yeah…ok!
Yeah, Bill Keller would say something like that. That’s how self-important he and his paper believe themselves to be. If he’d couch the argument more along the lines of a “free and open (and unbiased) press being necessary to democracy” he’d have more of a chance. But equating the survival of the New York Times which – like many other papers – has failed to adjust to changing market conditions, with the tragedy in Darfur is a solipsism of the highest order. I suppose we should now be prepared to preserve the paper with taxpayer dollars simply for the fact of its “unique role” in society? He seems to be implying such a thing, which is equally silly while also being contemptuous of our new digital millenium.
Were it up to folks like Keller, there’d be no such thing as blogs, online interest groups, or other forms of networking. Instead, we’d be relying on his paper and maybe the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times to be told what we should be thinking. Failure to follow sound business practices and then expect to be saved from a changing economic reality is…pretty much what we’ve been engaging in since at least last October, so why the hell not, I say? WHY.THE.HELL.NOT???
Just kidding about that last line, but that’s how surreal this debate about papers is getting.
T.
It is a hard thing to admit that what you do really isn’t that important.
But in the end, just about all of us do stuff that really isn’t that important.
I’m a living example of that 
But I’m comfortable in my “un-importantness.” Keller doesn’t seem to be, unfortunately for him and his paper.
T.
“…is a solipsism of the highest order…”
Shit, I just came in to peek and see this…
now I gotta go look it up. Nine hours of philosophy, and no clue had I.
Edit to add: Kudos, Kahuna!
I’m a bloviating gasbag. Anybody here can tell you that. And that’s all you really need to know :-)))
T.
I personally don’t care about Darfur one bit, but I certainly enjoy reading the NY Times. In fact, I try to read it as often as possible, and whenever there is an article about Darfur I skip it. If Darfur dropped from the face of the earth, it would not impact me as much as if the NY Times went under.
So yes, the NY Times is more important than Darfur.
outstanding…I wonder if George Looney Clooney thinks that way too!
Why buy paper filled with gibberish, fill our landfills even more, cutting down tree’s, etc…when you can get all the news you want for free on the internet…the paper is a dying breed, just like the ford pinto…time to move on and live in the future…
I also subscribe to the Chicago Tribune. Every morning I pick it from my driveway and read it while I eat my breakfast and drink my coffee.
No WSJ on your driveway? pray tell
I’m completely digital for everything, including Triathlete magazine. I get the Economist digitally, and I pay for extra content from a few other media sources and papers. I’ve got no problem with that. Hell, I’m starting to get into ebook publishing myself, so if anybody here’s a fan of this new world order, it’s me. They need to quit crying and find a way to market themselves sufficiently enough that people will want to pay a bit for content. And they’ve obviously never heard of affiliate marketing or seem to want to lower themselves to having to do it to make a bit of coin. It can be done, but they act like newsprint and ink are the only things that matter. Too bad for them, I guess.
T.
It’s not so much a solipsism as it is the proof of an incredibly large ego…in this case, technically, you can’t really argue it is a solipsism since he refers to something outside his own mind to compare it to his ego.
A solipsism would be: we need to save the NYT otherwise the world will not survive
That’s his implication, mon ami. And he really, truly believes that to be the case. He knows, however, he’d be laughed off the stage if he were to come right out and say it in so many words. I, however, am a mentalist and psychic of the first rank and therefore know exactly what everybody’s thinking, every single second of the day 
Antoine
I personally don’t care about Darfur one bit, but I certainly enjoy reading the NY Times. In fact, I try to read it as often as possible, and whenever there is an article about Darfur I skip it. If Darfur dropped from the face of the earth, it would not impact me as much as if the NY Times went under.
So yes, the NY Times is more important than Darfur.
Well if there are more like you, then it sounds like the dummies should just charge more for the rag. Duh.