Page One: Inside the New York Times (2011) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
17 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
An Interesting well-made film about how the NY Times is adjusting to new media environment
JustCuriosity14 March 2011
As a long time reader of the New York Times, I was delighted to see that Page One was showing at Austin's SXSW Film Festival. Page One is a provocative film that explores the complexities of the new media landscape in which the New York Times now finds itself trying to compete and keep its head above water. It is one of the few films that I've seen that really provides the viewer with an inside look at how a major newspaper operates. While the film tends to be pro-New York Times by the very nature of the fact that it was made with their cooperation, it still comes off as fair portrait of America's paper of record. The film focuses in on the media division and how the Times is coping with new challenges from Wikileaks, online news sources, web logs, news aggregating websites, twitter, etc. The film clearly shows why we still need the "so-called" old media to provide the investigative journalism that is hard to find elsewhere.

Newspapers – and especially the elite newspapers – remain a crucial element in our political culture in that they provide a check against abuse of power by both government and corporations. The internet new media still relies on old media for its reporting and is not equipped to replace it. Clearly new models for cooperation between new and old are needed that will allow mainstream media to continue to profitable. The NY Times is proud, magisterial, occasionally arrogant, and absolutely necessary. Like any old institution, it will survive if it continues to change and evolve for new times and technologies.

Page One is part of an on-going conversation that the United States is having about how media will evolve in the age of the Internet. It is useful film for engaging the broader public in the conversation.
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Are Newspapers Really Dying Off?
David Ryan McNeely19 May 2012
Director Andrew Rossi takes a candid look at the venerable Big Apple daily, and how it is adapting to the growing prevalence of the internet as people's primary news source.

This story is told primarily from the perspective of the staff on the media desk; editor Bruce Headlam, columnist David Carr and correspondent Brian Stelter. These are the guys in the unenviable position of reporting on (amongst other things) the bankruptcy of other newspapers caused by the growth of online news and the drop in advertising and circulation revenues. Carr in particular gets most of the screen time, and deservedly so. He is a profane and fiercely intelligent presence with a back-story worthy of Hollywood itself, while Stelter is that unique case of someone who started out as an anonymous news blogger before moving over to print media. After outing his identity in a series of stories about his site, the Times then went and offered him a job. He is one of the new breed – a journalist who embraces the advantages of developing technology. He is seen at his cubicle with several computers running, tweeting about his stories, even bringing in a brand new iPad to demonstrate to his dumbfounded old-school colleagues.

Rossi spent a year in the Times newsroom and the film covers a variety of stories and issues covered by the paper in that time, including the Iraq War; Carr's piece on the bankruptcy of the Tribune Company (which he linked directly to mismanagement by its new owner Sam Zell and his executives); and the explosion of Wikileaks into the public consciousness with their publication of the Afghan War logs. This last is also compared to the similar case of the infamous Pentagon Papers leak in 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg to the Times. The advances in the internet have essentially done away with the idea of a Deep Throat. No longer will an insider source need to work with a reporter. Now they can just go online and tell their tale to everyone. While this means that "the truth will out" so much more, it also takes away that important middle step of fact-checking, confirming and crafting a story that a properly trained and respected journalist provides.

In its examination of the slowly dwindling print business, this film covers similar territory to the final season of The Wire. David Simon built the conclusion of his opus around a somewhat fictionalised version of his own former haunt, the Baltimore Sun. Simon features in this movie briefly as well, in a short clip of a televised debate on the dying art of a reporter working a beat that also included Arianna Huffington of the all-conquering Huffington Post. He raises a very solid point though: even with everyone and his wife blogging the news from their bedrooms, there will always be a place for the reporter on the scene, notebook in hand. The delivery method may change with the times (pardon the pun) but the infrastructure, methods and ethics of the newspaper will always be necessary. The "more with less" evangelists are having their day in the sun, but hopefully a new day will dawn soon enough. The best way to make sure that happens is to accept the fact that news costs. The film touches on the idea of pay-walls on the online versions of the paper. I'm all for these personally. You have to pay for the physical newspaper, why shouldn't you pay for the digital version?

