New York Times

Combined for $21 trillion in revenue—and $2.1 trillion in profits. Introducing the 2026 Fortune 500, the definitive list of the biggest companies in America.

Fortune 500

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Assets ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

Get insights into New York Times including business profile, stock information, news, and rankings from Fortune.

New York Times (NYT): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

new york times

Companies

New York Times | Fortune

New York Times (NYT): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings | Fortune

Longtime DC vet Kristin Smith joins the show to make the case for why we could see the critical Clarity Act pass as soon as July—and why the industry has an ace up its sleeve. Meanwhile, Jeff and Leo explore Circle's surprise earnings, the price of Bitcoin holding up as bombs fall in Iran, and the controversy over whether crypto markets should pay out on Khamenei's death. The hosts also dive into an unpopular New York Times op-ed, and whether the paper hates crypto

Will the crypto industry finally get its bill? | Fortune Crypto Playbook

Fortune_Crypto

Does DEI promote or prevent meritocracy? After a growing number of companies announced they’d be rolling back their DEI programs, some employees were left wondering if the pre-2025 DEI movement in business was wholehearted or largely performative. How will the private sector navigate external pressures while fostering inclusive and equitable environments for employees and customers? Netflix’s inaugural Vice President of Inclusion Vernā Myers joins Anson Frericks, the author of the recent New York Times opinion essay “Working at Anheuser-Bush, I Saw What Went Wrong With the D.E.I. Movement,” for a thought-provoking and multifaceted conversation about how America got here--and where DEI is headed.  

DEI IN 2025: RETREAT OR REINVENTION?

