The Media CEOs Betting Big on Journalism’s Future: Jim Bankoff & Meredith Kopit Levien

and doing things to you that I used to do to Mark Zuckerberg before he stopped talking to me.

“Hi everyone from New York Magazine in the box media podcast network. This is on with”

Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. When today's show I'm talking to two huge names in the media business, Meredith Coppett, Levian, President and CEO of the New York Times and Jim Bankoff, CEO of Vox Media, which produces this very podcast. Both Meredith and Jim have successfully led their companies through huge changes in the industry. Jim spent decades building Vox Media into a big media company, but now he's splitting it up. He's selling the Vox Media podcast network Vox and New York

magazine to James Murdox Company, Lupa Systems. Jim will serve as the CEO of a new company that carries the Vox Media name under Lupa. Penske Media Corporation is acquiring Vox Media's remaining grants. Meredith originally joined the New York Times as it's had a bad advertising, but since becoming the company's CEO in 2020, she's led a huge expansion of

the Times' digital products. Last year, the Times added nearly one and a half million digital subscribers.

“I really wanted to pair Meredith and Jim, not because I wanted to kiss up to someone who used to”

be my boss or someone who used to be my boss, both of them were in some ways. But because they're really at the cost of real changes in media and actually are doing pretty well by being innovative and shifting over time. There are also people who have presided over pretty great media brands and grants that have a lot of high quality and I really want to talk about where things are. Both of them are on a trajectory that is strong while others suffer. So it's a good time to

talk about that and more. All right, let's get into our conversation with Jim and Meredith, our expert question comes from investigative journalist and author, Theo Baker. This interview was recorded in front of a live audience at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity in Can France. It was a lot of fun, there was a lot of rosé, but it was also a really insightful conversation about how media companies can find success in a very challenging environment right now.

I do want to focus on what works. At the same time, it's a very dicey situation, especially getting the Trump administration's attacks on companies like the New York Times and many others. So stick around. Jim and Meredith, thanks for coming on on. Okay, we're going to cover a lot of ground in this conversation. We're going to talk about the

“changing media landscape, which I think is important to everyone. Obviously, AI because you have to.”

And then rebuilding trust in journalism and where we are with mergers and acquisitions. But I want to start with some recent headlines for both of you. Jim, you're selling Vox Media's podcast network Vox.com and New York Magazine to James Murdoch's Lupus Systems.

The deal is reportedly worth more than $300 million. Pensky Media Corporation is acquiring

a remaining site's eater, pop sugar, espination, the dodo and the verge. Now, I have to disclose part of it came from ideas I had talking to you about splitting it up. All the good things do. No, but we discussed it for a long time. So talk about why you think splitting the company is in the best interest and why this is the correct configuration. It's about focus. Media landscape, I think we're going to talk about a lot is changing.

There was a time where we were building building. We're proud of our legacy. I think of the vintage of companies that were funded 15 years ago. We emerged as a leader. We had great brands. I won't rattle them off, but whether it's eater or whether it's New York Magazine, the cut, et cetera. We're proud of everything we built. But at one point, it was about scale. And it was about aggregating scale. And now it's about focus. And getting the businesses in the

right position to succeed. And we think we have a lot of growth runway and we want to get the podcast business, which we'll talk about New York Magazine, which we'll talk about in a position to succeed. I'd call them our talent platforms. And then the publishing businesses, which are merging in with the pensking publishing businesses, are going to have a lot in common. We'll talk a lot about publishing. I'm sure, but they need to come together. They need to find

common strategies where they can succeed. They need to find leverage. That business is going to be a very successful business. Jay will be the controlling shareholder of it. And then Ryan

Pauli, who currently works with us, is going to lead the operations of it. He's an amazing

executive. When you say things change, which did you make a mistake? What exactly changed? Because you told Peter Kafka, who used to work for me, it makes sense to split up now. And I know things go through their cycles. But what is the digital publishing model now for a business like New York Magazine versus Fox.com? So there was a time where we were aggregating scale. And

with the onset of AI and AI overviews. Social long ago, whether it was how X treated publishers

“formally Twitter, whether it's how meta in the Facebook properties, street publishers, irrelevant”

to us, really. I mean, we know they're there. We work with them. I don't want to exaggerate it. But those quote unquote audience platforms that gave us opportunity, by the way, as a modern media publisher, we built on that. But we knew that things were going to change. We knew that we can address those platforms to have too much leverage on our business. And sure enough, it happened. And so now, thankfully, we were able to build strong brands. Certainly, the New York Times

has built one of the strongest brands. And those brands will succeed by appealing to their

audiences first and foremost, being smart about the platforms, knowing they exist,

but building a loyal connection, your part of our portfolio, you have your own business that we help you with. And you succeed, not because of any platform, you succeed in spite of a platform.

