'Original reporting' critical to democracy's defense, says New York Times publisher

As journalism faces unprecedented challenges amid growing threats to press freedom from authority figures and intellectual property theft in the AI era, The New York Times publisher underscored that “democracy depends on an informed public,” which starts with “original reporting.”

“Democracy depends on an informed public, and an informed public depends on truth-tellers who are willing to ask the tough questions of our representatives and of the most powerful people in society,” A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times and chairman of The New York Times Company, said as he sat for an interview with the Korea JoongAng Daily and JoongAng Ilbo at The Times’ Asia hub in central Seoul on Wednesday. The Korea JoongAng Daily, which marked its 26th anniversary this month, is a publishing partner of The New York Times.

The New York Times marked its 175th anniversary this year, and Sulzberger stressed that there has never been a U.S. president more opposed to the press than Donald Trump, addressing the administration’s threats and lawsuits against the paper.

“No president in modern history has employed more openly anti-press rhetoric,” Sulzberger said. “When he, or the administration, is using unjust power to try to silence our reporting, we are standing up for the reporting and refusing to be silenced or intimidated.”

Sulzberger, who was recently listed on TIME magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in AI 2026,” shared how his newspaper is adapting to the AI transformation while battling misinformation and fending off the “largest theft in the history of the industry.”

He warned that “if the theft of intellectual property is allowed to stand, it is not clear to me that there is a sustainable path for journalism organizations.”

During his time as an editor at The New York Times, Sulzberger authored the 2014 "Innovation Report,” guiding the paper’s successful “digital first” strategy. He joined The Times as a metro reporter in 2009 and is the sixth Ochs-Sulzberger family member to serve as publisher of The Times since Adolph Ochs purchased the newspaper in a bankruptcy sale in 1896.

The Times reached 13.35 million paid subscribers as of the second quarter and reported digital-only subscription revenue of $407.9 million, up 16.4 percent from the year before. It aims to reach 15 million subscribers by the end of 2027.

Sulzberger said the key to profitable journalism is ultimately “strong journalism,” adding, “part of the secret to our success is that, rather than chase what everyone else is doing online, we continue to tell stories that others aren't telling.”

In May 2021, The Times launched its new Asia hub in central Seoul after moving its digital news operation from its decades-old Hong Kong headquarters in response to concerns about a sweeping national security law passed by China and its implications for free speech and the press.

Regarding the growth of The Times’ Asia hub, Sulzberger said, “Korea is such a distinct country in having technological, business and cultural strength, and so it's a great place to make journalism.”

The following are edited excerpts from the interview.

Q. The New York Times is currently facing threats and multiple lawsuits under the Trump administration. Has there ever been a period in history with such direct pressure on freedom of speech? And what makes this current threat different from the past?

A. I often say, free people need a free press. And the reason for that is that democracy depends on an informed public, and an informed public depends on truth-tellers who are willing to ask the tough questions of our representatives and of the most powerful people in society. And part of what has made America so successful is that the so-called Founding Fathers of the country, people who wrote the Constitution, recognized that from the beginning. They disagreed on many things, but they recognized that the health of democracy depended on journalists asking questions on behalf of the public.

President Trump has obviously retreated from that core American principle in meaningful ways. No president in modern history has employed more openly anti-press rhetoric. And that was certainly true in his first term, when he called organizations like mine every name in the book […] In his second term in office, President Trump has continued the anti-press rhetoric, but embraced more overtly anti-press actions, and that certainly includes weaponizing the courts. He sued The New York Times three times in my tenure, either personally or through his campaign — I think the last one he asked for something like $15 billion — but he's also weaponized historically independent agencies.

Why is going after the press such a consistent part of the story of an eroding democracy? It's because when you have limited the ability of independent journalists to tell the public what you're really doing, it becomes much easier to act with impunity. So at The Times, what are we doing about that? When he, or the administration, is using unjust power to try to silence our reporting, we are standing up for the reporting and refusing to be silenced or intimidated.

The Times has produced impressive investigative reports, including those exposing Trump and his administration. What are you doing to sustain investigative journalism, and how do you maintain trust with high-level sources, especially amid the chaos of the current administration?

I actually have spent some time looking back at the full body of investigative reporting, and I think it's at this point clear that no news organization in our country has ever produced more hard-hitting, impactful investigative reporting on a single subject than The Times has with Trump.

But you are also right to note that the environment in which that reporting is happening is getting much more challenging. Sources are scared, and they are scared for good reason. Donald Trump and members of his administration are threatening them with prosecution, sometimes using even more irresponsible rhetoric than that.

Do you have any advice on how news organizations can stand up to such pressure from the president or the government?

Our only loyalty is to the truth and to the public we serve. And even if that means reporting something that those in power do not want reported, we report it every time. We have fought administration after administration in court to ensure that the public has a right to know about its actions. So my core piece of advice is: Make truth and facts your North Star, and refuse to be intimidated.

