Yeah, the New York Times is very intellectual and very, very prestigious, but it doesn't reach the market that People magazine does.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
My worry about the New York Times is that it's got the only position as a national elitist general-interest paper. So the network news picks up its cues from the Times. And local papers do too. It has a huge influence. And we'd love to challenge it.
I intend to buy 'The New York Times.' Please don't take it as a joke.
I think the 'New York Times' reviews overall tend to overlook popular fiction, whether you're a man, woman, white, black, purple or pink. I think there are a lot of readers who would like to see reviews that belong in the range of commercial fiction.
I know real people, whose names I could tell you, people I know who have said 'I've stopped buying the New York Times.' Why? Because their editorial position has filtered, has leached into the news pages.
I have been fortunate that publications like the 'New York Times' and 'The Wall Street Journal' have allowed me to share some of my opinions with a wider audience.
There is no more respected or influential forum in the field of journalism than the New York Times. I look forward, with great anticipation, to contributing to its op-ed page.
If 'The New York Times' didn't exist, CNN and MSNBC would be a test pattern. 'The Huffington Post' and everything else is predicated on 'The New York Times'. It's a closed circle of information from which Hillary Clinton got all her information - and her confidence.
Most magazines have peak moments. They live on, they do just okay, or they die. 'The New Yorker' has had a very different kind of existence.
'The New York Times' list is a bunch of crap. They ought to call it the editor's choice. It sure isn't based on sales.
'The New York Times' is a great newspaper: it is also No Fun.