“New York Magazine, same thing, direct subscription relationship. So Meredith, I remember years ago,”

when you were going to visit Google, what did I tell you? Don't go. They want to kill you, essentially. And they were going to give you all these deals and stuff like that. So talk a little bit at where it puts in New York Times, because you've been sort of building not artisanally, but sort of one center place. How do you look at the environment right now, what's changed for the times, for example? Because you're one of the few that succeeded at this.

I mean, listen, I say whatever success we've had means we've lived to fight another day right on behalf of journalism in the in the public's interest and our business and the industry. The core of our strategy for a very long time has been to do high quality news journalism and make lifestyle products that are so goddamn good that people seek them out and ask for them by name and form a habit with them, make like real room for them in their lives and love them so much. They do

them with the people they love their friends and family. That is the big idea here. And I would say there were a few things that we decided like a long, long time ago that are still playing out now and really helping the times succeed. Like one through eight on a list of 10 is we just

“kept investing in the journalism. I've been at the times 13 years. I think there were about”

1,300 people in the newsroom when I got there or something like that. More than a decade ago, now there are 2,300 and counting and we added a 550 person sports newsroom with the athletic and we have a couple hundred people doing product reviews. So we kept investing in rare and valuable coverage that is getting more rare and more valuable done in a deeply resourced way to a very,

very high standard. That is the most important reason in the times of succeeding. And we basically

said, we are screwed if we are not in direct relationships with our users. We said, we don't really make money if we can't get people to come to our destinations. We said people have to have a daily habit with the things we do. I get asked a lot like, what else should be in your portfolio? And I say, well, the bar is really high for things that people do every day or almost every day. And then we also said, you know, we don't exist in a vacuum. We're in an information ecosystem

shaped to your point by a very small number of very big companies who dominate consumer attention, change consumer behavior at, you know, billion people's scale. And we have to exist on those platforms or stuff can be found. But we've got to do it with real care and calibration. But under two polls, no, no, early this week you spoke with Axios about the times on going lawsuits against open AI, Microsoft, perplexity over copyright infringements. You said the times

were hard to quote, build resilience against them. Talk about specific ways you can do that beyond suing them because to me, suing is just the beginning of a negotiation in a lot of ways. Look, the stakes are really, really high in what we're suing for the, you know, to the best of our knowledge, some meaningful number of the companies that make these models have taken our stuff. They've used it without compensation, without our control over how our content is used.

And they build, you know, products and experiences that can ultimately compete with us. That is,

you know, bad for the New York Times. That is bad for the industry. That is bad for journalism for creators. And by the way, who's it really bad for the public, which relies? I guess that, but right now. So, so let me just say this, the other side of that coin is, what are we really

publishers, other creators. New York Times spent something close to $2 billion. Last year,

making our stuff. Right. Right. And that agey Solskberger, your publisher said that A.I. Law suits have already cost more than $20 million. Yeah. And that news organization should band together. And as you know, Scott talks about that, that they should have banded together a long time ago,

“like he discusses that when he happened to have been on the board of the New York Times, I believe,”

before I was there. Yes. Long time ago. Yes. We really have him back. No, probably not. But when it's, it's a struggle to get everyone to go on because some people are making these deals. Others are not. How can you band together more? Let, let, let me say a few things.

I'm first. We are suing. And we have also, we made a deal with Amazon. You know, Amazon was

willing to pay us what we saw as a fair price to use our work across their experiences that are made in generative A.I. That made sense to us. And we have said we are absolutely open. We think the right system here is sustainable fair value exchange for publishers such that what you are getting reflects the value of what you're producing and so that you have control over your work. That is what we are fighting for. Do you really have power either of you over these companies?

“I'm not. How do you? The public needs high, the thing that the LLMs are not going to do.”

They're not going to go out. They're not going to do the core. No, I got that. The public needs the venture. They're not going to do so. They're not going to go out and report. And what we are fighting for is a sustainable business model for professional journalists to go on. I understand. But I'm asking. Let me ask Jim Pres, do you have any leverage? You feel that the leverage is ultimate. The leverage is going to go public. The leverage is going to be to

opt out of these platforms. And ultimately, right now, because of the monopoly situation, it's hard to do that. But increasingly, every day it's becoming easier. We'll give you an art case, an example. It might be Eater. It's not. We're not Eater does some really good journalism. They also do great restaurant reviews. I don't think that the Google bots are going out to eat at these restaurants, to get to know the chefs, to get to know the owners.