Conferences

And welcome. Thank you for being with us today. We're excited to start our 2nd day of conversations and connections. We have lots to dive into today, like multi-generational workforces and how to manage them under one roof and the debate over return to office policies. We'll look at the trend of skills over degrees. We'll talk about integrating AI as your new employee. We'll hear lessons on career building from a Hollywood power player and we'll step into the world of the hit show Severance to see how corporate dystopia is brought to life. It's gonna be so much fun and we're going to get right to it all, but first, a quick reminder about what can be shared and what's off the record. What's said on stage or in our breakout sessions is on the record, including the open Q&A. Feel free to post on social media. And tag us using hashtag fortune workplace summits. What's said over the table during a meal or on breaks is private and off the record unless that's agreed upon by those involved. In just a moment, Fortune's next to lead editor, Ruth Umo, we'll kick off our conversations, but first, our partner McKinsey and Company wants to share some thoughts on getting the most out of tech. Tech has limitless potential, but how do we turn that into value? Unlock the power of AI at scale, reinvent tech delivery, build innovative products, and entirely new businesses. We rewire organizations to get the most out of tech, from strategy and talent to operating model, data and governance, capabilities, and culture. Great tech is essential, but with McKinsey, it's never just tech. Hey, good morning, everyone. Let's start with a big question. Is DEI DOA dead on arrival? Diversity, equity and inclusion in America is at a crossroads. Critics argue DEI initiatives have gone too far, creating new divisions and unfairness. Supporters say DEI strategies are necessary to address workplace inequities and can drive business success. We're gonna dive into both sides of the debate, and we have two great guests to do just that. Anton Ferris is co-founder of Strive Asset Management and a business leader who believes talent and results should take priority over diversity metrics, and Bernie Myers is founder and president of the Vernie Meyers Company, which helps organizations build effective DEI strategies. Please welcome them to the stage. Welcome, welcome, thank you both for joining us. Let's cut straight to the chase. Anson, you have argued that one of the fundamental failures of corporate DEI movement is that no one has ever clearly defined what it was trying to do. Let's do just that to level set. How do you each define DEI? What do you think it is actually trying to accomplish? something you want to take it first here, Renee, ladies first here. Thank you, thank you. So I am now start not saying DEI anymore. I'm saying diversity, equity and inclusion. When I say diversity, I mean talking about a difference and a mix, quite frankly, of culture and identity and experience when I'm talking about inclusion. It's about how do you make all of those differences work on your behalf, right, creating an environment where people of all backgrounds feel included. I often say expected, respected, and also reflected that's that's the idea of inclusion and with equity it's what you need to do the processes and. And the, the kinds of, uh, I would say tools that are necessary in order for that inclusion to actually flourish and for you to get the best out of human talent. Same question for you. Yeah, and I think, I think one of the biggest problems with diversity, equity, inclusion, it's never been well defined. If you ask everybody in this room, they're going to give you a different answer. I think that. Bernay's answer was a very plausible answer for DEI, and I think if you go back in time 5, 10 years ago, I think probably everyone in DEI wanted just to go out and find the best and the brightest. DEI was about finding a diverse group of candidates, trying to make sure they had an equitable opportunity or an equal opportunity to be able to succeed, and then we want to be inclusive of all people and walks and different backgrounds. I think there was a lot of positive in the initial DEI movement. why it's become controversial and I'll define why I think it's become controversial is DEI instead of just providing equal opportunities for people of diverse backgrounds. I think it's about now perceived in a lot of circles as forcing equitable outcomes for people as opposed to equal opportunity. So based off of your race, sex, gender, etc. the diversity piece has been about a lot of quota systems in certain. Companies we're going to hire people based on their race, sex, gender. That's become very controversial. The equitable piece is not about sort of equal opportunities, but making sure that everybody gets promoted in an equal way or an equitable way based on race, sex, gender, and then even the inclusive pieces, I think, become very challenging because the inclusive piece is very difficult to define and I actually think stifled a lot of open debate and free speech and dialogue. So I want to thank you for Having this conversation because I think it's incredibly important, but that's how I think about DEI and think about the two different definitions of what it was and I think what it's become. Well, Renee, let me turn to you then. What is your response to critics who argue that DEI, to his points, often rewards identity over performance and risks sidelining the most qualified candidate, um, in the name of representation? I'm gonna say poppycock. Right, because the whole point of DEI is to allow for merits, right? And it is much older than 5 years ago or 10 years ago. We've been doing the work of DEI since the civil rights movement. In fact, that's the birth of diversity, equity inclusion, and the idea is that it is hard to get to merit when there are obstacles, unfair. Obstacles in the way and so there is no MEI without DEI. In fact, it is impossible and and and what is so upsetting for me and I feel like it's, I would say morally unjust and bankrupt to