AI is fundamentally changing the way people search for and consume news. What is The Times’ strategy for adapting to this new environment?

We believe that AI is going to bring both opportunities to make our journalism better, to reach audiences in new ways, but also challenges and threats. But much of what I've been talking about in the last year has been about the threats and challenges that have emerged from what I believe is the largest theft in the history of this industry, and in fact, what the AI companies themselves — we now know thanks to a lawsuit we filed — have called the “largest theft of human labor in history.” That is the theft of intellectual property, journalism for us, from every creative profession on earth, to be used by a handful of giant technology companies to create overtly substitute products.

This is something I just believe that everyone in our industry should be thinking about, and everyone outside of our industry should be thinking about. Because as far as in journalism, if the theft of intellectual property is allowed to stand, it is not clear to me that there is a sustainable path for journalism organizations.

In fact, leaders at places like OpenAI and Microsoft have actually talked about that openly and said that they are creating substitute products that may end up killing their essential suppliers […] This is a big deal for our industry, but I also think it's a big deal for the public, because democracy depends on an informed public, and the role of informing the public starts with original reporting. And if there is not a sustainable path for original reporting, it is the public, it is the strength of our societies, our nations, that ultimately will pay the price.

At a time when many global media organizations are downsizing their international bureaus and overseas operations, could you share The Times' vision for its Seoul hub and how it fits into the paper's broader growth strategy?

Korea is such a distinct country in having technological, business and cultural strength, and so it's a great place to make journalism, but it's also been a good home for our coverage of the rest of the region. So we feel really good about it. And certainly, the last five years in Korea have been incredibly journalistically interesting, as you are aware. There's been a lot to cover here. And we’re continuing to grow. We’ve been growing internationally at a faster rate than we’ve been growing domestically, which is a real statement of the global hunger for independent, original journalism and high-quality journalism in this moment. And the Korea operation has been central to that.

What do you see as the single most important driver of The Times’ growth today?

Our secret is that we keep investing more and more deeply into the journalism itself, which is obviously the heart of our mission as a business, but also I think the key to our success.

It's impressive that The Times can continue to invest in investigative journalism, especially when the current trend is short-form content and social media gets news out quicker. What steps are you taking to support quality journalism?

Honestly, we're stubborn. We just believe that the most important story isn't always trending on social media algorithms. We believe that the most important stories are sometimes incredibly slow, resource-intensive and uncertain. And so, we have continued to invest in the types of reporting that others are retreating from: investigative reporting, foreign reporting, conflict reporting.

I actually think part of the secret to our success is rather than chase what everyone else is doing online, we continue to tell stories that others aren't telling.

It's been 12 years since The Times declared its digital-first strategy, which you spearheaded. How has the meaning of “digital first” changed since then?

In the last decade, what we've really done is broken that apart and tried to understand each element of what "digital first" means. It means finding new ways to reach audiences that are distributed around the web. It means being able to tell stories in different ways. So we invested deeply in podcasting, and have the largest news podcast in America; we have the largest newsletter in America; and over the last few years, we've been investing very deeply in video. So to me, the question, "How are we doing in digital?" is not one we ask anymore; it's a series of questions now, like "How are we doing in video?"

Compared to when The Times first introduced its paywall, what do you think is the reason why readers are so willing to pay for your content?

In our darkest days, when we were facing tremendous financial pressure and had to sell off every part of the company except for The Times and had to lay off a huge number of our business colleagues, my predecessor made the very brave decision to hold the newsroom flat and to make sure that we were continuing to invest in that core journalistic commitment. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the institution that was most obsessed with continuing to put money into journalism was also the institution that the public was most willing to give money to for their journalism. If you want to make money from journalism, make good journalism.

In Korea, there is a strong perception that news is something you get for free on the internet. How can a media organization convince readers of the value of paid subscription?

Our industry made the mistake of conditioning the public that journalism is a resource that they should expect to be free. And journalism, especially good journalism, original journalism, is incredibly expensive to produce. If we want journalism in society, it cannot be free; it must be paid for. The shrinking of our industry is a legacy of this misguided thought that journalism should be free. Food is an essential resource in society, and it is not free; health care is an essential resource in society, and it is not free; education is an essential resource in society, it is not free. And journalism, too, is an essential resource. Informed communities matter, and we need to get to a business model that will allow that essential resource to continue to be created.

President Trump has called The New York Times “a great American jewel.” You are in a unique position where you can criticize the administration, but also be listened to. What is your vision for The Times going forward?

Our mission statement is really simple: Seek the truth, help people understand the world and hold power to account. And in some ways, I think that's really the responsibility of all journalists. When I look at the consistent challenges that we see in America, in Korea, around the world, so many of them come down to those things as a solution.

BY SARAH KIM [[email protected]]