Yeah, I go to Google and I search and use anyone, no Eater out there. Anyone use Eater like a good show of hands. Thank you. Eater is awesome. Awesome. And you used to go and you'd find the blue link. Google would be a great survey to be great for the Google people that could sell ads against those links. It'd be great for us in that we would get the value exchange. If Eater's not there, if the New York Times isn't there, all of a sudden you're going to have what synthetic

AI information or maybe information that is scraped and gamed off of who knows what read it maybe, but not even. So you're going to have like really bad information. Then what does Google have after that? I'm using Google as an example, but it could be entities platforms. And so ultimately, I do think that the highest quality ones, the ones that need to sustain their business model to do the quality work, to employ the people that do the quality work. And by the way, we'll get into

humans because there are certain things that only humans can do. There are certain things that the only want from humans. And I think ultimately, that's starting to happen. The more the more they try to oviate us, the more more will go into our lives. And I'm probably not good. What leverage do you have? Let me try a bow on that. The leverage is, even the LLMs will need an information ecosystem with high quality independently produced verified information. If they don't have it, their

products will not ultimately be good either. We all want to live in a society where quality information is available. And I believe they do too. I think that these are information companies, these are information tools. And I think information at a certain point for you to have a

“healthy functioning democracy. You have to have high quality information. And people have to be”

able to identify the difference. Yeah, I really noticed them fighting back against the Trump administration. Wait, they were in the front row of the inauguration. I don't think they care at all. I think they don't care what information's out. They're whether it's a cat, QAnon, or the New York Times. I prefer them. I don't believe that. We when I have a discriminative, but that gets us to these deals. Obviously, Vox made it got bought by a billionaire named James Murdoch. The finest

of the Murdoch's. But as I always say, it's a low bar. No, he's fine. I'd like him a lot. Actually,

he's perfectly fine. He does care about journalism. But people are worried about the influence of these companies. It's all the tech companies are now coming for Hollywood, for media, for

quite stunning. So first, Jim, talk about what convinced you this particular billionaire was good

for Vox, media, which is I know you talked a version in others. What's it that the Maya

“Angela quote, like, when you someone tells you who they are, believe them, right? And I think James”

and Katherine are telling us who they are by what the actions are taking their lives. The other types of things that they are investing in. Big supporters of journalism, period, not just us, but American journalism project in 19, you know, on and on, they have a small investment in the bulwark. And you can kind of see what they're doing. It goes beyond that, though. They are stewards of culture. They are majority owners in art, balsal, and in Tribeca Film Festival. So you can

sense by what they're doing, what their actions are, what they care about. And they saw us as a nice I believe, and I won't speak for them. But I think an intersection of a lot of things they care about quality journalism through what we're doing at New York Magazine and what we're doing at Vox and what we're doing at the Vox Media Podcast Network. But they also see us the intersection with culture. And the other properties are trying to make flourish, including the ones I just mentioned.

I've seen high net worth people own things. I've seen corporations and public companies own things.

I've seen employee lead collectives own things. And all of those things could be amazing and

prosper as the New York Times had or as say, I'm other than the Atlantic is prospering. I've seen other structures fail. And it doesn't really matter so much what the structure is, whether it's PE back, whether it's venture back, whether it is a nonprofit, whether it's a high net worth

“individual. What matters is the values of that institution, the protections of that, the structures”

of those institutions and the commitment to that. And it can happen. Bad things, toxic things can happen in any one of those ownership structures if they're not managed by great people who know what they're doing, who are committed to principles. Sure, but let me give each of you one thing. You can decide which ones you want to take. One of you takes what's happening at CBS and one of you take what's happening at Washington Post. I'll take the Washington Post. Okay.

You got first pick. Well, it's interesting. I got to the New York Times in the summer of 2013. And somewhere in like my early weeks of being there, he bezows both of those. I was like on our executive floor. I was brand new. I was there to run advertising and my mom called and was like, honey, honey, that being just popular. I was like, I work at the New York Times. I know. Anyway, what I want to say is a few things.

One, I, you're not going to like this. But I see no evidence. I don't read the posts often as I use to mostly because I'm busy and reading a lot of New York Times stuff. But I see no evidence. I know of no evidence that their news report has been compromised in any way. And I still know plenty people who work there. And they are doing good work. They are doing independent reporting as best

as I can tell in the news report. I want to say that. That's the first thing. The second thing,

it is a shitty day at the New York Times and a shitty day in journalism when any major news organization lays off large numbers of journalists a really shitty day. I, and, you know, people ask me a lot. Don't you benefit when somebody goes down who you compete with directly? My answer is hard no. And here's why every time someone else in the American public or the global public who used to have high quality independently reported journalism as a part of their daily life and as

like relevant to them at a local level or regional level. Every time a little bit of that goes away, fewer people understand what independent journalism is and why it matters. More people think a media diet largely shaped by algorithms that match your own worldview. That's good enough. And that is bad. That is bad for the public, bad for the New York Times. But may I know, two New York Times reporters just reported Bezos desk for a sudden extraordinary new book,

I think, which he mentioned. But talked about him insulting post directly to the president sucking up in a way that is even for someone who's from San Francisco was finds a little gross. And essentially saying, I don't like the people there. I don't like the investment. He's done

“enormous damage to that brand, enormous. And I think you have to put it at the foot of Jeff Bezos.”

