate, and the 9/11 attacks. Though Nagourney mentions the many Pulitzer Prizes The Times won under each executive, he provides no details of the stories that earned these honors. In fact, he rarely mentions the reporters’ contributions at all.

There are many interesting passages, including controversy over a high-profile rape case; the editors’ struggles to handle distasteful details of Bill Clinton’s relationship with a White House intern; the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal; the Judith Miller First Amendment fiasco; and the newspaper’s reluctant entry into the digital age. Overall, however, you get the impression that The Times has survived in spite of personality clashes that often left the news staff bruised and demoralized.

What Nagourney does with this book, he does in depth and with meticulous documentation. Regrettably, much of it is petty and unworthy of the reader’s attention. Be warned that the author quotes a great many sources who employ offensive language.

[Jonathan Keilholz · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are few names as synonymous with American journalism — or even journalism itself — as The New York Times. But for being (in many eyes) the gold standard of the fourth estate, there sure has been a lot of tumult and controversy.

Adam Nagourney’s THE TIMES is a no holds barred examination of this media juggernaut, and his research and reporting are nothing short of thorough and exceptional. Every sentence is carefully documented and couched, so much so that the narrative is almost too well-informed of its characters ambitions and transgressions. Nagourney — a reporter himself — has a firm grasp on the founding principles of this paper. His respect for storytelling doesn’t sacrifice his respect for the truth and his respect for the truth (for the most part) doesn’t sacrifice his respect for storytelling. A former (recovering?) journalist myself, I was riveted by the recounting of the competitive fervor after The Washington Post broke Watergate, the decisions made about the Sept. 12, 2001 front page and the deliberations about instituting a paywall to make up for a free fall in advertising revenue. Where I found myself drifting was some of the in-depth biographies of numerous newsroom players. On one hand, this humanized the flawed people at the helm at The Times. But on the other, this removed us (albeit just temporarily) from the true main character and protagonist: The Times itself.

I’m writing this review on the second Inauguration Day for President Donald Trump, one of the biggest critics of a free press and “The failing New York Times.” The epilogue is incredibly prescient as it relates to this moment, reminding journalists that in times of division and strife, the key tenants of journalism are most important. We share facts. We don’t characterize. And we only report “all the news that’s fit to print.”

Unfortunately, as Nagourney’s pages show, it’s not always that simple. But there are people in this world who will die trying — as long as their egos don’t get in the way.