suggest that we could just move forward as if we had somehow managed to level the playing field. You cannot get. To equality without recognizing inequality, it is impossible to do that and in no other business setting would we have an objective, not measure it, not looking at outcomes and how well the actual operation is either delivering on equality or not. And so we've got plenty of data that would suggest that it's not equal. I mean, if I look at women right now in the C-suite. We've got, uh, I, I actually brought the numbers because I am always not, I'm not always on numbers, but I know that there's 28% now women in uh the C-suite and that's up. It was 17% in 2017. So the work we did to get women to be recognized for their merit is working. In fact, I think this backlash against the EI is because we're winning, is because we are leveling the playing field and not because by identity. But by allowing people to actually share and exhibit what they're capable of, I will also say that if we look at women of color in the suite, C-suite, it's much, much lower. So let me jump in here because I do want to hear from you, Anton. Yeah, thank you. Uh, and, and I love that this is a spirited debate because Anne Sandy, you wrote, uh, a New York Times op ed, um, and you pointed to Anheuser-Busch, where you worked for some time as a cautionary tale of DI gone wrong, but was the real failure DI itself, or was it the clumsy way that DI was executed? Why is it a failing of DI overall and not just how they leveraged that business strategy potentially in a in a way that was erroneous. I think that DI there was a failure in terms of definitely how it's been implemented in companies, and I think what I think about sort of a company and why does a company exist, you have a clear mission statement that most companies have, you know, if you're a beer company, you were supposed to, our mission as a company was to create a future with more cheers. That was the mission of the company as a as a beer company, perfectly good mission. There's lots of other missions as well. Coinbase is doing crypto. Indeed is, I don't know, empowering people and finding jobs, whatever it is. Those missions are great. Then I have a view that we should find people and attract people that's going to help the company fulfill that mission. And if you're, you know, in the business of fighting fires, you want to have firefighters that are brave and resilient and all these things. If you were a beer company and the way that InBev worked and Anheuser-Busch and 3G, it was a very hard-nosed finance kind of driven company. And if you're a healthcare company, you probably have different people for that, and you should have different sort of characteristics and adjectives that you can describe to recruit people, and I think that each company needs to define those own adjectives to create. the sort of workplace they went in, but every company, I think before defining what those values were of who they wanted to recruit, they first looked at it through a DI lens, and I think that was problematic in saying that before we find people that are brave or empathetic or compassionate or hardworking or whatever adjective you want to describe for that company, first you have to look through this lens of, well, what's people's race or sex or gender or others, and I think you know there's a why is it you used the word before. Why can it all happen at the same time? This is just my experience working at Anheuser-Busch and then also running Strive Asset Management where we're investors in hundreds of different companies across the S&P 500. It just didn't. It probably can, but I think most people, they look through sort of the lens. Wells Fargo is a good example of a company that said in 2020 that we're going to have to interview 50% of all candidates have to be minority candidates for any job that's over $100,000 and then they were actually accused of literally encouraging minority candidates to apply for jobs after they'd already been filled just so they could check a box. And I think that's sort of the problem of like a lot of people just implemented DEI policies poorly and wrongly. And they became, I think, frustrating for, I think, a lot of minority candidates. They were supposed to help. And then also conversely became very frustrating, I think for non-minority candidates or even say candidates of background that were Asian or Indian or others that might have been passed over for a job because they weren't called the check the box right minority. Let's dig into it really quickly, and I think you might actually be about to touch. On this because you mentioned DI quotas, hiring quotas, and we saw a number of companies, uh, that instated the certainly post George Floyd and so if, if, if the argument is that DI initiatives result in these diversity quotas, Verne, how is that not trade in one form of exclusion for another? Let's, let's, let's get the language right. There's no such thing as quotas. Quotas are illegal. They've been illegal for a very long time. Kenji Yoshino last night yesterday explained to us it's not about quotas. That's another example of a disinformation campaign. It was about goals. And every company, if you want to achieve a change or cultural transformation, you have to have goals. How else are you knowing whether you are making a difference with what you're implementing, right? So people said unless we pay attention to this problem, the problem being the underrepresentation of groups of people over a long period of time due to exclusion, both intentional and Unintentional. This work does not get done unless you pay attention. It's attention and intention. People often think, well, just let it go. It'll just happen. It never just happens. I mean, you know, people will quote that like the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Thank you, MLK, my love. It doesn't bend by itself. You have to bend it. I'm a, I, I came into the legal profession. I was the first black person in my law firm, the only black lawyer, I should say, in my law firm. When I went back to my Harvard Law School, um, women in Harvard Law School, I learned that in 19. 