When he does stuff like that, how do you react to that? You can't. The news report is good, but it's in spite of him. Not because of him. You have benefited in that. You've hired a lot of the people. So as the Atlantic, so have many others. So as the Wall Street Journal. So how do you assess

despite him, despite him, I would say. I, you know, I run a, I run a company. I run a, you know, a company that has, in some ways. Well, there's business, there's business size of the world on it. And I mean this earnestly, you know, it is hard to know what goes on inside another company. It is hard to know how leadership has an impact, how it makes its decisions. What I can tell you from my vantage point is the journalists who work at the New York Times. I believe they believe that when

someone comes after them for their reporting and they've done the work to our standard, they know the institution is going to back them. And that is why so much talent stays for a long, long time. In some cases, the whole career at the New York Times. Right. And I think that really matters

“and whether you're talking about CBS, Washington, because any of these places, what matters is even”

Murdoch. Like is the ownership going to invest in the product? The story of the New York Times is a story of investment. And we're going to make something that is rare and valuable and important people at scale, because we can invest in it. And are they going to protect at all costs? The public's interest in the defense. So you're not going to answer you, but I'm going to ask you what try one final time. Is he a good business owner of the Washington Post? Should he sell it?

I don't think that's for me to decide. And I am for all ownership structures that do the two things that I just said make Americans have a better relationship with high quality independent journalism

and make a great product that is independent reporting base. The answer is no to that.

Go ahead. So I think as a steward, those two companies, other companies, you covered this for decades. You know that media needs to evolve and meet in the change when Meredith came in and you all changed the New York Times for the better. There were hard decisions and on popular decisions that had to be made. There were people who were hired. There were people who were fired. There were people who chose to lead. Yet it was all done in service of growing and protecting

that institution. And I will add, it was done with extraordinary competence and ultimately success. So these two organizations, other institutions, like them, also likely need to change. That's a fair argument. You know better than anyone. If you don't innovate, if you don't change

“particularly in what I think is the fastest changing industry media where technology changes,”

taste change, society changes, we have to change along with it. So let's state that those organizations perhaps need it to change the post, the judge, et cetera. Question is, how do you execute? How do you do it successfully? How do you do it with grace and competence that attracts people rather than repels them? And that's part of the magic. I feel like to think that as steward, we have an institution, New York Magazine, which I think is a magazine

and full, which has been growing 25%. Our newsroom has not shrunk at all. It's under amazing

editorial leadership of David Haskell, who I consider a partner in growing the business. It covers the full realm of culture, it won the Asme for Best Magazine this year. So a ton of success, we inherited that leadership from the Wasser scene family who were great stewards of it. I think we had to innovate. We did not stand still. We introduced the paywall and grew. We, you know, the Wasser scenes and us led the introduction of new verticals like the cuts and the

strategists in order to in-vulture, to make it more relevant to the digital age. So point is, we had to change. And if you look at it where it is now versus where it was five years ago, it's a 57-year-old publication and you look at where it's gone. There are a lot of evolution,

but it was always done with care. It was always done with survival. How do you assess what,

how the elephants are conducting themselves at CBS? You were working. Yeah, I will say,

“I will say the jury is out, but you have to identify who is important, who is leadership and”

demonstrate competence and get faith. Get the people behind you to support that bring the ones that you want to bring along with you, communicate to the organization, effectively be competent leaders. And I hope just as you hope that they will be, this story is not done. Thank you too. They have, they have, you know, a lot of public stuff has happened, but they have an opportunity with this merger with CBS, with now CNN to really do great journalistic work. We're all hoping

that they will, but it's going to require deaf execution and smart leadership. And the jury is out. So far, how do you assess it in this point in the game? Listen, there's been a lot of,

You know, but I want to, I don't want to dodge it. We saw what has happened with 60 minutes. And again,

they're prerogative of owner to reset things. I don't think anyone wanted a reset of that nature. I don't think, I don't think it's safe to say that that was not part of the plan. Okay, so now what is the plan? And let's see, let's judge them based on what they accomplished. I was listening to Brian Stelter talking to your old friend Peter Kafka about this topic. And, you know, Brian, who is at CNN? Maybe he has to say this, maybe doesn't. But he's going to try to give them the benefit of the doubt and see if they

can rebuild that institution into something that is journalistically strong and carries on the tradition

“of fearless journalism. And that's how they will be judged. They'll have one shot to build that trust.”