It's rare that I get to say this, but all the poster quotes are true. This is a fascinating film that covers a lot of ground in only 92 minutes. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to buy my online subscription to the New York Times.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Making a case for the necessity of The Times to survive.
John Raymond Peterson14 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is a well done documentary which subject is long overdue. Some well known truism should never be forgotten. Eliminate a professional, elite even, news organizations such as The Times and you are one step, the last one, to any semblance of democracy. Reporters in this documentary explain well that the web's various pseudo journalistic sites would not exist if it was not for the major newspapers such as the Times. None describe as eloquently as David Carr what the web media would become or look like if you took out all content, quotes and facts, originating from the New York Times; the result was striking.

The documentary is also objective enough to site the major failings and risks of any major institution such as the Times; the articles on the case of weapons of mass destructions in Iraq by Judith Miller (Pulitzer Prize) and the series of fabricated articles by Jason Blair, to mention two important ones. The movie took the perspective of one department of the Times, to approach the subject, that of the Media Industry. So it provided us with a comprehensive view of the fate of newspapers and a glimpse of the future. I was certainly interested in getting information explaining how we are where we are with journalism today, not why, because who does not know that the web has meant the inevitable demise of newspapers as we knew them. I forgot who, in the film, said "information has never been free"; which explains how ludicrous it is to expect to get real journalism on the web for free, at least in depth reporting, because headlines are easy to make up, not so easy to include meat with that.

If anything, the movie will make you reflect and you can come up with your own conclusions. Mine was simple: How can you pi** off so many people, politicians and political cults, celebrities and their hedonistic followers, religious organizations of all varieties and points of view, and not be absolutely necessary; you define a free society and country by the degree of freedom and independence its press enjoys. The Times has and is changing with the times.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Extra, Extra ... Tweet All About It
David Ferguson17 July 2011
Greetings again from the darkness. Let me start by saying that you need not be a newspaper expert, reporter or reader to appreciate the points discussed in this documentary from Andrew Rossi. These key points include the battle of print vs social media, the need for true reporting, and the sustainability of the venerable institution that is The New York Times.

There is some argument given towards what constitutes journalism, but for me the real guts of the matter boils down to our absolute NEED for investigative reporting. I have always given value to bulldog reporting as a checks and balances for our system. Maybe, just maybe, our public officials and corporate leaders will toe the line if they are being watched. Sure, we can all rattle off a long list of when that hasn't been the case, but I truly believe, having reporters following and snooping does make a difference in the actions of those in charge ... and even if it doesn't, it certainly makes a difference in the accuracy and depth with which their actions are written about.

The filmmaker has been given substantial access to the media desk inside the newsroom. We even get to sit on a portion of the morning meeting where the senior editors decide what the lead stories will be. Personally, I would have loved a couple more hours of just that! But just as fascinating is how Bruce Headlam manages the media news, and in particular, star reporter David Carr. Mr. Carr is a hardened reporter with the spectacular ability to cut directly through to the important point and focus on the details, verify those details, and then summarize in a concise, understandable manner. We see this in full beauty with his handling of the crisis and scandal at the Chicago Tribune under Sam Zell's banner.

Today, we like our news spoon fed to us in 20 second sound bites. So we find our favorite websites and we scan the headlines, which themselves are scans of news stories. My favorite moment of the movie occurs on a discussion panel when David Carr holds up a printout of the home page of an "aggregator". Moments later he makes the point that without real reporters and news teams (like the NYT), this aggregator's home page would look quite different ... he then holds up that same home page with 90% of the stories cut out because their source is a real news organization.

Some attention is paid to Twitter and other social media outlets. This seems to be finally accepted by the reporters as being effective for two things: a delivery system for information and a grapevine with lightning speed. Of course, no verification is required for a "news" story to hit Twitter, and therein lies its limitation.

We get interviews from both Gay Talese and Carl Bernstein on the importance of news reporting. Evidence is provided through mentions of the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks and Watergate. Judith Miller and Jayson Blair are topics that embarrassed and did significant damage to the industry ... but changes were adopted to (hopefully) prevent re occurrence. The News of the World scandal is too new to have made the film, but it certainly would have added a fascinating subtext to it.