53 when they finally let in women, they had no toilets for no bathrooms for the women. So you can say they had gender diversity maybe, but you cannot say they had gender inclusion and if you arrive in an environment and it's not set up for you, it's not conducive for you. It's insisting that you emulate the person or the group that has been there. And who have dominated for a period of time and if you don't, you can't advance because somehow we have this idea of fit and that's about our own comfort and it's a lot about our prejudice and also our biases and that is what DEI is hoping to do to create an environment where everyone can succeed versus being. Held back because of an identity, it's just the opposite of what is being perpetuated these days about the disadvantaging effects of DEI. Who has been disadvantaged? We have no data that would suggest that white men are being disadvantaged by the work of DEI. Well, let me ask you that, do you think that white men have been disadvantaged by the work of DEI? No, but I think definitely like Asians have 100%. If you take a look at Harvard versus Fair admissions, it was all the Asian students that had to essentially have twice the SAT scores, twice the whatever the scoring rubric was that that that black students have to have to get into Harvard. So I think yes, there's definitely been, and if you look at med school admissions, you look at other admissions, definitely certain races have been excluded, and I think We have to get back to the MLK's dream is that we have to get back to finding a place where we don't discriminate based off of race, sex, gender. Like any type of even reverse discrimination is discrimination. And so if we're discriminating against Asian people for advantaging black people, that's discrimination. I think we have to have an open and honest dialogue and conversation about that, and the data shows that the people are being discriminated. No, I don't think which data? Well, if you look at any admissions data for Harvard University, that's why affirmative action was overturned. And even if you go back like, you know, you're right, the Civil Rights Act that started in 1964. Hubert Humphries, who was the floor leader at the time, said this ever leads the quota systems, I'll eat my hat. Affirmative action, you're lower by background. California versus Bakke essentially said that you cannot have quota systems. When the California system literally set aside a quota of 16 positions for minority students in med school, they said that's illegal, but you can do affirmative action to take into race considerations. That was upheld in Michigan in the Supreme Court case in 2003. But even Sandra Day O'Connor at that time said at some point the affirmative action has to go away. At some point we can't just keep giving. Certain people an advantage based off race, sex, color, gender, and Sandra Day O'Connor said within 25 years. And so maybe it was 5 years earlier than she originally anticipated when Harvard versus Fair Students for admission overturned affirmative action, but it went away and at some point we have to get to the point where we're not looking at people based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation. We're looking at them as individuals and say when do you want to do that? When do you want to do it? Do you want to do it now when we still have deep Equality and disparities not just in outcomes but just how people are being treated and in fact I feel like what we're doing what we're hearing is a way of trying to divide and distract and keep people from being connected and being unified across their differences and their commonalities and so I'm saying to you, when do we just stop doing it and. When do we start to acknowledge that there is still an enormous amount of work to do? We've been at this DEI work for a long time. It's not time to stop it. It's time to continue to evolve it. So let's talk about that evolution because we are running up on time. If we strip away all of the buzzwords, is there a version of diversity, equity and inclusion that both skeptics and supporters could agree on? What does that look like? And let's try and make it quick. OK, I think that what it looks like is, uh, I'm going with the, I'm going with the R's. I think we have to actually reassess. We need to redefine, we need to reimagine, and we need to re-engage. We need to redefine what we mean because obviously folks have a different opinion about what DEI means and what it means to have equality, right? And I do think we need to really try to do an assessment. What are we doing that is working and what are we doing that might be holding people back or making certain people feel excluded and then how do we reimagine a new idea, a new possibility, and then how do we re-engage, which is a lot of listening and a lot of caring? Yeah, 20 seconds for you. Yeah, I think it's the most exciting time if I was in the HR world because we don't have to do DEI specifically anymore and every company essentially adopted DEI. Yes, they had a different little flavor of it, but it was very similar to DI. Every company should have their own program to hire people and as long as we have a baseline, we don't, we don't discriminate based on race, sex, gender, then come here with your own program. It could be MEI, it could be whatever program you want to come out with. But talk about what's unique about your company, the people you want to attract, the values that they have, and talk about that and extol that being unique to your company. I think that will create an amazing workforce. We'll create amazing HR, uh, business partners in this room where you guys can really define what is unique about your company and who's gonna thrive there. Well, we'll end here. Thank you both for an illuminating conversation. Although you have cons shots and viewpoints, clearly, uh, your insights underscore the importance of continued dialogue. So thank you, thank you. So that's That's this way. OK, thank you so much.