They have a strong lead-in with NFL football every Sunday. And they'll have an opportunity to do that.

They'll have an opportunity to rebuild that project for the digital world, too, which I know is that's an example. That's something that they want to do. They claim they're doing. So let's see if they can actually do it. Right. So I'm going to go back to your Maya Angelou quote and people show you who they are. Believe them. I think they've shown us who they are pretty actively for a long time. But you can't believe it. Don't stop believing. I think, can I just say, I do think what you're hearing from

both of us is one hopes they would be better people. The public is better off when there are more institutions doing high-quality, independent, creative, brilliant, surprising journalism. Yes. And I think what you're hearing from both of us is we wish for more of that. And then, by the way, the humans who have been working in these institutions, many of them are prospering and doing better than ever through platforms. We seek to be one of those platforms. Yes, we're going to have

more of that. And so out of this institution crumbling for whatever reason, crumbling because of Google crumbling because of different types of ownership comes opportunity and comes enlightenment. And a lot of people are walking up and down the cross set here and can celebrating that and prospering from that. I understand where you are, but you're wrong. By the way, this is my daily conversation with you. I can't imagine what I had to learn with other people and know a lot more than you do

about what's going on inside. But it's bad. You wouldn't want to work for them. And I shall not be as you know. We'll be back in a minute. I didn't enjoy working for the time, so one of the issues was control. So, you know, tech columnist Kevin Rus just announced he's leaving the New York Times. I'm sorry. I did help him a little bit. Do that. So surprised. I know. I know. He's anywhere, someone leaves. I am suddenly there

“quietly. But I think he was interested in being an entrepreneur. And I think some people when they”

come to me and they said, "Should I go?" And I look at them and I go, "Stay where you are." Because they don't have that entrepreneurial nature. But he's starting a new company with Casey Newton who left the verge in 2020. Who I also helped leave the verge. Thanks. I just like like taking reporters out of major institutions. So talk a little bit about that changing part. Because right here in Con right now is 500 creators. The creator economy is the big topic, even over AI. And the power

that individual creators and personal brands has that is increasingly becoming very good quality. So talk a little bit about where it's going from a talent point of view. There's pluses to work for the New York Times. I agree. The institutional support, everything else. I haven't even said anything. You agree. I agree with that. But I also think you better start thinking about who creates

value and how you pay them, which isn't nearly enough. The first thing I want to say is whenever

“anyone has this conversation, I think the thing that doesn't come up enough or most times ever is”

we read a story today about Myanmar. And I think that we're now the world is in a fifth year of a civil war in Myanmar. And we've got a photographer on the ground there. Daniel Barraju-Lek and a reporter there who are telling the story of this brutal civil war in Myanmar. You probably have not heard you might have heard of Daniel's name. He's pretty famous. But I refer you would not have heard of the reporter's name. I bet we had 70 people on the ground in Ukraine last year, fifth year

of a grinding war that I can assure you, you know, the audience development models are not going to tell you that's the thing to cover. I mean, that's great. And so I just, like when people say, like, oh, creators, people should get their news from creators, you do need big honking institutions

much support as possible and as much expertise and sometimes in language and everything else it takes

to do that as possible to get the public information about these really important things that are

“happening. I just think that never comes up in the conversation. And you know what that is?”

It is really goddamn expensive, right, to do that. And so the model of the New York Times is we have a lot of really hard working extraordinary journalists who you may not have heard of yet. And maybe their life's work is they want to report in a particular place and you may not hear of them. But they're doing wildly important work that really matters. And we've got, we make stars, we hire stars worth thrilled to have stars. We're especially thrilled to help a star be a bigger star. And I think

the proposition at the New York Times, the talent proposition is best journalists in the world doing the best work of their career with the industries. I think and you can backmeer not on this most kind of well-resourced support structure, lawyers, security people. Absolutely. You know, the whole apparatus of support support when the administration or a company or anybody else pushes back. I understand all this. But how do you say one with an audience, a giant audience? And when

“you were there, you said to me, yes, I think after your first column, big audience, yeah, here at the”