The bankruptcy trail of so many newspapers is discussed, along with the possibility of this happening at The Times. Personally I wish more detail had been provided on the survival strategy of this institution. Since the release of the film, there has been a change in the Executive Editor position. Bill Keller, who is featured prominently in the morning meetings, has stepped down and been replaced by Jill Abramson. Ms. Abramson is charged with driving and building online presence and revenue. We should all be wishing her success as the world is a better place with The New York Times.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
You may know most of this but you won't forget it.
FilmRap3 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The news media has been undergoing a radical change in the last few years. The new media and the blogosphere is rapidly competing as a source of breaking news. Advertising revenue has fallen as much as 30 % in the past year for many of the leading newspapers. Many newspapers throughout the country have closed. It is rare to have two major newspapers even in a large city, let alone three of them. Filmmaker Andrew Rossi persuaded the venerable New York Times to let him spend close to a year to be essentially embedded, mostly in their New York headquarters, in order to make a documentary showing how they are carrying on their proud tradition in the face of all these changes. While he worked closely with his wife filmmaker Kate Novack, and a team of editors, it was Rossi alone who roamed the multi-leveled headquarters with his trusty camera on his shoulder. He was there when the WikiLeaks story broke and he was able to capture how the New York Times writers and editorial staff struggled with the ethics and ultimate decision to print the leaks and how they became part of the story. He was filming at the staff meetings when the writers and editors were trying to figure out if the war in Iraq was coming to an end because NBC was breaking a story about departing troops but it wasn't part of the US government announcements. The central character in the much of this documentary is NY Times writer David Carr who himself has a very colorful history, once being addicted to cocaine and now being a senior well respected, witty, crusty, very capable reporter who mostly covers media issues. The film shows us how he approached the big time story of the collapse of the well known Tribune media giant, its subsequent buyout by some non newspaper people who bled the organization, dismantled their ethical base and were running a corrupt unethical management team themselves. They ultimately resigned demonstrating the power and value of the New York Times, functioning at its best as it used all its resources to report this story. In the end we are quite enlightened about the changes in how we get our news and the choices we have. We are also quite impressed as we see the coming together in a working alliance of young new media people within the powerful "legacy" news organizations symbolized by the New York Times. Working side by side or cubicle to cubicle this new generation of Times men and women seem to be able to provide the leadership and a viable co-existence with the huge blogosphere that continues to grow. It is clear that everything will be different with each year or two and the concluding lines of the story have not yet been written, This documentary does capture this fascinating piece of evolving journalism in a verite style. It is somewhat choppy without a clear plot, which reflects the nature of the content. You may walk away from this film and say , "I sort of knew all this" but for certain you will not take David Carr and his colleagues for granted any more. (2011)
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
news changes
Lee Eisenberg10 July 2011
The phone-hacking scandal that just forced News of the World to close its doors has brought the media to light yet again. Andrew Rossi's "Page One: Inside the New York Times" looks at what is probably the most famous newspaper in the United States, and how it has had to change as media evolves. The main focus is columnist David Carr, but all the major figures from the paper get to appear on screen (although I would have liked to have also seen Paul Krugman and Frank Rich). One of the main topics that the documentary brings up is the large number of newspapers that have closed their doors as more and more people turn to the Internet for news. But as the documentary makes clear, newspapers do still provide certain kinds of coverage that online sources can't provide.

Without a doubt, the NYT has had its problems (like Judith Miller's pushing the WMD claims about Iraq, and Jayson Blair's outright falsification of stories), but it remains an important source of information. In years past the Internet was not widespread, so it was through newspapers that Watergate and the Pentagon Papers got exposed. All of which shows the importance of having an informed population. All in all, this documentary is a really good look at the inner workings of the news business. I recommend it. Among the other interviewees are executive editor Bill Keller, and Baghdad bureau chief Tim Arango.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent Documentary Focuses Too Much on Jaded Journalist
chaz-2828 May 2011
Page One: Inside the New York Times is not a documentary about a day in the life of a newspaper. Instead, it is more social commentary from the New York Times' media desk about the current state of newspapers, their antagonizing relationship with news aggregators and social media, and a bit forlorn about how robust the New York Times used to be compared to their current staffing levels based on the combined loss of ad revenue and print subscriptions. The majority of this film focuses on the paper's media section, specifically on the cantankerous journalist David Carr, a former crack addict now social media watchdog. He frequently goes to conferences and events to defend his newspaper against social media sites who proclaim the death of news print and the inevitable rise of the internet news leviathan. Unfortunately for them, David Carr fights backs with some old common sense. In the most effective scene, he holds up a hardcopy of Newser's front page showing all of the news aggregated links on it. His next exhibit has all of the links cut out of it which were 'stolen' from the mainstream media making the Newser's front page look absolutely ridiculous and full of holes for all to see.