Presenter: Dr. Peter Kecskemethy, Co-founder and CEO, Kheiron Medical Technologies

Brainstorm AI London 2024: Boosting Breast Cancer Detection

Photography by Joe Maher/Fortune Brainstorm AI

Thank you very much. It's an absolute privilege to be here. And uh I, I thought about that. Probably everyone here has heard a lot about what A I could do, what word could be, how it could be bad for humanity, how it could be good for humanity. But I'm bringing you slightly different things today. And that is a very good news story. How A I in practice is actually bringing impact right now today. It's not a future, it's not a hypothesis, it's actually what's happening now. And I'm also going to bring you a secret, hopefully that you can take away from today and maybe a bit of motivation. So let's get into that. So my company Kiron has developed an A I called Mia that is supporting doctors in early detection, specifically breast cancer screening at the moment. Uh And that has got quite a bit of news coverage. We were on the front page of the New York Times. We were also named after our results to be one of the seven biggest breakthroughs of 2023 next to CRISPR and Messenger RN A. So in good company and there's a very good reason why that is the case. One of the reasons is we are solving a very hard problem. People may not know that breast cancer screening is, is very, very complicated as a diagnostic task. Uh It's so complicated. Some people say it's like finding a snowflake in a, in a snowstorm and, and and actually the practice of medicine covers that it pretty much reflects it. Uh most countries outside the US, uh two doctors are required to look at every single mammogram. So basically every single image that is done for breast cancer screening. And even if the two doctors, we get at least 20% of the cancers missed, that means at least every fifth cancer gets missed. That's like the best we can do across the globe. And in some places, over 70% of the cancers get missed. This is, this is the best we are doing in screening right now as humanity. And you can see a couple of examples of like a hard case on the left and a hard case on the, on the right, on the left, the cancer was missed and on the right, a lot of the times the doctors look at all the little tiny nodules and they're thinking, OK, which one of these is potentially a cancer? Which one is not, it's like extremely hard. Some people call it magic sometimes. So OK, what can, what can A I do? I'm going to bring you talk, you through this particular case, this is an actual case where a woman went for breast cancer screening regularly. So did the best she could do uh multiple years. Uh and she died of breast cancer and she died of breast cancer because the cancer was not picked at the last screening. It was not picked up two years before and it was also not picked up four years before every single time missed by two doctors. OK. This is, this is reality. And what can, what can the A I do? The A I, we ran the many thousands, hundreds of thousands of cases. What the A I could do is find it at the last screening, find it two years before and find it on the case for four years before. So this could have been over four years early detection. And we know that when breast cancer is detected early, it's over 90% chance that a patient survives. That could have been practically a life saved with A I. OK. So that's the impact what we can have on a single patient, right? So let's see what, what does it mean in reality. So what you see here is how a doctor looks at a particular case. This is a medium complexity case. It's not like a higher complexity case. You see a couple of nodules, but also it's relatively clean. Uh In this particular case, again, two doctors missed the cancer and the A I found the cancer. Ok. This is not a very, very hard case, this is a medium case, but the doctors have to go through hundreds and hundreds of cases every day. There's just not enough energy or attention for the doctors to do their jobs. Well, unless they get good tooling and good help. And I believe a I is one of the fundamental ways we can, we can, we can help. In fact, that's exactly how about what we have shown in live use. So what does it mean? It means we can have extremely strong impact on a patient on the life of a single patient. It also means because we're talking about software, this is automatically scalable. Like you bring a piece of software, a box to a hospital and you can have doctors start saving more lives. That's practically what we're talking about. And so roughly, the impact that we could have that, that Kyron is focusing on is scaling it across the globe. So we're estimating we can probably help doctors save about 2 to 3000 lives every single year in the UK, 40 to 60,000 lives in the US and hundreds of thousands across the globe. OK. This is a piece of software that you bring across completely scab right now today. And this is not a hypothesis. This is based on actual evidence, actual the results that we have right now in multiple clinical trials and multiple multiple assessments across the globe. Um So why is, why is this big, why is it, why is it different from the past? Actually, computer science and computer vision has been used a lot, or at least there were a lot of attempts to be used for breast cancer screening, but not with too much success. And there's a couple of reasons for that, but I'm going to talk, talk you through how we had a slightly different approach. We took two things extremely seriously. And I think the importance here is what can you learn from that? How can you translate it to like how you use A I or how you, how you develop A I and the two components of that is taking A I seriously that it's a very different type of technology than humanity had before and taking the domain seriously, right? Like we're talking about a domain where any kind of decision impacts the life, right? Like either way either you can over diagnose or you can potentially miss a cancer. So taking the A I seriously and taking the domain seriously means that you need to collect a lot of data, you need to have extreme level of evaluation. I just need to make sure that when the software goes to healthcare, to actually impacting every day, the patients and the doctors, it has a positive impact rather than a negative impact. OK? So if you want to know the details, you can look it up, I have a number of papers and nature published and also a number of other publications, but I'm just going to distill for you some of the secret sauce that I believe we all need to need to think about. So hopefully, you can use that in your everyday practice. And the secret here is that A I is not just a model, you have a good model that you think is good, it is not going to necessarily or most likely not going to succeed in practice A I is a type of technology that we have never had before as humanity, right? Like if you have a piece of hardware or software, you know what it's used for, you test it in the lab and too much. That's how you're going to use it in everyday practice your software. But A I specifically, it's designed to be able to be intelligent and good on input and in circumstances that it has never seen before, right? This is a completely different. That's the difference from, from between A I and other technologies. So what does it need? Of course, the models need to be good, it needs to be good in the lab, but also it needs to be good wherever else you want to use it. So the algorithms have to be good. OK, fine whenever, but we need to validate that again, both in the lab as well as in real word. However, we never know because it's a black box, whether it still generalizes, does it still work? If I bring it to a specific hospital, you need to validate that locally in deployment. So that's the deployment stage. And also because it's a black box, it might work one day, but it might not work next week or might not work a month or a year later. You need to keep monitoring that it is still providing the same performance. So you need four things for A I to work in practice, you need to get the algorithms right. You need to validate it. You need to make sure it works in practice both upon deployment as well as over time, right? So please please, if you are impacting lives of it or, or, or uh you're having some kind of very, very important impact with A I do make sure all of those work because uh or all of those are covered. Otherwise it's not gonna be very good. So after that, I'm actually going to leave you with the words of uh one doctor and one patient who, who can tell you about what it means for them uh on uh having used the A I um in the UK. I remember when I was a child, they think they would eventually find a cure for cancer, but it will take a long time. And this is all just progression down the right road. We read 5000 mammograms a year. There is a lot of pressure on the service. I have staff shortages, people are burnt out. We have to make our decision first. Then we are allowed to save the opinion of Mia. So we press the little button, it opens up and shows us yellow circles that says, can you have a second look here. I was quite surprised to hear back from the penny didn't drop immediately until they said they had found a very small amount of cancer and they said it wouldn't have been picked up by the human eye. It was too small, but the computer earmarked it and that's how they found it at the moment we are using in an evaluation process. So we haven't integrated it fully into the system. We have modeled that if we did have ma in our workflow, that would be a big difference because it would make our turnaround time go from probably 14 days at the moment down to three days. The technology helps move us forward. This is the beginning large scale. We can make a difference. It's a lifesaver, a life changer. So I will just leave you with that. That I think when we have enough evidence that A I works, it's actually our moral obligation to use it. Sometimes we need to be very careful. Sometimes we need to go through all the steps to validate it. But when we do and it can have a very strong impact, we need to actually use it And, uh, if you want to learn more, feel free to contact me.

