Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

CDN$ 26.08 + CDN$ 3.49 shipping
In Stock. Sold by newtownvideo_ca

or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
More Buying Choices
Have one to sell? Sell yours here

Page One: Inside the New York Times [Blu-ray]

 R (Restricted)   Blu-ray
5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
Price: CDN$ 26.08
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by newtownvideo_ca.

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?


Product Details


Product Description

Synopsis:
Item Type: DVD Movie
Item Rating: R
Street Date: 10/18/11
Wide Screen: yes
Director Cut: no
Special Edition: no
LanguageENGLISH
Foreign Film: no
Subtitlesno
Dubbed: no
Full Frame: no
Re-Release: no
Packaging: Sleeve Please note: This supplier will be closed on 11/24, 11/25, 12/26, 1/2 for the holidays. The shipping cut off is 12/10 to try and have the products delivered by Christmas.

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought


Customer Reviews

4 star
0
3 star
0
2 star
0
1 star
0
5.0 out of 5 stars
5.0 out of 5 stars
Most helpful customer reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars A Desperate Fight for Survival Jun 9 2012
By Ian Gordon Malcomson HALL OF FAME TOP 10 REVIEWER
Format:DVD
As one who used to read the New York Times online for free, I find this documentary very revealing. Here is a once-proud giant of conventional media desperately trying to remake itself in an age when the rules of engagement are changing so fast. Hard copy is no longer the way of the future and there are so many other sources - accurate or not - for the public to tap into, especially social networking like Twitter and Facebook. With the present economic demands of the market being by bottom-line thinking, the Times and many of its competitors have little choice but to switch or die. That means finding a new economic model by which to do business that will attract new advertisers, younger readers, and a more condensed reporting form. The potential victims in this change-over may be even less accuracy in coverage, less independence in viewpoint, and a growing cynicism that nothing will change this perceived downward spiral. The problem with newspapers of this magnitude is that there seems to be little momentum in big stories to carry them over the long haul. Traditional journalism is definitely under assault. Carl Berstein's comments about Watergate are very revealing: this was a story that lasted over a year because big government had yet to learn how to control its sources and shut it off before it got going. In 2010 and beyond, governments the world over have learned to control the media by making it harder and more expensive to get at the real important news that sells papers. Big newspaper chains are now forced to offer more speculative positions on a wide-range of issues that amount to substituting for hard fact, which makes them increasingly vulnerable to defamation suits. I recommend this film to anyone who wants to take stock of what is happening in the world of hard-copy news. Change or be irrelevant seems to adequately describe this one.
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 4.2 out of 5 stars  38 reviews
15 of 15 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Unfocused yet stimulating film about troubled media giant Dec 5 2011
By David Ljunggren - Published on Amazon.com
Format:DVD
This is a must-see (if somewhat unfocused) documentary for anyone interested in the future of the mainstream media. Page One covers a year in the life of the New York Times, a once mighty newspaper now reduced to mortgaging its own building and taking out costly loans from a Mexican telecommunications tycoon. The paper, which is a "legacy" media operation (i.e. very expensive to run) has been hit hard by the simultaneous collapse in advertising revenue and the rise of new media. The days when a story wasn't a story until it the New York Times are over. Or are they?

The giant may be wounded, but it's still a giant. Page One shows some of the negotiations with Julian Assange of Wikileaks, who provided material to the paper because he knew it was the best way to spread his message. Popular news aggregator sites are happy to link to, or rewrite, New York Times stories but don't want to pay for them.

So what does the paper do? Does it stop printing and focus only on digital delivery, does it put up a paywall to fend off the freeloaders, or does it continue trying to save costs (we see tearful farewells of people who have been fired) as it slowly bleeds away? Several other major U.S. newspapers have already folded while others are effectively in bankruptcy protection. Who cares who produces the news as long as it's out there?

Because this is a media story, Page One tells it largely through the eyes of the paper's media reporters. This is where the film starts to run into problems. Much of the film focuses on David Carr, the loud and opinionated media correspondent who used to be a violent drug addict until he turned his life around. Although Carr is certainly a character, and resolutely defends the traditional values of the paper at the many panels he speaks at, putting so much emphasis on one person means the audience starts to wonder whether the film is really about him or the Times or both or neither. The effect is confusing and we wander down a few dead-ends, such as the farewell party for a reporter heading off for Iraq. This is supposed to show that the Times does matter, that it is devoting a lot of resources to cover a difficult and important story. Yet the way it is slotted into the film makes it look almost like an afterthought.

That said, there's enough here to make it worthwhile, including some very funny moments (the bemused reaction of reporters and editors when NBC "announces" the pullout of the last U.S. troops from Iraq is worth the entry price alone) and many scenarios which will ring true for reporters in the audience.

Page One doesn't really answer any of the questions it poses, although it does seem to conclude the Times would be sorely missed if the paper went under. All in all, this is a flawed documentary, yet one well worth watching.
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars If you're interested in journalism today, see this! Oct 24 2011
By Tripp3 - Published on Amazon.com
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
This documentary isn't for everyone, which is why I rated it a 4 not a 5. But for someone interested in journalism today, I think it's very interesting. I thought the filmmakers did a good job of balancing perspectives about topics like the shrinking of print journalism, who will pay for the news? (real news...you know, with facts and such), and the Gray Lady herself. I found David Carr (who's Carpetbagger series bored me in the NYT online) a very interesting character. Then-Editor Bill Keller was very open and thoughtful. The younger guns who are neck deep in new/social media were sharp and insightful. And the timing of the announcements at the end was very cool. Great stuff.
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Lies that life is black and white Dec 9 2011
By J. L LaRegina - Published on Amazon.com
Format:DVD
While I do not necessarily anticipate PAGE ONE: INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES addressing it, somehow it disappoints me that this documentary leaves the so-called demise of newspapers at blame-the-Internet. I have read that many papers would be in better shape, and certainly fewer out of business, had publishers not left what was already a very profitable business alone by unnecessarily cutting costs, the appeal of even bigger short-term payoffs dooming long-term revenue. Still, I can't complain about PAGE ONE being what it is, especially since many NEW YORK TIMES reporters we meet aren't the stuffed shirts I, for one, would have expected.

PAGE ONE reminds us that even if the Internet had not cut in on some of the newspaper industry's action, THE NEW YORK TIMES probably still would have lost readers when its complicity with the Bush White House became public knowledge. As a subscriber to the F.A.I.R. (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) publication EXTRA! for 25 years, I've read more than a few articles about the TIMES' pro-moneyed interests reporting, but the Judith Miller/Iraq scandal took it to a higher level.

Nonetheless, I'm still rooting for the NEW YORK TIMES to survive and be a great newspaper, even if it was never as great as we think. We need newspapers. There is no substitute for them.
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Listmania!

Create a Listmania! list

Look for similar items by category


Feedback


newtownvideo_ca Privacy Statement newtownvideo_ca Shipping Information newtownvideo_ca Returns & Exchanges