Too bad for the film's audience though, David Carr comes across as more of an a**hole for most of the film and you welcome to other locales and issues the documentary focuses on when it's not on Carr. There are scenes of employee layoffs, contrite apologies about Judith Miller and Jayson Blair, and the continuing defense that without the large, networked mainstream media, these new social media / news aggregator sites would have nothing to link to on their websites. These professional at-home bloggers do not have bureaus in Baghdad, stringers in war zones, and in an amusing side bit, they do not have people following their hometown zoning boards either.

Page One is effective at showing the audience that hardcopy newspapers are not dead yet and they still provide a considerable service to those who wish to remain informed. Regrettably, the film spends way too much time on David Carr and the media section which bogs down the film and makes the audience wait for the next segment not involving Carr.
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
New versus old....
CurtHerzstark4 June 2012
When Johann Gutenberg invented the printing process around 1439, he probably couldn't foresee the future, where people would consider his invention redundant and obsolete.

The digital revolution , internet, etc have started to compete with printed media such as the legendary newspaper The New York Times, a newspaper that is depicted in this documentary.

We get follow some of their reporters, the job at the editing office, and also the new approach to the internet and surfpads.

But will The New York Times be able to compete with websites like Wikileaks etc?

And how will they survive in climate with ever descending ad incomes?

Will the internet completely destroy investigating journalism?

Because nowadays anyone can be investigating journalist by simply putting their discoveries on a personal blog or any other type of internetbased platform.

These and many other questions are discussed in this highly interesting documentary about media from one of the most prominent newspapers in the world.

The documentary also touches upon the heavy criticisms that newspaper received during the Judith Miller, Jayson Blair scandals and ever growing question, can we trust media at all?

The only flaws I can think of is that sometimes director Andrew Rossi seem to lack focus, not knowing what he wants to tell, he should made the viewers get closer to some of the people working at the New York Times.

I would love to know more about David Carrs background, a colourful journalist, and some of his co workers background.

But this film should been seen by anyone wanting to know more about media, journalism in this riveting documentary. So viewers who liked Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004), The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009), Starsuckers (2009) should see this one.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tackles the hard questions
Mr-Fusion5 September 2015
"Page One" promises a look inside the New York Times, but it's also focused on the question that looms large over the whole industry: how can print journalism sustain itself? It's a worthy question, and goodness knows the movie devotes plenty of time to the issue. And if you're on the side of legacy journalism, then revel in the film's best character, David Carr (print's staunchest defender). This guy's all teeth. It's a fun scene watching him shoot down an aggregator during a debate.

