A Quote by Pete du Pont

The sea change that has come is the information age. We don't have to just read The New York Times anymore. We can pull up something on the Internet and get any news that we like.
The pitfall of what's happening in the media is if you're under thirty, you get your news from the Internet and The Daily Show, and there's not much discrimination between what they find on the front page of The New York Times and what they find on the Internet. That's not a bad thing, in the sense that people don't get spoon - fed anymore.
It will be my earnest aim that The New York Times give the news, all the news, in concise and attractive form, in language that is permissible in good society, and give it as early if not earlier, than it can be learned through any other reliable medium; to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interest involved; to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.
It is commonly said that the Internet is unique in its ability to spread bad information to large numbers of people, but this is ridiculous, given that the Internet cannot begin to compete with CNN or the New York Times for this honour.
Since I got a really bad review when I was, like, 28 in 'The New York Times,' I don't read reviews anymore.
The New York book was a visual diary and it was also kind of personal newspaper. I wanted it to look like the news. I didn’t relate to European photography. It was too poetic and anecdotal for me… the kinetic quality of new york, the kids, dirt, madness—I tried to find a photographic style that would come close to it. So I would be grainy and contrasted and black. Id crop, blur, play with the negatives. I didn’t see clean technique being right for New York. I could imagine my pictures lying in the gutter like the New York Daily News.
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.
I get the 'The New York Times' and 'Los Angeles Times' thrown at my door every morning. I'll read the front page of 'The New York Times,' then the op-eds, then scan the arts section and then the sports section. Then I do the same with the 'L.A. Times.'
I read the 'Times' and 'Post,' but I have nothing against the 'Daily News.' I also fish around the Internet for entertainment news but find most of what I read to be untrue or partially true.
I live in L.A. so I don't get to see much theatre anymore. They have a lot of touring shows but it's not like New York - I lived in New York for 15 years and you can walk out on the street and there's something to see.
I speak to kids 16, 17 years old, they haven't read a newspaper. They haven't physically handled a newspaper. They don't even look at the headlines on a subway. These kids are on the Internet and the level of news that they're getting is not the quality of 'The New York Times' or 'The Wall Street Journal.' It's way deficient, and they don't care.
Sometimes people ask me to do stuff in New York, like "Can you read at this thing?" And I say, "Nooo, I can't just get on a plane with these two screaming children - I can't just get rid of them on such short notice and take vacation and fly over to New York."
"The New York Times" is reporting correctly that women had accused a presidential candidate of sexual assault. Now that's news on any level. I mean you can't argue that that's not news.
Recently it's become much to my surprise, something that does happen. For example, I used to get almost all of my stories, and it's probably still true, from newspapers. Primarily from The New York Times. No one ever really thinks of The New York Times as a tabloid newspaper and it isn't a tabloid newspaper. But there is a tabloid newspaper within The New York Times very, very often.
You're always going to have more traffic if you're a free website. But we've always admitted that the New York Times was behind other news organizations in making our stories available to people on the web. BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post are much better than we are at that, and I envy them for this. But I think the trick for the New York Times is to stick to what we are. That doesn't mean: Don't change. But I don't want to be BuzzFeed. If we tried to be what they are, we would lose.
I like to read the news, but when I pull up a Japanese site, and an article comes up with my face, I never read it.
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially... They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!