Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Don’t blame Jill Abramson for the NYT’s slow web adoption

Chris Keane

On Monday I wrote about the challenges faced by newspapers like the New York Times as they struggle to make a transition to the web. A point that’s implicit in that post but is worth making explicitly is that newspapers’ struggles to adapt to the web are not necessarily the fault of the people running the newspapers.

In internet journalism circles, it’s customary to portray legacy media executives as blinkered and reactionary. And of course there are some executives that fit that description. But newspapers have also had extremely smart and far-thinking leaders, and none of them has discovered the magic formula for transforming a print news organization into a web-savvy digital news organization.

Today’s newspaper executives have to balance two conflicting objectives. They have to keep the print product healthy enough to keep the lights in the short term while simultaneously growing the digital side of the business quickly enough to pick up the slack as print revenues fall. In practice, these objectives are in direct conflict with each other. If papers move too quickly to a digital-first model, they’ll undermine the health of the print business before the digital product is ready to stand on its own. If they move too slowly, there won’t be a successful digital business to fall back on when print revenues plummet.

There’s no guarantee that it’s even possible for newspapers to manage this transition successfully. I suspect that the precipitous decline of mid-market dailies like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the St. Paul Pioneer Press was inevitable. It was just too hard for these smaller papers to build websites large enough to replace declining print revenues.

The largest papers — the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post — benefit from the media version of the “superstar effect.“ As the news business has become increasingly national, the most famous brands have been able to attract a lot of new readers outside their home markets. That has given the leaders of these papers a some extra breathing room.

But it’s been a wrenching transition even for the largest newspapers. And there no reason to think better leadership in recent years could have avoided the pain. It’s a genuinely hard problem, and if anything newspaper executives like Jill Abramson deserve credit for managing the transition as well as they have.

See More:

More in archives

archives
Ethics and Guidelines at Vox.comEthics and Guidelines at Vox.com
archives
By Vox Staff
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health careThe Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health care
Supreme Court

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

By Ian Millhiser
archives
On the MoneyOn the Money
archives

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

By Vox Staff
archives
Total solar eclipse passes over USTotal solar eclipse passes over US
archives
By Vox Staff
archives
The 2024 Iowa caucusesThe 2024 Iowa caucuses
archives

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

By Vox Staff
archives
The Big SqueezeThe Big Squeeze
archives

The economy’s stacked against us.

By Vox Staff