New York Times, I wouldn't say that today. You don't work there today. I don't know what I would say, is, I mean, I think I'm just to be honest. I think you were the one person you did understand what was happening with create, I put myself in the creator, bunch I suppose. Yeah. But you're a journalist who is also the penny did drop is, and it's not just New York Times, it would be the same thing for the Wall Street Journal. What do I need you for? Like kind of thing. And so, and I get the,

if I was reporting from Ukraine, it would be a very different thing, correct? But what I'm wondering is how do you deal, you were one of the few people who understood this is that you had to start changing compensation. And then I'm going to ask, because Jim was very, and he's not a pushover, was that he understood that there's a very different partnerships. So how you're going to have an increasing number of people who are going to want a different compensation system? I think that

the times will continue to find its way to a model that accomplishes everything I've just described. Is it going to be for everyone? It wasn't for you. By the way, Kevin Rus,

amazing journalist. I loved hard work. I listened to most of the episodes. Casey Newton,

they're amazing. I wish them well. Those guys want to do their own thing. I wish them all the luck in the world. And we were lucky to have them like we were lucky to have you when we did. The other bit of it, Kara, you know, why did Jonathan Swan, who just wrote this book that Kara named checked regime change? Kind of the New York Times, to work with Maggie Haberman, who was the best political reporter on earth. And they just wrote a book together. And I think

they would say the things that I'm saying. So I'm just, I think the times has shown itself to be a place that takes its obligations to the public very seriously. And also, as it does that recognizes, we operate in a broader environment. Jim, talk about how you look. I obviously thought a lot about this. And I don't think there is a wrong answer. Everything you said is true. Let me give you my framework for it. Are there independent creators here? I see some hands going up.

So you all know, there's lanes. And I'm going to do two polls. On one poll, way over to one extreme is the full independent creator. You all who know, those of you who do it know how hard it is. You are creating your own content. You are feeding the algorithmic beast. Day in day out. You're trying to do your brand deals or have helped do your brand deals. You are hustling. You are focused on your audience. You are focused on making a living.

And then you are focused on audience growth. You are focused on business things. You know, maybe you got into it because of the passion of what you had to say. But then you very quickly realize there are other things that go along into it. So you reach this new level. And this new level is, do you want to hire an assistant? Do you want to hire help? Do you want to hire a production

crew? Do you want to hire a sales team, ultimately? And for a lot of people, let's use the

shining example of this, not in journalism, but in entertainment is Mr. Beast, who said yes to all those questions and hit a grand slam home run. And that's one person. And then you look at the

“success rate for those. And I'm not saying this to be discouraging. If you're a creator, you should”

go for it. But just know that's what it takes. And that's not for everyone. The other poll,

great institution. There are other ones. I can point to the Wall Street Journal. I can point to ESPN.

I can even point to New York Magazine, which we run, which for my money is obviously the best magazine journalism based institution. And what makes an institution great? It's the people, but it's the people who are put into a system to succeed based on the values and the proposition of that institution. And that means, often, and this is not a negative, it's actually a positive conforming to the institution. What does it mean to conform to the institution? Sometimes it's

editorial standards. Sometimes it's like, hey, you're on this beat. We don't want you talking about that thing, even though you might have feelings, even though you might want to report on that.

That's just not what we hired you to. And there's a career ladder and give it a couple of years

“in your job. And we'll get you into that other thing. But if you want to, if it's Tuesday,”

and you want to do something else on Thursday, that's just not what this place is about. Or in your case, hey, I like my salary. I like my healthcare. You pay me well. But I'm doing really well here. Shouldn't I get a cut of the action? And there are very few institutions that are set up around them, not a negative because the institution is great for all the reasons you just said, and we need those institutions. I manage not only New York Magazine, but I manage Vox, which is an

emerging institution as well. We created a different model, though, to take advantage, which I say is in the middle of those two polls, which is I want to have that flexibility, either, and that motivation as an entrepreneur, as a journalist, as a creator. I want the creator freedom. I want the financial motivation. But I don't want to do all the other things. I don't want to have my

“own legal team. I do not necessarily want to have my own production team. I do not want to have”

my own sales team. Maybe I want one of those things. Maybe I want three of those things. But maybe I want someone else to do that. And maybe I want to be part of a like-minded portfolio of people who want the same thing. And maybe if I'm an advertiser, I want the convenience and the scale of going to one place where I know I can find high quality people, light carouselish or like Scott Galaway, like Renee Brown, like our newest sign, I'm a gardener. I don't know if she's

here, but Robyn Arzone, Maria Sharapova. I want her all 50 of them, but I could. And what you'll find if I do is that they all share quality, consistency, integrity, thoughtfulness. They might be an athlete. They might be a chef. They might be a leading tech journalist. But we're building that in people know they can talk to us. Okay, so we're extra vox, please. The stop now. That's okay. But when you think about the compensation, things, and once people do get a taste of this,

it is shifting rather significantly as Scott talks about a lot, Scott Galaway, towards the talent. Are you thinking about it as a problem? Either of you, you first, Meredith.

