Page One: Inside the New York Times Page #2

before starting

his whistleblower website.

We would like to see the revelations

that this material gives

investigated by governments,

and new policies

put in place as a result,

if not prosecutions.

I gotta try Julian again,

because I have not heard

back from him at all.

Hello?

Hi, it's Brian Stelter

calling from "The Times."

There is a traditional definition

of journalism that is objective,

totally legal, never breaking

the law to obtain content.

Do you view yourself as trying

to achieve that definition,

or is your definition

of journalism broader?

And tell me what the goal is.

Tell me what the goal is.

I don't know whether what

he's doing is good or bad.

I mean, clearly, you know,

in an open society,

you know, information is,

you know, is important.

It's vital for people to make decisions.

On the other hand, there are things

that can get people in trouble.

The video was edited in a way

that did not show the full story.

It was presented as journalism,

but it had, you know, an agenda.

Is "journalist" a word

you attach to yourself?

Okay.

The video has been

edited to the extent

that you really have

a hard time knowing the greater context.

There is, there is.

- So they have both, right?

- They did do both, it's true.

But the unedited version

clearly shows a guy carrying an RPG.

They're shifting from being

a clearinghouse to being advocacy.

It's a big decision they make

to suddenly edit a 30-minute thing.

- Are you writing separately on this?

- We are, we are.

I certainly had not heard of

WikiLeaks before that moment.

And I think probably

a lot of my colleagues hadn't either.

That was the time

it kind of burst out

into broader public view.

- Hey hey, did you send it?

- Oh, I saw a...

- there was a note in there.

- Did you?

I didn't see it from you.

I'm going to open it up.

He's lying.

Oh, he didn't send it.

I knew he didn't send it.

There's two A1 meetings.

There's the 10:
30 where

we discuss the stories of the day,

what we're going to offer.

And there's a 4:
00,

when the top editors

make that decision.

It's all the desk heads,

or at least somebody from each desk.

You make your pitches

and they ask questions.

Then they decide what they want to put

in the newspaper the next day.

You know,

it's kind of a competition.

You go in there and lots

of people want stories

and we tight to get on A1.

But it's very constructive fighting.

All right, folks,

we're still waiting for a few people

but I think we can get started.

First, I think... Bruce.

This is our follow on the video that was

released yesterday on the web.

We're taking a look at WikiLeaks, which

is the organization that leaked it.

I think it's a very

interesting moment for them.

They've been gaining a lot of notoriety

because of the Baghdad video.

As Ian pointed out, they've put up

the raw footage, which is 38 minutes.

They've also put up an edited version,

which is what many people are seeing,

and there are already people

in the army and elsewhere saying

that this actually distorts

what actually happened there.

And when they went to get the bodies,

they found a guy with the RPG,

so as Bruce was saying,

it's become advocacy. Now-

Somebody's, yeah.

I just talked with-

They probably belong in the same place.

- I'm sorry?

- They probably belong

in one kind of

coherent whole, right?

- Sure.

- Yeah, right right.

In the Page-One meeting,

the most senior editors

look at the summary

of the story itself

and say,

"Have you framed it correctly?

Does this seem loaded? Do you have

enough facts to back this up?"

And then ultimately people

present their arguments

pro and con and build the sides.

Oh, the West Bank story.

Hmmm.

I don't think the whole country is

interested in Sharpe James.

- No.

- Swing Sharpe and West Bank?

West Bank's going to have

a big readership here.

- Yeah, I wouldn't swing that.

- Swing it with WikiLeaks?

- Uh-huh.

- Okay, swing it with WikiLeaks.

Let's leave the West Bank story.

It's going to swing, which means

in New York it will go inside,

but for the rest of the country

it will go on the front page.

You know, you look

for that moment where

you can really tell people,

"Here's how the world's changing."

When I gave

"The Pentagon Papers" to "The Times,"

there was a 22-month period

from the start of my copying

to it finally coming out.

Had the internet existed then,

I would have bought a scanner,

sent it out to all the blogs.

It's not certain that

that would have had as good an effect,

but at least it would have been out.

The bottom line is WikiLeaks

doesn't need us.

Daniel Ellsberg did.

The old newspaper model is dying.

Period. Done. News is not dying.

News is much cheaper

to produce now

because we can gather

and share in new ways,

operate on cheap platforms,

operate in networks.

There's incredible

new ways to do news.

There's no question that there is

still an enormous amount

of information out there,

but these papers have

the great capacity of a newsroom.

And if you think of the history

of these institutions-

Watergate, Abu Ghraib,

the Walter Reed scandal-

it is these institutions

bringing to bear newsrooms

of experienced journalists.

And I think we're at a dangerous moment

in American journalism.

The question really is whether

it's too late for some institutions

to take advantage of that change

and change as much as they have to.

So along comes David Carr,

the most human of humans,

talking about how media operates

within "The New York Times."

Please welcome David Carr!

You were a...

you are a former crack addict

and you are a reporter

for "The New York Times."

Which of these two do you think

is more damaging to society?

If you write about

the media long enough,

eventually you'll type

your way to your own doorstep.

I arrived at "The New York Times" late

in my professional life,

and I have an immigrant's

love of the place.

The chip that was implanted

in me when I arrived...

let's just call it "New York

Times" exceptionalism-

leads me to conclude that

of course we will survive.

You're so nice!

Then again, having suffered through

drug addiction in my 20s and 30s,

landing in jail

for cocaine possession,

raising two children

as a single parent,

and eventually ending up

at "The New York Times,"

I know what it's like

to come out the other side

when the odds are

stacked against you.

Hi, I'm looking for Alex.

Sure, you can

go have a seat on the couch.

- Huh? Okay.

- He'll be right back.

- Hi.

- This is David Carr

- from "The New York Times."

- Nice to meet you.

Don't keep saying

I'm from "The New York Times."

That sucks.

I'm just- it's me.

- It's nice to meet you finally.

- I'm David.

- Very nice to meet you.

- Hi, pleased to meet you. How are you?

We wanted to get everyone together

to do a companywide update.

The media landscape is changing

in really dramatic ways

Rate this script:3.0 / 2 votes