Hi everybody. Today I'm talking to Meredith Levien, president and CEO of the New York Times, and Jim Bankoff, CEO of Vox Media. This interview was recorded live at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity. We'll cover the changing media landscape, AI, trust in journalism, and M&A. Jim, you're selling Vox Media's podcast network, Vox.com, and New York Magazine to James Murdoch's Lupus Systems for over $300 million. Penske Media is acquiring the remaining sites. Talk about why splitting the company is in the best interest.
It's about focus. The media landscape is changing. We were aggregating scale, but now it's about getting businesses in the right position to succeed. We have growth runway and want to put the podcast business and New York Magazine in a position to succeed. The publishing businesses merging with Penske will find common strategies and leverage. Jay will be the controlling shareholder, and Ryan Pauly will lead operations.
So when you say things change, what changed? Did you make a mistake? You told Peter Kafka it makes sense to split up now. What is the digital publishing model for a business like New York Magazine versus Vox.com?
There was a time we were aggregating scale. Search is no longer relevant to publishing with AI overviews, and social platforms like X and Meta are irrelevant to us. We built on those platforms but knew we couldn't trust them. Now we build strong brands that appeal directly to audiences. You succeed in spite of platforms, not because of them. Direct subscription relationships are key.
Meredith, I remember years ago when you were going to visit Google, I told you not to go. They want to kill you. Talk about where that puts the New York Times. You've been building one center place. How do you look at the environment now?
Our success means we've lived to fight another day for journalism. The core of our strategy is doing high-quality news journalism and lifestyle products so good that people seek them out and form a daily habit. We decided long ago to keep investing in the journalism. When I arrived 13 years ago, there were about 1,300 people in the newsroom; now there are 2,300, plus a 550-person sports newsroom from The Athletic and a couple hundred doing product reviews. We invest in rare, valuable coverage done to a very high standard. We also said we need direct relationships with users and a daily habit. We exist on platforms but with care and calibration.
Earlier this week you spoke with Axios about the Times' lawsuits against OpenAI, Microsoft, and Perplexity over copyright. You said the Times worked hard to build resilience. Talk about specific ways beyond suing, because suing is just the beginning of a negotiation.
The stakes are very high. To our knowledge, many of these companies have taken our content without compensation or control and built products that compete with us. That's bad for the Times, the industry, journalism, and creators. But we're fighting for sustainable, fair value exchange for intellectual property. The Times spent close to $2 billion last year making our content.
A.G. Sulzberger said the AI lawsuits have already cost over $20 million and that news organizations should band together. Scott Galloway discusses that they should have banded together long ago. It's a struggle to get everyone to go along because some are making deals. How can you band together more?
We are suing, but we also made a deal with Amazon. They were willing to pay a fair price to use our work across their generative AI experiences. We are open to sustainable, fair value exchange where you get paid for the value of your work and have control. That's what we're fighting for.
Do you really have power over these companies? Let me ask Jim first. The public needs high-quality journalism that LLMs can't do.
The public needs to eat vegetables. They're not going to go out and report. We're fighting for a sustainable business model for professional journalists.
I understand. Let me ask Jim first. Do you have any leverage?
The leverage is that the LLMs need a high-quality information ecosystem. If they don't have it, their products won't be good. We all want quality information. That's leverage.
I noticed them fighting back against the Trump administration. They were in the front row of the inauguration. I don't think they care whether it's QAnon or the New York Times. You and I disagree. But that gets us to the deals. Vox Media got bought by James Murdoch. People worry about influence. Jim, talk about what convinced you this billionaire was good for Vox Media.
Maya Angelou said when someone tells you who they are, believe them. James and Catherine are telling us by their actions. They support journalism, the American Journalism Project, the 19th, and they're stewards of culture with Art Basel and Tribeca Film Festival. They see us at the intersection of quality journalism and culture. I've seen different ownership structures, and what matters are the values and protections of the institution, not the structure itself.
Let me give each of you one thing. One takes what's happening at CBS, one takes the Washington Post.
I'll take the Washington Post. I got to the Times in summer 2013, and Bezos bought the Post. I see no evidence their news report has been compromised. They are doing good work. But it's a shitty day when any major news organization lays off journalists. Every time high-quality independent journalism goes away, fewer people understand why it matters. That's bad for the public and the Times.
Two Times reporters just reported Bezos desperately sucking up in a new book, insulting the Post directly to the president. He's done enormous damage to that brand. How do you react? The news report is good in spite of him. You've benefited by hiring their people. How do you assess his ownership?
I run a company with the eyes of the world on it. It's hard to know what goes on inside another company. What I can say is that journalists at the Times know the institution will back them when they do the work to our standard. That's why talent stays. What matters is whether ownership invests in the product and protects the public's interest in independence.
So you're not going to answer. Is he a good business owner? Should he sell?
I don't think that's for me to decide. I'm for all ownership structures that make Americans have a better relationship with high-quality independent journalism and make a great product based on independent reporting.
Media needs to evolve. When Meredith and Mark changed the Times, there were hard decisions, but it was done in service of growing and protecting the institution with extraordinary competence and success. Other institutions also need to change. The question is how you execute with grace and competence. New York Magazine has been growing 25%, our newsroom hasn't shrunk, and we introduced a paywall and new verticals. It's a 57-year-old publication that evolved with care.
How do you assess how the Ellisons are conducting themselves at CBS?
The jury is out. They have an opportunity with the merger with CBS and CNN to do great journalistic work. It will require deft execution and smart leadership.
There's been a lot of noise and damage. We saw what happened with 60 Minutes. I don't think anyone wanted that reset. Now what's the plan? They'll have one shot to build trust with NFL football as a lead-in. Let's see if they can rebuild for the digital world.
People show you who they are. Believe them. I think they've shown us pretty actively, but you keep believing.
The public is better off when there are more institutions doing high-quality, independent, creative, brilliant, surprising journalism. We wish for more of that. The humans working in these institutions are prospering through platforms, and we seek to be one of those platforms.
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 quaset here in can celebrating that and prospering from that.
I get that. I understand where you are, but you're wrong.
by the way, this is my daily conversation with her.
I actually know these people and know a lot more than you do about what's going on inside. But it's bad. So, you wouldn't want to work for them and I shall not be. As you know,
support for this show comes from Ripling. As a business owner, you know how in demand top talent can be, and that means retaining your best employees is something that you should always keep at the top of your mind. That's where Ripling comes in. Ripling is built on your live global workforce data, giving you full visibility into your business and the ability to stay ahead of the curve. Say you want to retain top talent. Just ask Ripling AI, 'Who are my top performers this year?' and instantly receive a workforce report highlighting your top employees with supporting data like recent performance reviews and engagement metrics. But it doesn't stop there. Ripling can turn these insights into a proposed retention strategy, including a recommended 10% spot bonus for top performers. All you have to do is tap confirm, and the spot bonus is added to next month's pay. So don't settle for AI that's all talk. Head to rippling.ai/cara to get AI that turns insight into action. That's rippling.ai/cara. K A R A. Sign up for exclusive access today.
But I did enjoy working for the Times, but one of the issues was control was one of the things. So, let's talk a little bit about that. You're talking about humans. So, you know, tech columnist Kevin Roose just announced he's leaving the New York Times. I'm sorry. I did help him a little bit do that.