Look, I always say I want my tombstone to say raised a happy, well-adjusted,

child and helped more journalists earn a living wage and be able to do good work in a fair and well-compensated way. And I do think being a journalist is one of those really important jobs in society that we need smart, ambitious, awesome people to do. So I am for, as much compensation as

“as reasonable to be given to journalists. I think I've already expressed, we've got a sort of broad”

proposition of things we're doing. Do you see yourself striking more of these kind of deals or not at all? I think I've already said, you know, what we think. Yeah. And our ours is a mix. We have shows that we own an operator like today explained. And then we have ones that we're our incentives are very much aligned. You make money, Kara, we make money. And you hold us accountable for making money. And we love that. And it's not going to work for us if it's not going to work for you. I would

argue it's not going to work for you. If it doesn't work for us or whoever isn't next. And we've proved that to you. I think you came back for renewal because it's working and it's growing and we hope to continue that. So let's talk about a couple more things. One is let me go to this question. We get an expert question. This is from Theo Baker. Hi there. My name is Theo Baker and I'm an investigative journalist and the author of the recent book How to Will The World. I'm also a certified young person

having graduated from college exactly a week ago today. My time at school came very clear that young people are not engaging with independent nonpartisan media in the way that other generations seem to be. There's no news ritual. There's no reading the Sunday paper from covered cover. There's no

15 minute a day idea for a gen C to the extent that they get stories. They tend to be filtered

through another source. Someone on TikTok reading a story on a green screen. Not the actual articles themselves. I'm wondering if this is a distribution problem that you're concerned about. Then if so, how do you think it might be possible to reach young people with more high quality independent news content? Theo, it's a great question and one that I think about all the time. And I have this anecdote from early on when I got to the times. Somebody said to me,

“"You guys should buy make dot com?" I remember that. I think I told you not to.”

I mean, we were like, "Why?" The answer was because you needed to reach young people. It's like, no reason what we do with the New York Times cannot reach young people. The single largest area of new fresh investment at the New York Times is going into video, putting as much of our work on video, including reporters. I will say of all ages. There's a great video today. We actually have a tab in the app now. It's like a whole video feed of short stories. There's

tab in the app of video from a poor of a man-to-ville who's one of our health and science reporters about Ebola and how the symptoms are harder to spot. The symptoms are less bad now so there's fear that disease will spread even more rampantly because of that. And you watch like a hundred and

twenty-second video. You never read anything. And you see there's a human with expertise showing you

how the disease is spreading. You've just gotten what might have taken you 20 minutes to read a story two years ago on the New York Times. We do forensic video investigations now so we're the ones who figured out through forensic video that it was the US who bombed the school. It was in Southern Iran and in Minab. It was a US missile that hit it. That's like this stuff is ageless. This is how people take it information now. And by the way, where is all that video going? Ultimately, we

want you to come and watch it on our destination. You're not going to do that unless you know it exists. So we are at the beginning of having to be all over YouTube and Instagram and TikTok and everywhere people are so that we do not see the ground. We're going to consider it giving you

“videos. The question of a important place to reach young people. I mean, I think it is in”

our Google that young people are getting their news on big video platforms. YouTube Instagram TikTok. And so we are making a giant push to be in those places. We should talk about no links to. It is a different ecosystem. But we are making the bet that we've got to be there. You've got to see our work there. And that is going to help you understand. And I think we've got lots of early evidence that it's really working. And I also want to say we're making great shows at the New York Times.

We brought to Can. The host of a new show called Popcast. It's a show on music and culture by music critic John Karamanica and music reporter Joe Kossorelli. Joe is now best known. He's the guy who interviewed Taylor Swift for 30 minutes like in a black site, you know, and sort of only on the New York Times interview. We have our cooking, our biggest cooking franchise right now is called the pizza interview. If you're a celebrity in your movie or your book is just out,

you go make a pizza in our test kitchen. Last thing I got to say, who doesn't know someone under the age of 20 plays all our games? Well, that's different. That was the perfect purchase.

I played on the amazing. I know for the age of like 50, I made it. I won't repeat everything

you said about formats because you're absolutely right. And you know, box in particular is all

“about multi format journalism. But I'll talk about two things that I think are overhyped”

trends that people talk about. One is young people, not consuming news brands. And then the second is around people's attention spans getting shorter. I know why people say both of those things. My, I feel like my attention span is shorter. Yet I will listen to an hour long episode of on. I will listen. And by the way, young people, not all young people. When I was young, I dirty secret. I wasn't flipping through every page. I know CEO is I was not the, unfortunately. I was,

I, but you know, thankfully, I have children who do care about the news. And they, and they become stronger news consumers over time. Now, having said that, of course, they're not going to

TikTok creator with the green screen because they're curious people. That's not changing.