Meredith Kopit Levien, President and CEO, The New York Times Company Sonal Shah, Chief Executive Officer, The Texas Tribune Moderator: Ruth Umoh, FORTUNE

MPW Summit 2023: The News Leaders

According to an Oxford University study this year, just 22% of the top editors at global news outlets were women. That's despite the fact that 40% of the journalists in the top 12 major news markets, I'd say including all the journalists in this room are women. These are definitely statistics that we need to move the needle on. But fortunately, there are bright spots uh especially in this country. The study shows that in the United States, 44% of the top editors are women, including the editor in chief of fortune. Our next guests are some of the women forging the way in media and journalism breaking barriers as they helm news organizations where they have power, influence and reach and they are in the top jobs at a pretty challenging time in the media landscape. The industry is transforming as it works to harness new technologies. Keep up with shifting consumer habits and hold up high standards of journalism in a rather politically divided society. MEREDITH Kopit Levine is president and CEO of the New York Times Company and we're also pleased to add that she is on this year's list of the most powerful women in business. And Sanel Shaw is CEO of the Texas Tribune. They join us for a conversation with my colleague, Ruth Uo. Please join me in welcoming them to the stage. Delighted to have you my fellow newswoman. This is the panel I've been looking forward to all week. Um So thank you so much for joining us and welcome to NPW. So happy to be here. I just want to say if I always felt the way I felt when I was in a room full of women leaders, life would be perfect. I know it's so much more comfortable, isn't it? Yeah, let's jump right in until about a month ago. All of the major U STV news organizations were led or co led by women. Two of those women, Kim Godwin of ABC News and Rashida Jones of MS NBC were supposed to be here. Unfortunately, they couldn't because of the break in situation in Israel, which is completely understandable in the corner office. We obviously have the two of you women at time, Inc, we have Jeff Ss here at Fortune. We have Chantel. I'm curious, does having a woman at the top of a news organization change its output, change its coverage area. What are your thoughts? I'm so glad you're, you're starting there. And I want to say Kim Godwin and Rashida are extraordinary and every, I'm the CEO of the Times, I'm not the editor. I can tell you everyone in journalism is working around the clock right now to cover the, um, the situation in Israel. So, um, they're here spirit and we'll try and hold it up for them too. Um, I don't, I'll, I'll give you my perspective at the times and I suspect. So now you'll share this, I don't think you can be, um, a news organization endeavoring to serve, you know, we, we serve 10 to 15 million people every day. You come directly to the New York Times 50 to 100 million every week. I don't think we can be that at our best if we are not as diverse as the population to whom we are trying to give understanding hard stuff. So I think um it is incumbent on every leader of every organization and maybe especially news organizations to see that the whole team top to bottom reflects the diversity of lived experience, race, gender, ideology of the world around them. I I can only add to uh everything MEREDITH saying I live in Texas, right? So uh 40% Hispanic, 15% black, 7% Asian. Just to re remind everybody here, 15% black means we are the largest black population of any state in the United States. And so when you in in sheer numbers and size, remembering that when we cover the state, we think about our newsroom reflecting what the state looks like. We think about that every single day. How are we getting the stories. Where are we getting from? Who are we sourcing from, who are we connecting to and remembering that? And so when leading, you're always thinking about who's going out there, how are they thinking about it again? I'm not the editor in chief, but we're always asking these questions. So the newsroom from everything from technology side to the, you know, the audience development needs to be reflective of the audiences. We, we're trying to serve. Can, can I add one more beat? Um when I got to the New York Times, um shortly after I was there, not right at the beginning, but I'm there 10 years. Shortly after I got there, there was a period of time, maybe a year and a half where I was the only woman on the executive team, pretty big, executive team of the New York Times and all the religion I have about why no one should ever be the only um sort of comes from that period. And I want to tell you today, half the executive team of the New York Times, which is, is business and news um are women and more than half of the newsroom, mast head and desk heads are running the journalism, running the coverage, running the report are women. I wanna talk business. Uh Both of you have led the charge and are leading the charge in transforming your respective companies into more than just print news operations and into modern digital news operations, uh videos, podcasts, social channels, et cetera. One of the biggest challenges of running a multi platform news organization. Um I mean, you can see the biggest challenge, I think unfolding in real time right now. And the the there are two things. The first one I'll describe is just the enormity of the change, not the process of reporting and editing so much. Although that, that changes too, but the pursuit of truth is basically the immutable thing, wherever it may lead, the thing that is changing dramatically and probably presents the biggest challenge to every news organization is the scale at which we expect people to find an experience that the multiplicity of format in which we expect them to find an experience of the fact that, you know, so much of what we used to do was the once a day kind of polished record of history that a couple of million people read. And now you've got tens of millions on some days or, or weeks, hundreds of millions of people expecting you to be able to give them understanding um in, in, you know, the most fair way possible in the palm of their hand in near real time in every conceivable format. And that just means enormous change to the