I don't work at the NY Times or any publication; I'm just a concerned reader; so maybe an outside perspective from a IT professional, news junkie and dedicated reader has a little value:

> it showcases some of the best facets of the NYT's image: using new tech to illumine the past and bring new insights. I find Times Machine incredibly useful for research and recommend it to a lot of my friends who work in academia.

With due respect, I worry this reflects the insular point of view that concerns me:

Will this have any impact on the organization's finances or journalism? Very few people do that kind of research and all the data was available already in a different layout, if I'm not mistaken.

Also, "using new tech to illumine the past and bring new insights" is not a 'facet' of the Times' image for me - I've never thought of that before and I've never sought the Times for that purpose. I see the Times as a leading producer of news/journalism; I imagine almost every reader sees the Times the same way; I've never heard otherwise. I suspect people inside the NY Times place far, far more importance on the publication's history than readers do - for readers, you're as good as today's articles. I'll literally go read the Wash Post or FT right away if yours aren't doing the job.

> Their tech adoption is insane - developers are given a lot of leeway in what technologies they choose, new options are constantly being evaluated, and the Times is continually experimenting with novel approaches to displaying informative content.

That's happening behind the scenes, and I do read about it occasionally in the tech world; it sounds fun. But I rarely see it significantly improve what is delivered to me as a reader, and that is all that matters - again, I worry that an insular perspective loses sight of that: 'we're doing great things' (that have no great impact on the outside world). The dynamic graphics are sometimes nice, but sometimes gimmicky and rarely technically impressive - dynamic visualizations are not an innovation at this point.

Which brings up another concern: The Times still seems to lack fluency (the best word I can think of) with non-text mediums, from multimedia to visualizations. What I mean is that the Times still speaks in text - a relic of the limitations of paper. Other mediums are foreign enough that they still are special events (look at our special interactive graphic!) rather than part of the ordinary means of communicating every story. And the other mediums are appendices or decorations to text rather than just another part of a unified narrative: I don't recall a story saying: 'here was the scene in Bagdhad: <short video or even animated gif> Highlighted on the right you can see security forces rushing in before the explosion, not after ... but here is the Prime Minister saying otherwise <short video>' or even seeing multimedia integrated in art reviews, which often are very visual subjects; for example, 'here is the how the Bolshoi handled this complicated step last night <short vid>; and you can see the NY City Ballet doing the same sequence a year ago. <short vid> Watch the ballerina's right foot ...' How about, 'here is Hilary Clinton's reaction to the vote count <short vid>', so readers can see her expression and hear her voice, rather than just read a dry, pro forma quote drafted by her staff? I see bloggers do it, but not the Times (or other 'old media' organizations).

> The Times is a profitable endeavor and in fact is growing quite a bit

From what I've read, the Times has had large layoffs and other cuts, revenue is a fraction of what it was ten years ago (AFAIK due to loss of advertising - an industry-wide problem in newspapers), and my understanding is that it is not sustainable in its current form but looking hard for a solution. I don't have time to look up the details, but I don't think my description is far off the mark. I hope I'm wrong! Best of luck to you guys.