For us NY Times junkies only, but wonderful! Origins & intrigues of the Ochs family & descendants.

Great book about a still very powerful entity. A very interesting story that is well written. The authors relate the history of the family who created the New York Times, both the personal history of the family, including marriages, births, conflicts, etc. and, not as detailed or as in depth, a history of the origins and evolution of the New York Times. The narrative immediately engages the reader and keeps him rapt throughout. If there were not so many books that I want to read, but have yet to read, I would re-read this one.

The New York Times has been owned and operated by one family for over a century and for four generations. As I was reading this, I happened upon an article discussing the next publisher (another family member). If you like hearing about and reading about the Bush Family or the Kennedy Dynasty, this is a good book for you. If you enjoy reading about how a common, every-day product like a newspaper became such an iconic part of America and American history, this book is for you.

An in depth history of the New York Times which focuses on family dynamics & the business side of the paper. Those who already believe that Pinch Sulzberger is an idiot will find little to dissuade them here.

Very well documented and interesting. It tries to stay neutral and non-judgmental with both the family members and the paper as a whole. This book ends in 2000 so you don't have much insight into why the paper has lurched so left (it supported Deblasio!) in the 21st century however the general trend especially in the 1990's was in that direction and this comes out with Arthur Golden Jr taking over in the 1990's.
Also, its admiration of the family sometimes seeps through causing it too not be as impartial as it should be. As with Wikipedia or the news in general what is and is not stated represents Defacto editorial comments. Some of the disconnects:
- One of the big failures of the NYT was the failure to recognize and speak out more forcefully against the rise of Nazism- and this is brought out several times in the book and is probably a legitimate complaint. Conversely, even though the NYT is proud of its many Pulitzer Prizes, Walter Duranty, the NYT communist apologist is never even mentioned. In one bizarre scene, the progressive matriarch (Iphigénie) of one of the owners is on a trip to China, dancing on the Great Wall and meeting the communist leadership in the early 1970's. This is commented on without criticism by the authors- even though China was in the middle of the "Great Leap Forward" which had cumulatively killed over 50 million people through starvation. Indeed, the number of communists on the paper is never addressed (though alluded to several times)- especially in the 1950's. One would have imagined that if there were fascist on the paper at that time there would have been some comment.
- Everyone in the family seems to get divorced multiple times. The lack of fidelity (or picking the right partner) seems rampant. This is not addressed. It may be an affliction of the intelligentsia.
- Several times it is mentioned that up until the Eisenhower the paper had endorsed Republicans as many times as Democrats. Nevertheless, after the early 1960's the paper did not endorse any republicans (including those running for local offices). This is tied into a general blindness to bias and diversity both within the NYT but also to the authors and to me is a flaw of the paper.
- The family, as they progress, increasingly are more and more disconnected from the real world especially starting in the 1950's. The later generations are all educated (usually with mediocre grades) at liberal arts colleges. Military service in the family seemed to stop mid-century. In one telling example, the husband of one family member was in construction- which was looked down upon. There are no architects, engineers, farmers, oil workers in the family. This is one flaw of the book- it continues to emphasis the modesty of the family... but these people mix with other elites and have elite liberal viewpoints- there is little diversity in thought. This may be related to the frequent divorces and marital infidelities- a chronic problem of the intelligentsia.
You walk away from this with both an appreciation for the advantages as well as the concerns with what it means to be a family run business. While you may have considerable concerns about the NYT this book is a very good and well researched history that attempts and largely succeeds in being impartial.

A fascanating history of the NY Times. Interesting tidbits were:

- The family was Jewish but so afraid of being dubbed a Jewish paper that they barely covered the holocaust - most stories about the mass graves were buried on page 7 and didn't mention the fact that the victims were mostly Jews.
- Adolf Ochs, the first of the family to own the times, bought it completely on borrowed money. He was so in debt it took him 20 years to truly own it. That guy had some large cojones...
- The author really played up the stiff competition each generation for publishership. Seems as the the names (ie Arthur Sulzberger) always won..

Very interesting book especially family vignettes.

It's a good book, and it's extremely thorough. I now know more about the Ochs-Sulzberger clan than I really wanted.

Aldolph Ochs arrived in New York from Chattanoga and managed by bluster to secure ownership of the NY Times and turn it to the best newspaper in the country. The ownership has passed from father to son with son in laws stepping in when no sons were available. Hence the Sulzbergers.

This is an entertaining, gossipy account but the history of the paper and significance of the paper, its great reporters. and columnists is totally subordinated to tales of the family which isn't all that interesting. The coverage of the turbulent 12 years of the paper's struggle with New York Typographical Union is so incomplete and shoddy that one must wonder about how reliable the rest of the book is.

The book ends in 1999 which is unfortunate because the last decade has been a disaster for newspapers in general and the NYTimes in particular and one wonders whether newsprint, hard copy newspapers are a business model that can continue to exist for another twenty years.

Read the book, the Paper an account of the Herald Tribune which is far more impressive.