people doing the work of bearing witness and translating that to understanding and all like the freshest example is sometime between Saturday night when Hamas attacked Israel until yesterday, we had produced more than 50 um, videos, visual investigations, um, visual graphics to give people an understanding of what happened and where there are dozens of people on the ground for the New York Times from all of our, you know, all the major national and global news organizations there now. But, you know, they're not just writing 900 word text articles, they are, you know, showing you, they are getting you understanding by, in some cases, shooting themselves at a scene and describing what's, what's happening. There's a long time New York Times columnist who's an expert in all things. Um Europe and Middle East named Roger Cohen. Roger Cohen is probably in his sixties. He landed in Tel Aviv, I think yesterday. And the first thing he did was make a tiktok that he is in, you know, describing what it was like to be walking on the streets of Tel Aviv. And I would say just I could give you hundreds of examples like that. The, the enormity of change that has already happened to the report. Um is there and I think even more change is yet to come. We'll soon look to the future, but same question. Yeah. So I run just a background. Texas Tribune is a nonprofit newsroom. It is the largest nonprofit newsroom in the country. Uh We're the largest nonprofit newsroom running a statewide newsroom. So our challenges are twofold. So one part is everything that MEREDITH just said, right? A journalist can no longer is no longer just writing an 840 story. They're thinking about Tik Tok, they're thinking about going TV, they're thinking about radio. So what, what we had trained for and what the world is asking for are two different things. So how do we train journalists differently to think about their job differently and from a nonprofit space? Do we partner with places like N PR and PBS and other places? Like where does that look like? Because you don't, you can't do it all yourself? But how do you think about that? So that's changing and technology is just changing every day. Audiences are finding us in different places and we segment it by age, right? Some people, we're digital, only, some people read it on their laptop and on a screen, others just get it through Google News and others get it through Tik Tok and that those preferences are constantly changing. So understanding where people are finding you, but more importantly, building trust with them. So they keep coming back to you is actually the bigger challenge that we all have to work with and understanding that is not a one time thing, it's changing daily. You look at it monthly, then you look at it, you know, annually and like, what did we learn in this, that we have to be prepared for? So we have to be way more agile today than we've ever been before. And it's not as simple as you produced a great product. The product is great journalism. It's that where are people reading you, finding you and how are they staying engaged with you? Because in the absence of it, it's more polarization and more misinformation. So let's talk about polarization, misinformation. Uh trustworthy, rigorous journalism is obviously the bulwark of democracy uh especially as we approach, what I'm sure will be yet another contentious and fraught election cycle. MEREDITH. what were the key learnings from the 2020 elections? And how will that inform in your times approach to 2024? And then I have a related question for you. Um I would actually go back to, um well, let, let me say a headline thing first, which is the answer to almost every challenge at the New York Times um is more journalism, do more, more journalism. And I would go back to 2016. And I would say, um so much of what we learned um after the election of 2016 was, um we want more journalism, we want more reporters in more places getting to more voters from more angles. Um you know, looking at things like and this is something I would say we have substantially more of today post even 2020. Then we have then more people covering more religious communities in this country and how that intersects with politics from places that are not New York or Washington or California, but other, other parts of the country. So just more boots on the ground and more people out in the country talking to voters and trying to understand it. The second thing I'll say about covering the election, this is a moment where, you know, the two leading candidates are quite well known, like maybe obvious thing to say. But so, so much more can be done about how will they govern? What would a next Trump administration look like Jonathan Swan, one of our killer political reporters. He's amazing came from axios, did this piece over the summer and what does the next Trump administration look like in terms of what happens to all the agencies, what happens to these institutions of government that intersect with the presidency? But, you know, potentially in some profoundly different ways. So you should imagine that's an angle and then I'll just say 2020 election week, New York Times, I believe had the largest audience we've ever had for anything. And you know, COVID was giant, but in terms of um like a next level and we, we were able to bring that audience to the destination, to the app, to the home page, to the website and hold them there. And I think hold many people for a complete experience of an election unfolding in real time. So that maybe cable news is amazing, but maybe you didn't have to turn on cable news, you didn't have to go to twit or you could actually get that complete experience in real time at the New York Times. And you should imagine that is a huge part of what we're trying to do for an election or anything, even for the, the war between Israel and Hamas right now, anything that's happening in real time, we want to be able to hold you and give you perspective on the whole thing as a destination. So I'm curious to hear your experience because obviously you service all of Texas, but you're headquartered in Austin, which is this tiny blue dot in a sea of red. So going back to saying, you know, trust is so important and fundamental. How do you, how do you go about uh obtaining that? Yeah, I mean, that's something we think about a lot which is 254 counties in Texas. Uh They are not the same, it's not Houston, Dallas Austin, right? And you have to think about what does the rest of Texas look like. So we have actually uh reporters across the state. Uh while Austin is our headquarters, we have people in Lubbock, we have people in the Permian Basin. We have, we're raising money to put someone in the Rio Grande Valley, which is in, in South Texas. We have people in East Texas, we have people in Dallas and Houston, San Antonio. We think it's important to be where the communities are because it's not just as simple as reporting what's happening in Texas. It's reporting, you know, how do people perceive Texas from where they are? And what happens for us, for example, is we can talk about, for example, Roe V Wade or we can give you a story of all of the maternal health clinics closing down in East Texas. So where are people going to get their health care? Today's story about a young woman who had to carry her babies to term and that the real impact on her life because she was not allowed to get an abortion, a medical abortion to actually make it work and what it meant to her and her family. When you can tell the real life story of real life Texans and what they're going to policy starts to become a real thing. It's not just something we write about and what the statehouse is doing. We're starting to write about what people are actually going through and farmers have no water, we can talk about climate in a whole different way. So being in those communities really matters to us, we also do not do editorials and we don't do opinions and we don't do endorsements because we know to build trust in Texas, we have to give people the facts of where they are and let them make those interpretations because that trust is really important for us and local news. I just want to bring it down to local aspect of news, which is what we think about local news is where trust is built at a day to day. So we have to make sure we're there locally. I, I just wanna add a beat to that. Um Something like a third of all the working journalists in the United States have lost their job in the last decade. Most of that is at the more of that is at the local level than anywhere else. You can draw a direct line from that to the increasing sort of fracturing and polarization of the country. Uh social media is in some ways, a competitor to traditional news. Uh It can certainly be an inhibitor as we've seen on X, formally known as Twitter. How do you grapple with that and compete for eyeballs on the internet on mobile? I'll say just a couple of things first, you know, social media in the last 10, 15, 20 years, even as long as it's been here has played an important role in helping get our journalism to more people. Um At the same time, I would say we feel very strongly at the New York Times. It is not a substitute for the idea that news is best experienced, we believe by consumer in one or a handful of relationships with news organizations and that relationship I think is best sort of manifest by going to the destination of a news organization and seeing the fullness of an unfolding event in context. And I would point you to what's going on right now between Israel and Hamas or the war in Ukraine or, you know, the unfolding of the, um, the taking down the, the speaker a couple of weeks ago, you don't just come to the New York Times and see sort of one story or one perspective, an 800 word article or a video or an opinion piece, you see it all presented in a way that is meant to give you the fullness of as much as you can absorb, as efficiently as you can absorb it to, to understanding on that topic. And I think social media never did that, right. And um what it lacked, you know, when you, and again, there are some positive things about social media in terms of amplifying the content, but to have a complete experience of news and get to understanding, I think that's best done at a destination, I'll say one more thing, which is one of the things, you know, independent journalism, um I think is insufficiently understood and appreciated in the country and in the world. And the idea that you would get your news, um get your independent journalism from something that is inherently an echo chamber is not good for society if that's the only, only way to get it. And before long before Twitter, now X changed ownership, we actually asserted New York Times newsroom leadership asked our journalists to consider spending less time on Twitter because just like we think the reader shouldn't be in an echo chamber. The journalist shouldn't be in an echo chamber either. And I think that's had a positive, I want to end with this question if we may, because I definitely want to get this in the media industry over the last decade has seen tectonic shifts. It certainly beholden to platforms like Facebook, like Google, uh which, which, which are almost gatekeepers for who has access to information, how it's disseminated. Um We've seen kind of the defination of advertising. And so it's an industry that's really in flux at this point. How do you maintain agility and, and what are you bracing for as you look down the horizon? I just wanna, I think it's important to recognize what the media and stream and what the platforms do when they change their algorithm. It has a dramatic impact on journalists, right? Because, you know, meta changing their platform has dropped the readership of journalism by 50%. So just to keep that in mind, like we're constantly paying attention to when those things are happening. And I think what, what MEREDITH has done extraordinarily well, at the New York Times, what we think about all the time is like we're the multiple places. So we're not dependent on any one source. We, we do events, we do everything from tiktok to all of social media platforms, but also directly connecting to people through the places where they're getting connected. But I think that is that is probably the most critical thing is that we're not dependent on any one source. Our version of that have to be 10 seconds. We want to be in the direct relationship business. Come play wordle which tens of millions of people do. You're going to find that however, and then maybe you'll read a news story or do a crossword puzzle. Thank you so much, ladies. Such a pleasure chatting with you.

New York Times

New York Times in Fortune Rankings

New York Times stock chart

Videos