But the movie's at its best when it's about the newsroom, and this is compelling stuff: decisions being made during the Wikileaks info dump, Iraq withdrawal, and the laying off o a great deal of the paper's workforce. You do get to be a fly on the wall, and during these scenes, it's good stuff.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's the little stuff that counts.
Sam Boutelle19 March 2015
Intimidating as it inspires, Page One pushes cameras into one of the highest-pressure environments around and captures a few human moments in the midst of empire-cleaving times. As he explores the prognosis for the Gray Lady, Andrew Rossi also lends light to lives led in pursuit of larger issues, and he illuminates just how frantic days are within the halls and heads of those responsible for the paper of record. Best of all, we're allowed to be entertained by journalists who otherwise appear only in text that has been scraped and stapled by an institution until its fit to print. More than the documentary's macro plunge into the fate of print media, it is these nicks and knacks of picking up Twitter and trying to break through to clarity in reporting that defines Page One as an inside scoop.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fascinating doc of a dying industry
SnoopyStyle26 June 2014
It's 2010. Newspapers are dying. The New York Times isn't above it all. Ad revenues are down 30% in 2009. The world is exploding with his forms of online media. One of the first news stories to highlight this new wave is the WikiLeaks video of the killing of Iraqi Reuters employees on YouTube. The newsroom is struggling to get a handle on being squeezed from both sides. David Carr is the gruff Media Columnist. His new nemesis is Brian Stelter hired to put give the Times more online presence. This is a fascinating look at a dying industry trying to reinvent itself. It doesn't escape past scandals as it also does some navel gazing with Judy Miller and Jayson Blair. Then WikiLeaks comes with the mother of all leaks. When newsprint finally dies, this will be a fascinating archive into a specific time in media. I found it very watchable. The characters are compelling especially the grumpy David Carr. It's interesting to see him struggle despite the inevitable.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
interesting documentary about the changing face of news papers
gregking49 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
How can old-fashioned print media survive and be competitive in the revolution of new technology and media like Twitter, Internet bloggers and Wikileaks? It seems like everyday the obituary columns of newspapers are full of reports of the death of major American newspapers, and the ability of The New York Times to survive in these difficult economic times has been a source of much speculation over the years. Advertising revenue has collapsed, and major newspapers have gone bankrupt across the country. These are some of the issues explored in this fascinating and eye-opening documentary from Andrew Rossi (who co-produced Jehane Noujaim's Al Jazeera doco Control Room). Granted unprecedented access, Rossi and his film crew spent a year embedded in the offices of the venerable New York Times, observing the day to day operations of the newsroom, the editorial meetings, the retrenchments, and following a few journalists. One of the most colourful characters we meet is David Carr, a former crack addict, who is now a respected and outspoken media columnist for the paper. Rossi compares the Wikileaks site and its exposure of secret files with the paper's own achievements in publishing the infamous Pentagon papers three decades earlier. But he also questions the future of investigative journalism in this age of quick and immediate on-line blogging that mainly passes on snippets of gossip and rumour without the basic fact checking and verification of sources of newspapers. He draws a parallel with the Watergate affair and how intrepid reporters from the Washington Post brought down a President. The film charts the changing face of journalism, but argues that there is still a place for print media in this electronic age. Page One is a fairly balanced view, as Rossi also looks at some of the recent scandals that have tarnished the Times' reputation and damaged its credibility.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A documentary about a dying industry
Jackpollins7 August 2011
Page One is a documentary that follows the newspaper business, a business that is being beat out by the internet and mobile devices. The film follows one year at The New York Times and the people who work there. The main focus of the film is David Carr, a journalist with a rough exterior but a good heart and a great wit. Carr is a former drug addict and a New York Times reporter for many, many years. Carr has been writing for so long that he even says during the film "If you write about media long enough, eventually you type your way to your own doorstep." Carr is a fascinating character. This summer, we have gotten Thor, Captain America, The Green Lantern, Mr. Popper, ETC, but nothing beats watching a real guy with real strengths and genuine flaws go through every day life. Carr is an incredibly smart and humorous man with quick responses to just about everything. There is a scene, for example, when David Carr is looking at an I Pad with a fellow employee. Carr says "Wow, this is a great reading experience," in which he follows up with "you know what this reminds me of?..a newspaper." There are a lot of funny lines like that from Carr throughout the film. While there are a lot of people we get to meet and share experiences with in Page One, Carr is the only one worth reviewing because he is the only one who brings a realism to his role as a reporter. I must add that seeing how all of these people live is fascinating, but Carr is truly the only one who makes Page One worth reading into.
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Re Paper thin insights, Weekend Australian Review Sept 24-25
jysting9 October 2011
In his review of the documentary Page One: Inside the New York Times (Paper thin insights, Weekend Australian Review Sept 24-25) Lynden Barber ascribes "pomposity" to the Time's "olde-timey font and (page) layout." I disagree- in its bid to be more appealing and easier to read, the layout and font chosen are tastefully attention-drawing and pleasing to look at. Indeed I consider the highly characteristic New York Times nameplate a historical objet d'art. Such strongly-felt reactions to the visual elements of typography used by the New York Times suggests that the typeface form of letters selected for headlines and article text as well as page layout are designed to evoke visceral responses in profoundly subliminal ways.

The impact of fonts and page layouts is not just an esoteric aside. The style used for letters, characters and text are designed to create a readable, coherent and visually satisfying whole that works without the reader being aware.Where spoken language relies on tone of voice or gesture to convey emotion, the visual form of the written word possesses mysterious connotative properties. Ultimately, a world without charismatically constructed letters, numerals and symbols leads to unengaging newspapers, whether online or in print.

Joseph Y Ting
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
There's not a lot in Page One that you didn't already know
Likes_Ninjas907 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
There's not a lot in Page One: A Year Inside The New York Times that you didn't already know. For anyone with the faintest interest in digital media you'd be aware of the ongoing conflict between newspapers and Internet culture. In the eyes of many people online blogs and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, are reducing the relevancy of print media. It raises questions of accessibility and punctuality: why should people still purchase a newspaper anymore when they can freely obtain the same information online and in many cases earlier too? The argument is topical and presented here with balance and cohesiveness. But the documentaries few revelations and limited scope ensures that most viewers should not pay full price to see this at the cinema. As with Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2011) this is a documentary you could happily watch at home on television, without losing its impact. And there is certainly some intriguing material that makes it worth watching in one medium or another.