The human condition is not changing in that way. People understand quality. They want quality. And they have to get savvy about this new way of consuming thing. And they are every day. And quality brands that put in the work, quality personalities that do that will keep them. The formats are changing though. And the choice is abundant. When, when we were younger, we had a few TV channels and a few newspapers and some magazines. Now, I have a device with a

4K screen where I can read. I can watch. I can listen. I can get it in my inbox. I can get it pushed to me. I can get it in a real from eight different tech platforms. And that is a wonderful

thing. It's just change. And, and then I can watch Game of Thrones for hours and hours.

But if someone dares to make a TikTok that is 90 seconds that should have been 30 seconds, screw them. They've lost me. If, you know, someone can make a three hour podcast and I will

“listen to the whole thing if it captures my attention. So that's why I don't think it's an attention”

span thing. We have more choice. That is a wonderful thing. And then it's up to us as institutions, creators, and all the above to make sure that we take advantage of that. But the quality will be everlasting. The trust is an everlasting value. These values are everlasting. And don't get fooled. There is fluffy stuff when I was a kid, maybe for those of you who close to my age. Yeah,

we like to waste our time. Just because people are still wasting their time on stuff doesn't mean

particularly as they get a little bit older and more invested in the world. And they have their own children. And they need to be active members of their communities and their societies. They are going to look for quality information and they are doing that. You both are in relatively good shape for the media. I would say in excellent shape. And I'll probably up into the right for most of your businesses. What is the thing you're most worried about at this moment in time?

And in five years from now, if you're going to be the CEOs of your companies. Is it tax or the Trump administration on the New York Times? They keep suing you and the Wall Street Journal. He keeps going back and forth. That's just an effort to deter more independent journalism. One hundred percent. But it still is risk risk. It's a risk view. I'll do one. Since I'm in a room of marketers and in a marketing, a beautiful Las Vegas convention on the on the coats as you are. One

thing I think about is is the role of marketing. We have subscription services and we have very loyal advertising. But sometimes based on what's happening in this administration or other administrations. The commitment, not thankfully, we have great loyal advertising. But commitments

“Wayne and and and and flow. And I think what's most important as you are talking to your customers.”

If you're an advertiser, I know people are listening or not. But if you aren't an advertiser and you want to support a brand, support a brand that is making a commitment to this important work. That I think everyone listening and watching cares about. Okay. I think brands are afraid of the fear is brands run away from it. But I think audiences are savvy enough to know they are supporting this and I will embrace a brand that embraces the quality work. So my fear is like don't run

from it because the administration or someone else is saying something embrace it because you know your audience by definition. They are there and they will support you for supporting it. I'm going to repeat something I alluded to at the beginning, which is I am deeply, deeply worried about an American public and probably a global public that is so used to algorithm's feeding them what matches their own worldviews that we have lost our understanding of what high quality independent

journalism is and does and why it matters and a society where it plays a diminished role in

“people's life is a much lesser society. And I actually think that's what Theo Baker's question”

is really about. And that is what the New York Times and I think Jim and all of us who are sort of fighting for journalism, fighting for our intellectual property rights, fighting for us to be able to report in an undeterred way which is protected by the law that is what we are fighting for and it is for the public. Amen. And I'll end on next. We got to wrap it up is something I say to my kids a lot. One of my senses I'm not reading the news right now because it's bad and I'm like oh

no my friend you're going to understand it. But what we have to do is sort of point to the solutions

Casey Newton and others that's why I like say like it's not all fucking doom scrolling here's

“what works. Same thing that I think is happening in politics there's our mom Domay just swept the”

Democratic Party aside in New York and I don't think it's because everyone all of a sudden wants

to be a socialist necessarily. I think it's because they're talking about hope and solutions and

fixing. I think the messages of fixing and what we can do instead of just like agonizing over what stupid thing Donald Trump said today is the media should start to do that and stop focusing

“in on what dumb thing he said like that just makes you feel sick and so I think it's probably”

our responsibility not to hold back the truth from you because if you can't take it you know get off get it back on the fucking porch kids if you can't take it but we have to provide you with

here's what you can do about it and then media should be doing that and that's not happy journalism

“that's what what what what can you do what actions can you take and that's on us to do that”

for for people anyway thank you so much thank you these two. Today's show was produced by Michelle Aloy Catherine Millsop, Madeline Leplant Dubie, Meghan Bernie and Kaylyn Lynch. Nishat Kourwit is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts special thanks to Rosemary Ho, Tracy Hunt, Julia Sharp Living and Lisa Soap and thanks to United Talent Agency for providing a great space to record a podcast in Can. Our engineers are Fernando Aruda and Rick Kwan and our theme music

is by Tracodemics. If you already found this show you know that Jeff Bezos is a terrible media owner and so does Meredith. If not Jim the jury is not out on Paramount. Go where you're releasing a podcast search for on with Keroswisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to on with Keroswisher from podium media New York Magazine, the Vox Media podcast network and us will be back on Thursday with more.