Drawing from recent headlines smartly prevents the documentary from becoming a history lesson and provides a contemporary relevance. One of the more damaging recollections is that over one hundred workers had to be sacked from the Times because of the falling revenue. There are also interesting snippets discussing the shame that journalists like Judith Miller brought to the Times when she falsely reported on the War in Iraq and was then sacked. It's shown as a huge blight on the reputation of the paper that has been sustained for decades. How profoundly reputable the Times has been is something I wasn't aware of till now. We are told that all of the major news stories would have once been drawn firstly from the Times. Equally notable is the more favourable light that the documentary casts on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. Reporters working in the Times regard his site as another source of information that they can use. Referencing WikiLeaks is also an intelligent example of the way that digital media has threatened to upstage print journalism for the big headlines. It's pleasing that there's real balance given to digital media here too. Although WikiLeaks is regarded as a legitimate tool, there's a moment where the Times reporters debate whether to write on a released Youtube video showing US soldiers opening fire on a group. They discover that the video was cut significantly, removing footage of an insurgent aiming an RPG weapon. This rightly hints at the way that information can be cunningly manipulated and reworked by various forms of media. And personally I believe that unedited and opinionated blogs are more likely to fall into the trap of rumour and misinformation because they are frequently written with a specific agenda.

More amusing is when the Times learn that NBC is hosting a parade overseas for the soldiers that neither the White House nor the Pentagon knows anything about it. We briefly see the panic between the editors, fearing that they might wake up the next day and discover that it was a real story and they're the only ones who didn't run with it. That's an insightful moment, showing how important it is for print media to keep in touch. I also enjoyed the company of reporter David Carr. This bloke is a real character. A recovering crack addict and now a single parent, Carr is a passionate defender of the paper and rather hilariously shuts down anyone who tries to talk about its demise. There's a very funny scene where we're introduced to a twenty-one year old blogger who was hired by the Times. David says that he is convinced that the kid was a robot built in the basement of the Times to destroy him. He also makes an excellent point when someone tries to emphasis the punctuality of blogs over newspapers. He reminds everyone that the Times itself has over eighty of its own blogs, as well as hundreds of videos posted and asks why people would go to Facebook for information instead. His sarcasm brings a lot of personality to this documentary and I enjoyed the scenes with him the most. Disappointingly, the documentary misses a great chance to talk about physical technology in the form of tablets, like the Apple iPad. I was pleased and excited to see the documentary show the device but it doesn't elaborate on what can be done with it. A tablet can provide readers with not only continuously updated information but also unlimited writing space too. As someone who is aware of film criticism, for example, being reduced to decreasing bites in print media, that's a pretty significant point to understate. Overall, despite the small pockets of information, the delicacy to balance the film and the colourful presence of David Carr, I could still only recommend this as a late night television viewing, rather than a full price theatrical release.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Documentary film-maker chronicles a year from within the walls of the New York Times..
gregwetherall25 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The New York Times' problem is one facing thousands of papers across the globe; Why pay for a newspaper in a world where information is everywhere, instantly, and for free?

The grave tones of some of the witnesses jar the viewer into shock (and awe) at the reality of the threat facing these once powerful institutions. These are troubling times, make no mistake.

There is a good reason for the bulk of the film to focus on David Carr (a reformed drug addict who came to journalism at the age of 46, who now works for the paper). He stands out as a passionate spokesperson for the New York Times and the traditional media. He is an engaging presence and has a charisma. Unfortunately, however, the film struggles to contain an impulse to melodramatically delve in and out of his back story and this diminishes the impact of the piece.

The film suffers as a result. It leaps about too frequently, covering too many bases. This should have been a channelled, and terrifying, testimony to the precarious future of the print industry, and you do get the feeling that there is a riveting documentary beneath the murk.

Ultimately, although it stands as a fascinating insight into the day-to-day practices of a longstanding and famously influential printing giant, this film is, frustratingly, an opportunity missed.

Read the full review, and many others at:
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews