document_title: Indian Civil Service (British India)

question_text: when was the indian civil service introduced in india

text: Indian Civil Service (British India)

text: Civil service[edit]

text: Origins and history[edit]

text: From 1858, after the demise of the East India Company's rule in India, the British civil service took on its administrative responsibilities. The  change in governance came about due to the Indian Rebellion of 1857, which came close to toppling British rule in the country.[9]

text: Entry and setting[edit]

text: Up to 1853, the Directors of the British East India Company made appointments of  covenanted civil  servants by nominations.  This nomination system was abolished  in  1855 by the  Parliament in England and it  was decided that the induction would be through competitive examinations of all British subjects, without distinction of race.

text: Th examination for admission to the service was first held only in London in the month of August of each year.[b] All candidate also had to pass a compulsory horse riding test.

text:
“

An appointment to the civil service of the Company will not be a matter  favour but a matter of right. He who obtains such an appointment will owe it solely to his own abilities and industry. It is undoubtedly desirable that the civil servants of the Company should have received the best, the most finished education that the native country affords (the Report insisted that the civil servants of the Company should have taken the first degree in arts at Oxford or Cambridge Universities).

”

— Macaulay Committee Report[10]

text:
The competitive examination for entry to the civil service was combined for the Diplomatic, the Home, the Indian, and the Colonial Services. Candidates had to be aged between 21 and 24, which gave everyone three chances for entry. The total marks possible in the examination were 1,900.[citation needed]
Successful candidates underwent one or two years probation in England, according to whether they had taken the London or the Indian examination. This period[11] was spent at the University of Oxford (Indian Institute), the University of Cambridge, colleges in the University of London (including  School of Oriental Studies) or Trinity College, Dublin,[11] where a candidate studied the law and institutions of India, including criminal law and the Law of Evidence, which together gave knowledge of the revenue system, as well as reading Indian history and learning the language of the Province to which they had been assigned.[11]

text: The Early Nationalists,[12] also known as the Moderates,[13] worked for several implementation of various social reforms such as the appointment of a Public Service Commission and a resolution of the House of Commons (1893) allowing for simultaneous examination for the Indian Civil Service in London and India.

text: By 1920, there were five methods of entry into the higher civil service: firstly, the open competitive examinations in London; secondly, separate competitive examinations in India; thirdly, nomination in India to satisfy provincial and communal representation; fourthly, promotion from the Provincial Civil Service and lastly, appointments from the bar (one-fourth of the posts in the ICS were to be filled from the bar).[14]

text: Uniform and Dressing[edit]

text: Queen Victoria had suggested that the civil servants in India should have an official dress uniform, as did their counterparts in the Colonial Service. However, the Council of India decided that prescribing a dress uniform would be an undue expense for their officials.[15]

text: Although no uniform was prescribed for the Indian Civil Service until the early twentieth century. The only civilians allowed a dress uniform by regulations were those who had distinct duties of a political kind to perform, and who are thereby brought into frequent and direct personal intercourse with native princes.[15]

text: This uniform included a blue coat with gold embroidery, a black velvet lining, collar and cuffs, blue cloth trousers with gold and lace two inches wide, a beaver cocked hat with black silk cockade and ostrich feathers, and a sword.[15]

text: Nature and role[edit]

text: The civil services were divided into two categories – covenanted and uncovenanted. The covenanted civil service consisted of only white British civil servants occupying the higher posts in the government. The uncovenanted civil service was solely introduced to facilitate the entry of Indians at the lower rung of the administration.[16][17]

text: Salary and posts[edit]

text: After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the pay scales were drawn up.[1] Assistant Commissioners started out in their early twenties on around £300 a year.[1] The governorship of a British province was the highest post an ICS officer could aspire for.[18] The Governors at the top of the pyramid got £6,000 and allowances.[1] All ICS officers retired on the same pension £1,000.[1] In the first decades of the twentieth century, the imbalance in salaries and emoluments was so great that 8,000 British officers earned £13,930,554, while 130,000 Indians in government service were collectively paid a total of £3,284,163.[19]

text: They served a minimum of twenty five and a maximum of thirty five years service.[1]

text: ICS officers served as political officers in the Indian Political Department and also were given fifty percent judgeship in the state high court and rest were generally elevated from the high court bar.[18] The tenure of ICS officers serving as judges of the high court and Supreme Court was determined by the retirement age fixed for judges.[18]

text: Ranks/Posts of the Indian (Imperial) Civil Service[c][d][edit]

text:
Central Government
Secretary to Government of India
Joint Secretary to Government of India
Deputy Secretary
Additional Deputy Secretary
Under Secretary
Assistant Secretary to Government of India
Courts
Judge of State High Court
District Judge
State Government
Chief Secretary (British Empire)
Secretary to State Government
Divisional Commissioner
Deputy Commissioner / District Collector

text: Changes after 1912[edit]

text:
“

If a responsible government is to be established in India, there will be a far greater need than is even dreamt of at present for persons to take part in public affairs in the legislative assemblies and elsewhere and for this reason the more Indians we can employ in the public service the better. Moreover, it would lessen the burden of Imperial responsibilities if a body of capable Indian administrators could be produced..

”

— Regarding the importance of Indianising Civil Services, Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms[20]

text: With the passing of the Government of India Act 1919, the Imperial Services headed by the Secretary of State for India, were split into two – All India Services and Central Services.[21]

text: Prior to the First World War, 95% of ICS officers were Europeans; after the war, the British government faced growing difficulties in recruiting British candidates to the service. Fewer and fewer young men in Britain were interested in joining, mainly due to the decreased levels of compensation to be had compared to other careers.[22] Confronted with numerous vacancies, the government resorted to direct appointments; between 1915 and 1924, 80% of new British ICS candidates entered the service in this way. During the same period, 44% of new appointments to the ICS were filled by Indians.[22]

text: In 1922, Indian candidates were permitted to sit the ICS examinations in Delhi; in 1924, the Lee Commission, chaired by Arthur Lee, 1st Viscount Lee of Fareham (which eventually led  to  the  foundation  of  the Federal  Public  Service Commission  and  Provincial  Public  Service  Commission  under  the Government of India Act, 1935) made several recommendations: ICS officers should receive increased and more comprehensive levels of compensation, future batches of ICS officers should be composed of 40% Europeans and 40% Indians, with the remaining 20% of appointments to be filled by direct promotion of Indians from the Provincial Civil Services (PCS) and the examinations in Delhi and London were to produce an equal number of ICS probationers.[22] In addition, under-representation of candidates from Indian minority groups (Muslims, Burmese and so on) would be corrected by direct appointments of qualified candidates from those groups, while British candidates would continue to have priority over Indians for ICS appointments.[22] While initially successful, the expansion of the Indian independence movement from the late 1920s resulted in a hardening of Indian attitudes against European officers, and furthered distrust of Indian ICS appointments amongst Indians. This resulted in a declining recruitment base in terms of quality and quantity. [22]

text: The All India  and class 1 Central Services were designated as Central Superior Services as early as  1924.[23] From 1924 to 1934, Administration in India consisted of "ten"[23] All India Services and five central departments, all under the control of Secretary of State for India, and 3 central departments under joint Provincial and Imperial Control.

text: From the 1935 Government of India act to Independence[edit]

text: The finances of India under British rule depended largely on land taxes, and these became problematic in the 1930s. Epstein argues that after 1919 it became harder and harder to collect the land revenue. The suppression of civil disobedience by the British after 1934 temporarily increased the power of the revenue agents, but after 1937 they were forced by the new Congress-controlled provincial governments to hand back confiscated land. The outbreak of the Second World War strengthened them again, but in the face of the Quit India movement the revenue collectors had to rely on military force, and by 1946–47 direct British control was rapidly disappearing in much of the countryside.[24]

text: The outbreak of war in 1939 had immediate consequences for recruitment to the ICS. The examinations in London were suspended after that year's batch (12 British and eight Indian examinees) had qualified. In 1940 and 1941, 12 and four British candidates, respectively, were nominated to the ICS; the following year, the final London-nominated ICS candidates, both of whom were Indian, entered the service. Examinations continued to be held in Delhi for Indian candidates until 1943, when the last seven ICS officers (seven examinees, two nominated) joined. By this time, the British government felt it could no longer rely unambiguously  on the complete loyalty of its Indian officers. During the period of the Interim Government of India (1946-1947), a few British candidates were given emergency appointments in the ICS, though ultimately none of them ever served in India.[22]

text: Independence of India[edit]

text: At the time of the partition of India and departure of the British, in 1947, the Indian Civil Service was divided between the new Dominions of India and Pakistan. The part which went to India was named the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), while the part that went to Pakistan was named the "Civil Service of Pakistan" (CSP). In 1947, there were 980 ICS officers. 468 were Europeans, 352 Hindus, 101 Muslims, two depressed classes/Scheduled Castes, five domiciled Europeans and Anglo-Indians, 25 Indian Christians, 13 Parsis, 10 Sikhs and four other communities.[18] Most European officers left India at Partition, while many Hindus and Muslims went to India and Pakistan respectively. This sudden loss of officer cadre caused major challenges in administering the nascent states.

text: Despite offers from the new Indian and Pakistani governments, virtually all of the European former ICS officers left following partition, with the majority of those who did not opt for retirement continuing their careers either in the British Home Civil Service or in another British colonial civil service.[25] A few British ex-ICS officers stayed on, notably those who had selected the "judicial side" of the ICS. The last British former ICS officer still serving in the subcontinent, Justice Donald Falshaw (ICS 1928), retired as Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court (now the Punjab and Haryana High Court) in 1966,[26] receiving a knighthood in the British 1967 New Year Honours upon his return to England. Justice William Broome (ICS 1932), a district and sessions judge at the time of Independence in 1947, remained in Indian government service as a judge. Having married an Indian, Swarup Kumari Gaur, in 1937, with whom he raised a family, he eventually renounced his British citizenship in 1958 and became an Indian citizen with the personal intervention of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, himself a former barrister who regarded Broome as a distinguished jurist and as "much as Indian as anybody can be who is not born in India." Upon his retirement on 18 March 1972 from the Allahabad High Court as its seniormost puisne judge, Broome was the last former ICS officer of European origin serving in India.[26]

text: Nirmal Kumar Mukarji (ICS 1943), a member of the final batch recruited to the ICS and who retired as Cabinet Secretary in April 1980, was the last Indian administrative officer who had originally joined as an ICS.[18] The last former ICS officer to retire, Aftab Ghulam Nabi Kazi (also a member of the final ICS batch of 1943),[27] retired as Chairman of the Pakistan Board of Investment in 1994. As of 2018, some former ICS officers remain alive, notably V. K. Rao (born 1914; ICS 1937) a retired Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh, who is the oldest former ICS officer on record.

text: Support and criticism[edit]

text:
“

If you take that steel frame out of the fabric, it would collapse. There is one institution we will not cripple, there is one institution we will not deprive of its functions or of its privileges; and that is the institution which built up the British Raj – the British Civil Service of India.

”

—  David Lloyd George, then Prime Minister of United Kingdom on the Imperial Civil Service[28]

text: Dewey has commented that "in their heyday they [Indian Civil Service officers] were mostly run by Englishmen with a few notable sons of Hindus and even a fewer Muslims were the most powerful officials in the Empire, if not the world. A tiny cadre, a little over a thousand strong, ruled more than 300 million Indians. Each Civilian had an average 300,000 subjects, and each Civilian penetrated every corner of his subjects' lives, because the Indian Civil Service directed all the activities of the Anglo-Indian state."[29]

text: The ICS had responsibility for maintaining law and order, and often were at loggerheads with the freedom fighters during the Independence movement. Jawaharlal Nehru often ridiculed the ICS for its support of British policies. He noted that someone had once defined the Indian Civil Service, "with which we are unfortunately still afflicted in this country, as neither Indian, nor civil, nor a service".[30]

text: As Prime Minister, Nehru retained the organisation and its top people, albeit with a change of title to the "Indian Administrative Service". It continued its main roles. Nehru appointed long-time ICS officials Chintaman Deshmukh as his Finance Minister, and K. P. S. Menon as his Foreign Minister. Sardar Patel appreciated their role in keeping India united after Partition, and noted in Parliament that without them, the country would have collapsed.


document_title: Who Wants to Be a Superhero? (season 1)

question_text: who wants to be a superhero winner season 1

root

text: Who Wants to Be a Superhero? (season 1)

text: Characters and contestants[edit]

text:
Rotiart (aka Jonathan Finestone / Los Angeles, CA) - Was a spy planted by Stan Lee to help weed out the least worthy superhero. (His name spelled backwards is "Traitor.") Left on his own (because he wasn't an actual contestant) in Episode One.
Levity (aka Tobias Trost / Lakeside, MT) - Eliminated in Episode One for "discussing" profitability of his character for his toy business. In his exit interview, he says that Rotiart manipulated their "discussion".
Nitro G (aka Darren Passarello / Staten Island, NY) - Eliminated in Episode One for failing the first challenge, 'Quick Change', by changing in plain sight and bypassing a girl in distress.
Cell Phone Girl (aka Chelsea Weld / La Crescenta, CA) - Eliminated in Episode Two for failing the courage-oriented challenge by quitting in only four seconds, explaining that a headache was the problem.
The Iron Enforcer (aka Steel Chambers / Brooklyn, NY) - Eliminated in Episode Two for not demonstrating Lee's ideas regarding a hero's behavior and values. Recruited by Stan to return as a supervillain, The Dark Enforcer.
Monkey Woman (aka Mary Votava / Seattle, WA) - Eliminated in Episode Three for giving away her secret identity without being asked and for concealing being an actress during her audition.
Ty'Veculus (aka E. Quincy Sloan / Bakersfield, CA) - Eliminated in Episode Three for failing the self-sacrifice challenge by recommending Lemuria for elimination, questioning her motives and reasons for being in the competition.
Creature (aka Tonya Kay / Coldwater, MI) - Eliminated in Episode Four following the revelation of her past as a litterbug and for breaking the law on the show.
Lemuria (aka Tonatzin Mondragon / Los Angeles, CA) - Eliminated in Episode Four for being the only one to fail the inmate challenge.
Major Victory (aka Chris Watters / San Francisco, CA) - Eliminated in Episode Five because of Stan Lee's concern that he was becoming a "parody of a superhero".
Fat Momma (aka Nell Wilson / Los Angeles, CA) - The final superhero asked to turn in her costume, in Episode Six. She came in second place, with no specific reason is stated as to why. She also made an appearance on Let's Make a Deal winning $2,000.
Feedback (aka Matthew Atherton / Las Cruces, NM) - He was dubbed as "the next great superhero" by Stan Lee.

tag: ul

text: Episode progress table[edit]

text: Key:

tag: p

text:
Superhero
1a
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5
6

Feedback ♂

IN
IN
IN
NOM
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
WIN

Fat Momma ♀

IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
NOM
NOM
IN
IN
OUT

Major Victory ♂

IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
NOM
NOM
OUT

Lemuria ♀

IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
OUT

Creature ♀

NOM
IN
NOM
IN
IN
IN
OUT

Ty'Veculus ♂

IN
IN
IN
NOM
IN
OUT

Monkey Woman ♀

IN
NOM
IN
IN
OUT

The Iron Enforcer ♂

NOM
NOM
NOM
OUT

Cell Phone Girl ♀

IN
IN
OUT

Nitro G ♂

IN
OUT

Levity ♂

OUT

Rotiart ♂

tag: table

text:
^1 The Iron Enforcer came back as the villain The Dark Enforcer
^2 Monkey Woman was eliminated without nominations due to lying during her audition
^3 Fat Momma was Second Place, but no reason is stated as to why she was 2nd place

text: Episode 1[edit]

text:
The superheroes and their alter egos were introduced. Each character was profiled in true comic fashion and they had a party. Stan Lee then gave the heroes their first lessons about the show and informed them he was looking for the "human" qualities that make superheroes great. The heroes searched for and moved into their secret lair. Before they entered, Rotiart was unmasked as a spy who had been secretly recording their interactions to help Lee deduce which of them might have less-than-noble motives. Lee admonished 3 of the heroes: Levity for discussing the profitability of his character; Creature for flirting with the male heroes; and Iron Enforcer for his violent tendencies and bravado. Levity was then sent home, with Lee explaining that superheroes are not greedy.
Lee gave each superhero a secret communicator so he might interact with them privately. The 1st challenge was a "Quick Change". The contestants were to be summoned by Lee in public. They had to find an inconspicuous location where they would not be seen, change into their costume and then race to a destination "in true superhero-like fashion". However, a child actress in the role of a small girl who needed help finding her mother was placed en route as a surprise to see if the heroes would respond to someone in need. Lee explained that in the superhero world, things are not always as they appear to be.
Following the challenge Lee revealed its true purpose. The goal was not to change into their costume and then reach the designated point, but to help those in need; in this case the lost little girl. 6 of the remaining 10 heroes did not stop. Lee then called forth 3 heroes: Nitro G for changing out in the open as well as missing the girl; Monkey Woman for appearing to notice the girl but not stopping; and Iron Enforcer for his questionable heroic nature after 2 failed tests. Lee asked each of them why they should not be eliminated. After each hero replied, Lee made another cut. Nitro G was sent home.

text: Episode 2[edit]

text:
The show opened with Stan Lee appearing on the television, announcing another challenge. Each hero was to write questions to ask each other anonymously, then send the questions via pneumatic tube to Lee.
Lee soon announced a second challenge, focusing on valor and will. Following the challenge, Lee announced the remaining superheroes would be treated to new costumes. While most of the costume updates were uneventful, Ty'Veculus's caused a bit of controversy. His old helmet was replaced with a Centurion-style one including a large feathered ridge, and his suit had become golden padded armor. Upon inspection, Lee commented that the suit wasn't what he had in mind and questioned the designers. Following several interviews with the other superheroes regarding Iron Enforcer's complete inability to fit in, the camera cut to the suitless Enforcer walking down the street.  Suddenly, Lee appeared on a junked TV as Iron Enforcer passed it. Lee announced, "Hey, Iron Enforcer... During your makeover something was bothering me, and I couldn't put my finger on it, but now I know exactly what it is. You make a lousy superhero... but you'd make a great supervillain!" Enforcer agreed to the new identity, and the design team from earlier pulled him into a van for transformation. Out stepped a tall, black-suited villain with a skull-like mask. Stan Lee announced the arrival of his newest creation, The Dark Enforcer, and said that life for the superheroes was about to become a lot more difficult.

text:
The 2nd episode started with the old lady being locked out of her house. The challenge was to go around and reach the back door and ring the doorbell, but they had
to get by two attack dogs. Three were nominated for elimination: Cell Phone Girl, for giving up in only four seconds because she had a headache, Iron Enforcer, for getting 12 inches away from the door and crying "Uncle" and Creature, for laughing even though she did not complete the challenge. Cell Phone Girl was sent home.

text: Episode 3[edit]

text:
The episode started with Stan Lee interrupting the heroes' breakfast for a meeting. Lee said that often, a hero's villain defines the hero, and drew comparisons to Spider-Man's Green Goblin, Superman's Lex Luthor and Batman's Joker. As murmurs went up from the heroes, the lights flickered, then failed, building to Dark Enforcer's entrance. Stan Lee sent told each superhero to go to a restaurant and bring their food back to the lair because he wanted to see if their choices were fitting for a superhero. Before he got to the first one, the Dark Enforcer interrupted and told Lee he had bigger problems. He asked Lee what the number one rule was for being a "superhero". Lee answered that a superhero never gave away his true identity. The Dark Enforcer then revealed that he had bribed the waiter and waitress and had cameras hidden all over the restaurant. When he showed the tape to Lee, he was disappointed to find that all but two, Feedback and Fat Momma, had given away their true identities, but he was especially disappointed in Monkey Woman, as she was the only one that gave her identity away without being asked, and because she lied about being an actress, and Monkey Woman was eliminated. The next morning, Lee told the superheroes to meet on top of the building and said he was going to test them on courage. When they got to the top of the building, there was a woman on the top of another building several hundred feet away that appeared to be on fire. The heroes were to walk across a narrow beam blindfolded between the two buildings and rescue the woman. However, they were not actually walking between the two buildings, they were walking on a beam that was actually a few inches off the ground. When Feedback found out the test was a fake, he became upset and said he wanted to do the challenge for real. Later, Lee commended the heroes for completing the test, but said it was time for another elimination. Then he said he was going to do something different. He told the superheroes that he was going to let them appreciate how hard his job was by having each one tell who they thought should be eliminated and why. All of them nominated themselves, except two: Tyveculus, who nominated Lemuria, and Fat Momma, who nominated Feedback. He told the heroes that this had been a test of self-sacrifice and that while he could not know the true motives of those who had nominated themselves, they had given him the answer he wanted. Lee told Fat Momma that while she had failed the challenge, she had nominated Feedback out of concern and that in her own way she was trying to save him. Ty'Veculus, Lee said, had no such noble motives. The Warrior of Light was asked to turn in his costume. All of the remaining heroes except Creature and Lemuria embraced Ty'Veculus in a heartfelt goodbye.
In the lair, Fat Momma lashed out at the other superheroes, accusing them of dishonesty and manipulation in nominating themselves. In an interview, Lemuria stated that Lee would have to "do a lot more than that to outsmart me" and she would "do anything, whatever it takes to stay in the game." In the final moments, Fat Momma vowed to see all the other heroes eliminated before her as "payback" for Ty'Veculus.

text: Episode 4[edit]

text:
As a new day dawned, the remaining superheroes patrolled the streets of Los Angeles to do some super deeds. This included Creature asking a man to pick up some garbage next to a garbage can, Lemuria telling a trucker to turn on his signal lights, Major Victory taking off his cape and laying it across a puddle so two women wouldn't have to step in it, Fat Momma rebuking an officer for giving a car a ticket for illegal parking while being illegally parked himself in a loading zone, and Feedback escorting two women to a light so they could cross the street safely and standing in front of of a window display of women's undergarments to prevent a group
of children from seeing them. Then they went back to the lair where Lee congratulated them on doing a good job. Then, Dark Enforcer showed up and told Lee he had interviewed their friends and family and that the superheroes had been "lying through their teeth". A friend of Creature mentioned Creature's past as a litterbug and told about her throwing trash out of a motel window into a fountain. Feedback's wife told that Feedback wasn't as neat and organized as he had led everybody to believe by showing his office that was cluttered with loose paper and said his superhero should be called "Captain Clutter". Fat Momma's mother told about Fat Momma going on all sorts of diets even though she was always talking about accepting yourself as you are. A co-worker of Major Victory told about people calling him "Thong Man" and shaking his "thing" for the ladies as a male stripper. Major Victory claimed that the nickname "Thong Man" was given to him because he wore sandals a lot.
Then Lemuria's friend talked about Lemuria dancing on table tops. Then Lee called for another elimination. Major Victory was nominated for taking off his cape to help the women walk over a puddle. (He said his past as a male stripper seemed to be a recurring theme with him and was worried about what might come off next.). Fat Momma was nominated for not being honest about accepting herself as she is, and Creature was nominated for her past as a litterbug and for breaking the law by jaywalking, and was eliminated. The next morning Lee told the remaining superheroes that they were going to meet some dangerous, hardened criminals (they were actually actors) and were to each perform one of four tasks. Lemuria volunteered to sit in an inmate's lap for ten seconds, but failed. Fat Momma volunteered to brush the hair out of an inmate's face three times, which she succeeded to do.
A new inmate, a towering African American male, was brought in for Major Victory and Feedback. Major Victory went first. After being told he looked ridiculous, the Major agreed and removed his cape and gloves. After a bit of talk, the inmate asked Major Victory about having his handcuffs removed to make him more comfortable. Major Victory moved behind the inmate—though the inmate protested—and patted his shoulders 3 times. Upon return Major Victory stated in an interview, "Feedback has to hug that guy 3 times? I'm gonna miss Feedback!"
Feedback met the convict next.  By this time, the man was asking repeatedly to have his handcuffs removed, or he would go back to the van. Feedback interceded with the prison guard and asked him to remove the convict's handcuffs, then began conversing with the convict. When asked why he was in prison the convict told him, "Murder, man. 4 counts." When asked if he felt remorse or regret for the families of his victims he said he felt none because his own father had been murdered. Ultimately, the failed challenge tipped the scales and Lemuria was asked to turn in her costume and leave the lair.
Following the elimination, Major Victory promised Stan that, despite old habits dying hard, he would keep his costume on at all times, except when he had to go to the bathroom. Feedback emotionally and tearfully thanked Lee for allowing him to stay in the competition this long and explained that after the loss of his father, Stan Lee's characters were the men he looked up to. He said that Spider-Man helped him make the shift into adulthood and that he tries to live up to the ideals set forth by Spider-Man. Lee said he wasn't sure he deserved that honor but was genuinely touched by it.

text: You sure seemed to leave out a lot of information.

text: Episode 5[edit]

text:
The episode began with Stan Lee summoning the superheroes to tell them they would soon face the "toughest judges of all": school children. The heroes visited the Arma J. Shull School and were introduced to a class of 4th graders. As a surprise, Lee had mock comic book covers in the classroom, one for each of the heroes. Following the unveiling of the covers, each of the heroes talked to the children about their origins, powers and messages. Feedback told the children the story of the origin of his powers which, while detailed, went right over the heads of the young children. Fat Momma had the children sing her theme song, and gave the children a message about bullying and how they should not let it get to them. Finally, Major Victory humorously explained his superpowers of speed by running around the room, and his powers of sound by singing. Then the children were told to line up behind the superhero they thought was the best, and Fat Momma won. Then Feedback and Major Victory had to write "I will not pretend to be a superhero" on the chalkboard with Dark Enforcer looking on.
The heroes were then given a challenge to follow clues that would lead them to the Dark Enforcer, who was spotted at Universal Citywalk. Major Victory finished the challenge in 15 minutes and 25 seconds. Feedback reached the Dark Enforcer in 15 minutes and 40 seconds. Had he not stayed behind to put every bit of change back into the woman's purse, he would have finished faster. Fat Momma, who stopped repeatedly for French fries, chicken fingers, a massage, and the short-haired woman's candy apple, completed the mission but her time was not posted on-screen.
Back at the lair, Lee announced another elimination. Before the heroes could assemble on the roof, Fat Momma locked herself in the bathroom and asked to speak to an executive producer. She told producer Scott Satin that she wanted to leave the show out of fear for Feedback, who she felt was taking the show so seriously that it would devastate him to be eliminated. Stan left the heroes to talk among themselves. Feedback assured her that if he were eliminated he would have no regrets. At the
elimination, all three were nominated. Lee told Major Victory that while he was entertaining for the kids in the school room, he failed to explain the origin of his superhero or inspire them. He told Feedback that while he had a good story, it went over the children's heads and told Feedback he needed to remember who he was dealing with, and he told Fat Momma that while she did a good job in describing her hero's origin and inspiring the children to not let people get them down for being different, he was disappointed in her for taking 40 minutes longer than Major Victory and Feedback in the timed challenge to find Dark Enforcer. Major Victory was eliminated because Lee was concerned about him becoming a parody of a superhero. Feedback started to protest, but Major Victory stopped him and told him "You are not the shotcaller here". As he was walking away, Lee called him back and told him to look behind his cube and pick up the phone that was behind it and bring it back to the red elimination cube and said "There is someone on it that wants to talk to you". This led to a touching and tearful conversation between Major Victory and his estranged daughter. Then Major Victory asked if he could keep the phone, making Lee laugh and exclaim "You always stay in character!"

text: Episode 6[edit]

text:
The lair was quiet as the finale opened. Suddenly, a surge of energy poured forth from Stan Lee's television screen, traveling down the wires and out of the lair, activating televisions around the city. Stan Lee announced from "every channel" that he would soon be crowning the next great superhero.
As Lee gazed at comic book covers featuring Feedback and Fat Momma, he reviewed the various challenges they had faced and the superheroic traits they had exhibited through the course of the competition. Matthew went 1st and spoke again of how his father, suffering from chronic pain, had killed himself. Following his father's suicide, Matthew looked to Lee and his comics for male role models. Lee, he said, was his hero. As he had before, Lee said how touched he was by Matthew's words.
Nell said that her best moment during the show was when Lee told her he was proud of her. She said that her father was her hero. She believed that a strong man was the center of a strong family and that with her father growing older she knew that he wouldn't be with her much longer, so she cherished every day she had with him. Lee then told Fat Momma that she was one of his heroes.
As the season ended, Feedback flew off-screen and was seen flying through space.

text: Other external links[edit]

text: Interviews with reality stars on Vh1, MTV, and SciFi

text: 2006 American television seasons


document_title: The New York Times

question_text: who owned the new york times in 1971

question_tokens: who owned the new york times in 1971

text: The New York Times

text: History

text: Origins

text: The New York Times was founded as the New-York Daily Times on September 18, 1851.[a] Founded by journalist and politician Henry Jarvis Raymond (1820–1869), and former banker George Jones, the Times was published by Raymond, Jones & Company (which raised about $70,000 initially).[25] Early investors in the company were Edwin B. Morgan,[26] Christopher Morgan,[27] and Edward B. Wesley.[28] Sold for a penny (equivalent to 29 cents today), the inaugural edition attempted to address various speculations on its purpose and positions that preceded its release:[29]

text: We shall be Conservative, in all cases where we think Conservatism essential to the public good;—and we shall be Radical in everything which may seem to us to require radical treatment and radical reform. We do not believe that everything in Society is either exactly right or exactly wrong;—what is good we desire to preserve and improve;—what is evil, to exterminate, or reform.

text: In 1852, the newspaper started a western division, The Times of California, which arrived whenever a mail boat got to California. However, when local California newspapers came into prominence, the effort failed.[30][31]

text: The newspaper shortened its name to The New York Times on September 14, 1857. It dropped the hyphen in the city name on December 1, 1896.[32] On April 21, 1861, The New York Times began publishing a Sunday edition to offer daily coverage of the Civil War. One of the earliest public controversies it was involved with was the Mortara Affair, the subject of twenty editorials it published alone.[33]

text: The main office of The New York Times was attacked during the New York Draft Riots. The riots, sparked by the beginning of drafting for the Union Army, beginning on July 13, 1863. On "Newspaper Row", across from City Hall, Henry Raymond stopped the rioters with Gatling guns (early machine guns), one of which he manned himself. The mob diverted, and attacked the headquarters of abolitionist publisher Horace Greeley's New York Tribune until forced to flee by the Brooklyn City Police, who had crossed the East River to help the Manhattan authorities.[34]

text: In 1869, Raymond died, and George Jones took over as publisher.[35]

text: The newspaper's influence grew during 1870–1871 when it published a series of exposés on William Tweed, leader of the city's Democratic Party—popularly known as "Tammany Hall" (from its early 19th century meeting headquarters)—that led to the end of the Tweed Ring's domination of New York's City Hall.[36] Tweed offered The New York Times five million dollars (equivalent to more than 100 million dollars today) to not publish the story.[26]

text: In the 1880s, The New York Times transitioned gradually from editorially supporting Republican Party candidates to becoming more politically independent and analytical.[37] In 1884, the paper supported Democrat Grover Cleveland (former Mayor of Buffalo and Governor of New York State) in his first presidential campaign.[38] While this move cost The New York Times a portion of its readership among its more progressive and Republican readers (the revenue declined from $188,000 to $56,000 from 1883-1884), the paper eventually regained most of its lost ground within a few years.[39]

text: Ochs era

text: After George Jones died in 1891, Charles Ransom Miller and other New York Times editors raised $1 million dollars to buy the Times printing it under the New York Times Publishing Company.[40][41] However, the newspaper was financially crippled by the Panic of 1893,[39] and by 1896, the newspaper had a circulation of less than 9,000, and was losing $1,000 a day. That year, controlling interest in it was gained by Adolph Ochs, publisher of the Chattanooga Times for $75,000.[42]

text: Shortly after assuming control of the paper, Ochs coined the paper's slogan, "All The News That's Fit To Print". The slogan has appeared in the paper since September 1896,[43] and has been printed in a box in the upper left hand corner of the front page since early 1897.[38] It was a jab at competing papers such as Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal which were now being known for a lurid, sensationalist and often inaccurate reporting of facts and opinions known by the end of the century as "yellow journalism".[44] Under Ochs' guidance, The New York Times achieved international scope, circulation, and reputation (the Sunday circulation went from under 9,000 in 1896 to 780,000 in 1934).[42] In 1904, The New York Times, along with The Times received the first on-the-spot wireless telegraph transmission from a naval battle, a report of the destruction of the Imperial Russian Navy's Baltic Fleet at the Battle of Port Arthur in the Straits of Tsushima off the eastern coast of Korea in the Yellow Sea in the western Pacific Ocean after just sailing across the globe from Europe from the press-boat Haimun during the Russo-Japanese War.[45] In 1910, the first air delivery of The New York Times to Philadelphia began.[38] The New York Times' first trans-Atlantic delivery by air to London occurred in 1919 by dirigible. In 1920, a "4 A.M. Airplane Edition" was sent by plane to Chicago so it could be in the hands of Republican convention delegates by evening.[46]

text: Post-war expansion

text: In the 1940s, the paper extended its breadth and reach. The crossword began appearing regularly in 1942, and the fashion section in 1946. The New York Times began an international edition in 1946. The international edition stopped publishing in 1967, when The New York Times joined the owners of the New York Herald Tribune and The Washington Post to publish the International Herald Tribune in Paris.

text: New York Times v. Sullivan

text: The paper's involvement in a 1964 libel case helped bring one of the key United States Supreme Court decisions supporting freedom of the press, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In it, the United States Supreme Court established the "actual malice" standard for press reports about public officials or public figures to be considered defamatory or libelous. The malice standard requires the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove the publisher of the statement knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and difficulty in proving malicious intent, such cases by public figures rarely succeed.[47]

text: The Pentagon Papers

text: In 1971, the Pentagon Papers, a secret United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in the Vietnam War from 1945 to 1967, were given ("leaked") to Neil Sheehan of The New York Times by former State Department official Daniel Ellsberg, with his friend Anthony Russo assisting in copying them. The New York Times began publishing excerpts as a series of articles on June 13. Controversy and lawsuits followed. The papers revealed, among other things, that the government had deliberately expanded its role in the war by conducting air strikes over Laos, raids along the coast of North Vietnam, and offensive actions taken by U.S. Marines well before the public was told about the actions, all while President Lyndon B. Johnson had been promising not to expand the war. The document increased the credibility gap for the U.S. government, and hurt efforts by the Nixon administration to fight the ongoing war.[48]

text: When The New York Times began publishing its series, President Richard Nixon became incensed. His words to National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger included "People have gotta be put to the torch for this sort of thing..." and "Let's get the son-of-a-bitch in jail."[49] After failing to get The New York Times to stop publishing, Attorney General John Mitchell and President Nixon obtained a federal court injunction that The New York Times cease publication of excerpts. The newspaper appealed and the case began working through the court system. On June 18, 1971, The Washington Post began publishing its own series. Ben Bagdikian, a Post editor, had obtained portions of the papers from Ellsberg. That day the Post received a call from the Assistant Attorney General, William Rehnquist, asking them to stop publishing. When the Post refused, the U.S. Justice Department sought another injunction. The U.S. District court judge refused, and the government appealed. On June 26, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take both cases, merging them into New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court held in a 6–3 decision that the injunctions were unconstitutional prior restraints and that the government had not met the burden of proof required. The justices wrote nine separate opinions, disagreeing on significant substantive issues. While it was generally seen as a victory for those who claim the First Amendment enshrines an absolute right to free speech, many felt it a lukewarm victory, offering little protection for future publishers when claims of national security were at stake.[48]

text: 1970s and 1980s

text: In the 1970s, the paper introduced a number of new lifestyle sections including Weekend and Home, with the aim of attracting more advertisers and readers. Many criticized the move for betraying the paper's mission.[50]

text: On September 7, 1976, the paper switched from an eight-column format to a six-column format. The overall page width stayed the same, with each column becoming wider.[22]

text: On September 14, 1987, the Times printed the heaviest ever newspaper, at over 12 pounds (5.4 kg) and 1,612 pages.[51]

text: 1990s and 2000s

text: The Times was one of the last newspapers to adopt color photography, with the first color photograph on the front page appearing on October 16, 1997.[23]

text: Digital era

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2017)

text: The New York Times switched to a digital production process sometime before 1980, but only began preserving the resulting digital text that year.[52]

text: In September 2008, The New York Times announced that it would be combining certain sections effective October 6, 2008, in editions printed in the New York metropolitan area. The changes folded the Metro Section into the main International / National news section and combined Sports and Business (except Saturday through Monday, when Sports is still printed as a standalone section). This change also included having the name of the Metro section be called New York outside of the Tri-State Area. The presses used by The New York Times allow four sections to be printed simultaneously; as the paper had included more than four sections all days except Saturday, the sections had to be printed separately in an early press run and collated together. The changes will allow The New York Times to print in four sections Monday through Wednesday, in addition to Saturday. The New York Times' announcement stated that the number of news pages and employee positions will remain unchanged, with the paper realizing cost savings by cutting overtime expenses.[16]

text: In 2009, the newspaper began production of local inserts in regions outside of the New York area. Beginning October 16, 2009, a two-page "Bay Area" insert was added to copies of the Northern California edition on Fridays and Sundays. The newspaper commenced production of a similar Friday and Sunday insert to the Chicago edition on November 20, 2009. The inserts consist of local news, policy, sports, and culture pieces, usually supported by local advertisements.

text: Following industry trends, its weekday circulation had fallen in 2009 to fewer than one million.[53]

text: In August 2007, the paper reduced the physical size of its print edition, cutting the page width from 13.5 inches (0.34 m) to a 12 inches (0.30 m). This followed similar moves by a roster of other newspapers in the previous ten years, including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The move resulted in a 5% reduction in news space, but (in an era of dwindling circulation and significant advertising revenue losses) also saved about $12 million a year.[54][55][56][57]

text: Because of its steadily declining sales attributed to the rise of online alternative media and social media, the newspaper has been going through a downsizing for several years, offering buyouts to workers and cutting expenses,[58] in common with a general trend among print news media.[59]

text: In December 2012, the Times published "Snow Fall", a six-part article about the 2012 Tunnel Creek avalanche which integrated videos, photos, and interactive graphics and was hailed as a watershed moment for online journalism.[60][61]

text: In 2016, reporters for the newspaper were reportedly the target of cyber security breaches. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was reportedly investigating the attacks. The cyber security breaches have been described as possibly being related to cyberattacks that targeted other institutions, such as the Democratic National Committee.[62]

text: Headquarters building

text: The newspaper's first building was located at 113 Nassau Street in New York City. In 1854, it moved to 138 Nassau Street, and in 1858 to 41 Park Row, making it the first newspaper in New York City housed in a building built specifically for its use.[63]

text: The newspaper moved its headquarters to the Times Tower, located at 1475 Broadway in 1904,[64] in an area called Longacre Square, that was later renamed Times Square in honor of the newspaper.[65] The top of the building –  now known as One Times Square –  is the site of the New Year's Eve tradition of lowering a lighted ball, which was started by the paper.[66] The building is also notable for its electronic news ticker –  popularly known as "The Zipper" –  where headlines crawl around the outside of the building.[67] It is still in use, but has been operated by Dow Jones & Company since 1995.[68] After nine years in its Times Square tower the newspaper had an annex built at 229 West 43rd Street.[69] After several expansions, the 43rd Street building became the newspaper's main headquarters in 1960 and the Times Tower on Broadway was sold the following year.[70] It served as the newspaper's main printing plant until 1997, when the newspaper opened a state-of-the-art printing plant in the College Point section of the borough of Queens.[71]

text: A decade later, The New York Times moved its newsroom and businesses headquarters from West 43rd Street to a new tower at 620 Eighth Avenue between West 40th and 41st Streets, in Manhattan –  directly across Eighth Avenue from the Port Authority Bus Terminal. The new headquarters for the newspaper, known officially as The New York Times Building but unofficially called the new "Times Tower" by many New Yorkers, is a skyscraper designed by Renzo Piano.[72][73]

text: Discrimination in employment

text: Discriminatory practices restricting women in editorial positions were previously employed by the paper. The newspaper's first general woman reporter was Jane Grant, who described her experience afterwards. She wrote, "In the beginning I was charged not to reveal the fact that a female had been hired". Other reporters nicknamed her Fluff and she was subjected to considerable hazing. Because of her gender, promotions were out of the question, according to the then-managing editor. She was there for fifteen years, interrupted by World War I.[74]

text: In 1935, Anne McCormick wrote to Arthur Hays Sulzberger, "I hope you won't expect me to revert to 'woman's-point-of-view' stuff."[75] Later, she interviewed major political leaders and appears to have had easier access than her colleagues did. Even those who witnessed her in action were unable to explain how she got the interviews she did.[76] Clifton Daniel said, "[After World War II,] I'm sure Adenauer called her up and invited her to lunch. She never had to grovel for an appointment."[77] Covering world leaders' speeches after World War II at the National Press Club was limited to men by a Club rule. When women were eventually allowed in to hear the speeches, they still were not allowed to ask the speakers questions, although men were allowed and did ask, even though some of the women had won Pulitzer Prizes for prior work.[78] Times reporter Maggie Hunter refused to return to the Club after covering one speech on assignment.[79] Nan Robertson's article on the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, was read aloud as anonymous by a professor, who then said, "'It will come as a surprise to you, perhaps, that the reporter is a girl,' he began... [G]asps; amazement in the ranks. 'She had used all her senses, not just her eyes, to convey the smell and feel of the stockyards. She chose a difficult subject, an offensive subject. Her imagery was strong enough to revolt you.'"[80] The New York Times hired Kathleen McLaughlin after ten years at the Chicago Tribune, where "[s]he did a series on maids, going out herself to apply for housekeeping jobs."[81]

text: Slogan

text: The New York Times has had one slogan. Since 1896, the newspaper's slogan has been "All the News That's Fit to Print." In 1896, Adolph Ochs held a competition to attempt to find a replacement slogan, offering a $100 prize for the best one. Entries included "News, Not Nausea"; "In One Word: Adequate"; "News Without Noise"; "Out Heralds The Herald, Informs The World, and Extinguishes The Sun"; "The Public Press is a Public Trust"; and the winner of the competition, "All the world's news, but not a school for scandal."[82][83][84][85] On May 10, 1960, Wright Patman asked the FTC to investigate whether The New York Times's slogan was misleading or false advertising. Within 10 days, the FTC responded that it was not.[86]

text: Again in 1996, a competition was held to find a new slogan, this time for NYTimes.com. Over 8,000 entries were submitted. Again however, "All the News That's Fit to Print," was found to be the best.[87]

text: Organization

text: News staff

text: In addition to its New York City headquarters, the paper has newsrooms in London and Hong Kong.[88][89] Its Paris newsroom, which had been the headquarters of the paper's international edition, was closed in 2016, although the city remains home to a news bureau and an advertising office.[90][91] The paper also has an editing and wire service center in Gainesville, Florida.[92]

text: As of 2013, the newspaper had 6 news bureaus in the New York region, 14 elsewhere in the United States, and 24 in other countries.[93]

text: In 2009, Russ Stanton, editor of the Los Angeles Times, a competitor, stated that the newsroom of The New York Times was twice the size of the Los Angeles Times, which had a newsroom of 600 at the time.[94]

text: Ochs-Sulzberger family

text: In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[38] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.[95] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.

text: The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company's class B shares. Any alteration to the dual-class structure must be ratified by six of eight directors who sit on the board of the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust. The Trust board members are Daniel H. Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G. Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael Golden, Eric M. A. Lax, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J. Sulzberger.[96]

text: Turner Catledge, the top editor at The New York Times from 1952 to 1968, wanted to hide the ownership influence. Arthur Sulzberger routinely wrote memos to his editor, each containing suggestions, instructions, complaints, and orders. When Catledge would receive these memos he would erase the publisher's identity before passing them to his subordinates. Catledge thought that if he removed the publisher's name from the memos it would protect reporters from feeling pressured by the owner.[97]

text: Public editors

text: The position of public editor was established in 2003 to "investigate matters of journalistic integrity"; each public editor was to serve a two-year term.[98] The post "was established to receive reader complaints and question Times journalists on how they make decisions."[99] The impetus for the creation of the public editor position was the Jayson Blair affair. Public editors were: Daniel Okrent (2003–2005), Byron Calame (2005–2007), Clark Hoyt (2007–2010) (served an extra year), Arthur S. Brisbane (2010–2012), Margaret Sullivan (2012–2016) (served a four-year term), and Elizabeth Spayd (2016–2017). In 2017, the Times eliminated the position of public editor.[99][100]

text: Content

text: Style

text: When referring to people, The New York Times generally uses honorifics, rather than unadorned last names (except in the sports pages, Book Review and Magazine).[101]

text: The New York Times printed a display advertisement on its first page on January 6, 2009, breaking tradition at the paper.[102] The advertisement, for CBS, was in color and ran the entire width of the page.[103] The newspaper promised it would place first-page advertisements on only the lower half of the page.[102]

text: In August 2014, The Times decided to use the word "torture" to describe incidents in which interrogators "inflicted pain on a prisoner in an effort to get information." This was a shift from the paper's previous practice of describe such practices as "harsh" or "brutal" interrogations.[104]

text: The paper maintains a strict profanity policy. A 2007 review of a concert by punk band Fucked Up, for example, completely avoided mention of the group's name.[105] However, the Times has on occasion published unfiltered video content that includes profanity and slurs where it has determined that such video has news value.[106] During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, the Times did print the words "fuck" and "pussy," among others, when reporting on the vulgar statements made by Donald Trump in a 2005 recording. Times politics editor Carolyn Ryan said: "It's a rare thing for us to use this language in our stories, even in quotes, and we discussed it at length," ultimately deciding to publish it because of its news value and because "[t]o leave it out or simply describe it seemed awkward and less than forthright to us, especially given that we would be running a video that showed our readers exactly what was said."[107]

text: Products

text: Print newspaper

text: In the absence of a major headline, the day's most important story generally appears in the top-right column, on the main page. The typefaces used for the headlines are custom variations of Cheltenham. The running text is set at 8.7 point Imperial.[108][109]

text: The newspaper is organized in three sections, including the magazine.

text:
News: Includes International, National, Washington, Business, Technology, Science, Health, Sports, The Metro Section, Education, Weather, and Obituaries. In 2018, the New York Times began an inclusion project to add more 'overlooked' women to its ongoing Obituary column.[110] Many prominent women are being added and there is an open call for the public to suggest further additions.[111] There is also an online interactive update to the obituaries[112] as well as several articles explaining the reasoning and process of these new updates.[113][114][115]
Opinion: Includes Editorials, Op-eds and Letters to the Editor.
Features: Includes Arts, Movies, Theater, Travel, NYC Guide, Food, Home & Garden, Fashion & Style, Crossword, The New York Times Book Review, T: The New York Times Style Magazine, The New York Times Magazine, and Sunday Review.

tag: ol

text: Some sections, such as Metro, are only found in the editions of the paper distributed in the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut Tri-state area and not in the national or Washington, D.C. editions.[116] Aside from a weekly roundup of reprints of editorial cartoons from other newspapers, The New York Times does not have its own staff editorial cartoonist, nor does it feature a comics page or Sunday comics section.[117]

text: From 1851 to 2017, The New York Times published around 60,000 print issues containing about 3.5 million pages and 15 million articles.[52]

text: Like most other American newspapers,[118] The New York Times has experienced a decline in circulation. Its printed weekday circulation dropped by 50 percent to 571,500 copies from 2005 to 2016.[119]

text: International print edition

text: The New York Times International Edition is a print version of the paper tailored for readers outside the United States. Formerly a joint venture with The Washington Post named The International Herald Tribune, The New York Times took full ownership of the paper in 2002 and has gradually integrated it more closely into its domestic operations.

text: Website

text: The New York Times began publishing daily on the World Wide Web on January 22, 1996, "offering readers around the world immediate access to most of the daily newspaper's contents."[120] The website had 555 million pageviews in March 2005.[121] The domain nytimes.com attracted at least 146 million visitors annually by 2008 according to a Compete.com study.[citation needed] In March 2009, The New York Times Web site ranked 59th by number of unique visitors, with over 20 million unique visitors, making it the most visited newspaper site with more than twice the number of unique visitors as the next most popular site.[122] as of May 2009[update], nytimes.com produced 22 of the 50 most popular newspaper blogs.[123] NYTimes.com was ranked 118 in the world, and 32 in the U.S. by Alexa on June 4, 2017.[124]

text: In September 2005, the paper decided to begin subscription-based service for daily columns in a program known as TimesSelect, which encompassed many previously free columns. Until being discontinued two years later, TimesSelect cost $7.95 per month or $49.95 per year,[125] though it was free for print copy subscribers and university students and faculty.[126][127] To avoid this charge, bloggers often reposted TimesSelect material,[128] and at least one site once compiled links of reprinted material.[129] On September 17, 2007, The New York Times announced that it would stop charging for access to parts of its Web site, effective at midnight the following day, reflecting a growing view in the industry that subscription fees cannot outweigh the potential ad revenue from increased traffic on a free site.[130] In addition to opening almost the entire site to all readers, The New York Times news archives from 1987 to the present are available at no charge, as well as those from 1851 to 1922, which are in the public domain.[131][132] Access to the Premium Crosswords section continues to require either home delivery or a subscription for $6.95 per month or $39.95 per year. Times columnists including Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman had criticized TimesSelect,[133] with Friedman going so far as to say "I hate it. It pains me enormously because it's cut me off from a lot, a lot of people, especially because I have a lot of people reading me overseas, like in India ... I feel totally cut off from my audience."[134]

text: The New York Times was made available on the iPhone and iPod Touch in 2008,[135] and on the iPad mobile devices in 2010.[136] It was also the first newspaper to offer a video game as part of its editorial content, Food Import Folly by Persuasive Games.[137] In 2010, The New York Times editors collaborated with students and faculty from New York University's Studio 20 Journalism Masters program to launch and produce "The Local East Village", a hyperlocal blog designed to offer news "by, for and about the residents of the East Village".[138] That same year, reCAPTCHA helped to digitize old editions of The New York Times.[139]

text: In 2012, The New York Times introduced a Chinese-language news site, cn.nytimes.com, with content created by staff based in Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong, though the server was placed outside of China to avoid censorship issues.[140] In March 2013, The New York Times and National Film Board of Canada announced a partnership titled A Short History of the Highrise, which will create four short documentaries for the Internet about life in highrise buildings as part of the NFB's Highrise project, utilizing images from the newspaper's photo archives for the first three films, and user-submitted images for the final film.[141] The third project in the series, "A Short History of the Highrise", won a Peabody Award in 2013.[142]

text: Falling print advertising revenue and projections of continued decline resulted in a "metered paywall" being instituted in 2011, regarded as modestly successful after garnering several hundred thousand subscriptions and about $100 million in revenue as of March 2012[update].[143][144] As announced in March 2011, the paywall would charge frequent readers for access to its online content.[145] Readers would be able to access up to 20 articles each month without charge. (Although beginning in April 2012, the number of free-access articles was halved to just ten articles per month.) Any reader who wanted to access more would have to pay for a digital subscription. This plan would allow free access for occasional readers, but produce revenue from "heavy" readers. Digital subscriptions rates for four weeks range from $15 to $35 depending on the package selected, with periodic new subscriber promotions offering four-week all-digital access for as low as 99¢. Subscribers to the paper's print edition get full access without any additional fee. Some content, such as the front page and section fronts remained free, as well as the Top News page on mobile apps.[146] In January 2013, The New York Times' Public Editor Margaret M. Sullivan announced that for the first time in many decades, the paper generated more revenue through subscriptions than through advertising.[147] In December 2017, the number of free articles per month was reduced from ten to five, as the first change to the metered paywall since 2012.[144] An executive of The New York Times Company stated that the decision was motivated by "an all-time high" in the demand for journalism.[144]

text: The newspaper's website was hacked on August 29, 2013, by the Syrian Electronic Army, a hacking group that supports the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The SEA managed to penetrate the paper's domain name registrar, Melbourne IT, and alter DNS records for The New York Times, putting some of its websites out of service for hours.[148]

text: The food section is supplemented on the web by properties for home cooks and for out-of-home dining. New York Times Cooking (cooking.nytimes.com; also available via iOS app) provides access to more than 17,000 recipes on file as of November 2016,[149] and availability of saving recipes from other sites around the web. The newspaper's restaurant search (nytimes.com/reviews/dining) allows online readers to search NYC area restaurants by cuisine, neighborhood, price, and reviewer rating. The New York Times has also published several cookbooks, including The Essential New York Times Cookbook: Classic Recipes for a New Century, published in late 2010.

text: As of December 2017, the New York Times has a total of 3.5 million paid subscriptions in both print and digital versions, and more than 130 million monthly readers, more than double its audience two years previously.[150]

text: In February 2018, The New York Times Company reported increased revenue from the digital-only subscriptions, adding 157,000 new subscribers to a total of 2.6 million digital-only subscribers. Digital advertising also saw growth during this period. At the same time, advertising for the print version of the journal fell.[151][152]

text: Mobile presence

text: The Times Reader is a digital version of The New York Times. It was created via a collaboration between the newspaper and Microsoft. Times Reader takes the principles of print journalism and applies them to the technique of online reporting. Times Reader uses a series of technologies developed by Microsoft and their Windows Presentation Foundation team. It was announced in Seattle in April 2006, by Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., Bill Gates, and Tom Bodkin.[153] In 2009, the Times Reader 2.0 was rewritten in Adobe AIR.[154] In December 2013, the newspaper announced that the Times Reader app would be discontinued on January 6, 2014, urging readers of the app to instead begin using the subscription-only "Today's Paper" app.[155]

text: In 2008, The New York Times created an app for the iPhone and iPod Touch which allowed users to download articles to their mobile device enabling them to read the paper even when they were unable to receive a signal.[156] In April 2010, The New York Times announced it would begin publishing daily content through an iPad app.[157] As of October 2010[update], The New York Times iPad app is ad-supported and available for free without a paid subscription, but translated into a subscription-based model in 2011.[136]

text: In 2010, the newspaper also launched an app for Android smartphones, followed later by an app for Windows Phones.[158]

text: Podcasts

text: The New York Times began producing podcasts in 2006. Among the early podcasts were Inside The Times and Inside The New York Times Book Review. Several of the Times podcasts were cancelled in 2012.[159][160] The Times returned to launching new podcasts in 2016, including Modern Love with WBUR.[161] On January 30, 2017, The New York Times launched a news podcast, The Daily.[162][163]

text: Chinese-language version

text: In June 2012, The New York Times launched its first official foreign-language variant, cn.nytimes.com, in Chinese,[164] viewable in both traditional and simplified Chinese characters. The project was led by Craig S. Smith on the business side and Philip P. Pan on the editorial side.

text: The site's initial success was interrupted in October that year following the publication of an investigative article[b] by David Barboza about the finances of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's family.[165] In retaliation for the article, the Chinese government blocked access to both nytimes.com and cn.nytimes.com inside the People's Republic of China (PRC).

text: Despite Chinese government interference, however, the Chinese-language operations have continued to develop, adding a second site, cn.nytstyle.com, iOS and Android apps and newsletters, all of which are accessible inside the PRC. The China operations also produce three print publications in Chinese. Traffic to cn.nytimes.com, meanwhile, has risen due to the widespread use of VPN technology in the PRC and to a growing Chinese audience outside mainland China.[166] New York Times articles are also available to users in China via the use of mirror websites, apps, domestic newspapers, and social media.[166][167] The Chinese platforms now represent one of The New York Times' top five digital markets globally. The editor-in-chief of the Chinese platforms is Ching-Ching Ni.[168]

text: TimesMachine

text: The TimesMachine is a web-based archive of scanned issues of The New York Times from 1851 through 2002.[169]

text: Unlike The New York Times online archive, the TimesMachine presents scanned images of the actual newspaper. All non-advertising content can be displayed on a per-story basis in a separate PDF display page and saved for future reference.[170] The archive is available to New York Times subscribers, home delivery and/or digital.[169]

text: Interruptions

text: Because of holidays, no editions were printed on November 23, 1851; January 2, 1852; July 4, 1852; January 2, 1853; and January 1, 1854.[171]

text: Because of strikes, the regular edition of The New York Times was not printed during the following periods:[172]

text:
December 9, 1962, to March 31, 1963. Only a western edition was printed because of the 1962–63 New York City newspaper strike.
September 17, 1965, to October 10, 1965. An international edition was printed, and a weekend edition replaced the Saturday and Sunday papers.
August 10, 1978, to November 5, 1978. A multi-union strike shut down the three major New York City newspapers. No editions of The New York Times were printed.[171] Two months into the strike, a parody of The New York Times called Not The New York Times was distributed in the city, with contributors such as Carl Bernstein, Christopher Cerf, Tony Hendra and George Plimpton.[173][174]

text: Editorial stance

text: The New York Times editorial page is often regarded as liberal.[175][176] In mid-2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote that "the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish – but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act)."[177]

text: The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican Party member for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956; since 1960, it has endorsed the Democratic Party nominee in every presidential election (see New York Times presidential endorsements).[178] However, the New York Times did endorse incumbent moderate Republican mayors of New York City Rudy Giuliani in 1997[179] and Michael Bloomberg in 2005[180] and 2009.[181] The Times also endorsed Republican New York state governor George Pataki for re-election in 2002.[182]

text: Criticism and controversies

text: Failure to report famine in Ukraine

text: The New York Times was criticized for the work of reporter Walter Duranty, who served as its Moscow bureau chief from 1922 through 1936. Duranty wrote a series of stories in 1931 on the Soviet Union and won a Pulitzer Prize for his work at that time; however, he has been criticized for his denial of widespread famine, most particularly the Ukrainian famine in the 1930s.[183][184][185][186] In 2003, after the Pulitzer Board began a renewed inquiry, the Times hired Mark von Hagen, professor of Russian history at Columbia University, to review Duranty's work. Von Hagen found Duranty's reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and that they far too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda. In comments to the press he stated, "For the sake of The New York Times' honor, they should take the prize away."[187]

text: World War II

text: On November 14, 2001, in The New York Times' 150th anniversary issue, former executive editor Max Frankel wrote that before and during World War II, the NY Times had maintained a consistent policy to minimize reports on the Holocaust in their news pages.[188] Laurel Leff, associate professor of journalism at Northeastern University, concluded that the newspaper had downplayed the Third Reich targeting of Jews for genocide. Her 2005 book Buried by the Times documents the paper's tendency before, during and after World War II to place deep inside its daily editions the news stories about the ongoing persecution and extermination of Jews, while obscuring in those stories the special impact of the Nazis' crimes on Jews in particular. Leff attributes this dearth in part to the complex personal and political views of the newspaper's Jewish publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, concerning Jewishness, antisemitism, and Zionism.[189]

text: During the war, The New York Times journalist William L. Laurence was "on the payroll of the War Department".[190][191]

text: Fashion news articles promoting advertisers

text: In the mid to late 1950s, "fashion writer[s]... were required to come up every month with articles whose total column-inches reflected the relative advertising strength of every ["department" or "specialty"] store ["assigned" to a writer]... The monitor of all this was... the advertising director [of the NYT]... " However, within this requirement, story ideas may have been the reporters' and editors' own.[192]

text: Iraq War

text: The New York Times supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[193] On May 26, 2004, a year after the war started, the newspaper asserted that some of its articles had not been as rigorous as they should have been, and were insufficiently qualified, frequently overly dependent upon information from Iraqi exiles desiring regime change.[194] Reporter Judith Miller retired after criticisms that her reporting of the lead-up to the Iraq War was factually inaccurate and overly favorable to the Bush administration's position, for which The New York Times later apologized.[195][196] One of Miller's prime sources was Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who returned to Iraq after the U.S. invasion and held a number of governmental positions culminating in acting oil minister and deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006.[197][198]

text: Jayson Blair plagiarism

text: In May 2003, The New York Times reporter Jayson Blair was forced to resign from the newspaper after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories. Some critics contended that African-American Blair's race was a major factor in his hiring and in The New York Times' initial reluctance to fire him.[199]

text: Duke University lacrosse case

text: The newspaper was criticized for largely reporting the prosecutors' version of events in the 2006 Duke lacrosse case.[200][201] Suzanne Smalley of Newsweek criticized the newspaper for its "credulous"[202] coverage of the charges of rape against Duke University lacrosse players. Stuart Taylor, Jr. and KC Johnson, in their book Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, write: "at the head of the guilt-presuming pack, The New York Times vied in a race to the journalistic bottom with trash-TV talk shows."[201]

text: Israeli–Palestinian conflict

text: A 2003 study in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that The New York Times reporting was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians.[203] A 2002 study published in the journal Journalism examined Middle East coverage of the Second Intifada over a one-month period in the Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. The study authors said that the Times was "the most slanted in a pro-Israeli direction" with a bias "reflected ... in its use of headlines, photographs, graphics, sourcing practices and lead paragraphs."[204]

text: For its coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, some (such as Ed Koch) have claimed that the paper is pro-Palestinian, while others (such as As'ad AbuKhalil) have insisted that it is pro-Israel.[205][206] The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, alleges that The New York Times sometimes criticizes Israeli policies but is not even-handed and is generally pro-Israel.[207] On the other hand, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has criticized The New York Times for printing cartoons regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were claimed to be anti-Semitic.[208]

text: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a proposal to write an article for the paper on grounds of lack of objectivity. A piece in which Thomas Friedman commented that praise awarded to Netanyahu during a speech at congress was "paid for by the Israel lobby" elicited an apology and clarification from its writer.[209]

text: The New York Times' public editor Clark Hoyt concluded in his January 10, 2009, column, "Though the most vociferous supporters of Israel and the Palestinians do not agree, I think The New York Times, largely barred from the battlefield and reporting amid the chaos of war, has tried its best to do a fair, balanced and complete job — and has largely succeeded."[210]

text: M.I.A. quotes out of context

text: In February 2009, a Village Voice music blogger accused the newspaper of using "chintzy, ad-hominem allegations" in an article on British Tamil music artist M.I.A. concerning her activism against the Sinhala-Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka.[211][212] M.I.A. criticized the paper in January 2010 after a travel piece rated post-conflict Sri Lanka the "#1 place to go in 2010".[213][214] In June 2010, The New York Times Magazine published a correction on its cover article of M.I.A., acknowledging that the interview conducted by current W editor and then-Times Magazine contributor Lynn Hirschberg contained a recontextualization of two quotes.[215][216] In response to the piece, M.I.A. broadcast Hirschberg's phone number and secret audio recordings from the interview via her Twitter and website.[217][218]

text: Delayed publication of 2005 NSA warrantless surveillance story

text: The New York Times was criticized for the 13-month delay of the December 2005 story revealing the U.S. National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program.[219] Ex-NSA officials blew the whistle on the program to journalists James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, who presented an investigative article to the newspaper in November 2004, weeks before America's presidential election. Contact with former agency officials began the previous summer.[220]

text: Former The New York Times executive editor Bill Keller decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration and being advised not to do so by New York Times Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman. Keller explained the silence's rationale in an interview with the newspaper in 2013, stating "Three years after 9/11, we, as a country, were still under the influence of that trauma, and we, as a newspaper, were not immune".[221]

text: In 2014, PBS Frontline interviewed Risen and Lichtblau, who said that the newspaper's plan was to not publish the story at all. "The editors were furious at me", Risen said to the program. "They thought I was being insubordinate." Risen wrote a book about the mass surveillance revelations after The New York Times declined the piece's publication, and only released it after Risen told them that he would publish the book. Another reporter told NPR that the newspaper "avoided disaster" by ultimately publishing the story.[222]

text: Irish student controversy

text: On June 16, 2015, The New York Times published an article reporting the deaths of six Irish students staying in Berkeley, California when the balcony they were standing on collapsed, the paper's story insinuating that they were to blame for the collapse. The paper stated that the behavior of Irish students coming to the US on J1 visas was an "embarrassment to Ireland".[223] The Irish Taoiseach and former President of Ireland criticized the newspaper for "being insensitive and inaccurate" in its handling of the story.[224]

text: Nail salon series

text: In May 2015, a New York Times exposé by Sarah Maslin Nir on the working conditions of manicurists in New York City and elsewhere[225] and the health hazards to which they are exposed[226] attracted wide attention, resulting in emergency workplace enforcement actions by New York governor Andrew M. Cuomo.[227] In July 2015, the story's claims of widespread illegally low wages were challenged by former New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein, in the New York Review of Books. Bernstein, whose wife owns two nail salons, asserted that such illegally low wages were inconsistent with his personal experience, and were not evidenced by ads in the Chinese-language papers cited by the story.[228] The New York Times editorial staff subsequently answered Bernstein's criticisms with examples of several published ads and stating that his response was industry advocacy.[229] The independent NYT Public Editor also reported that she had previously corresponded with Bernstein and looked into his complaints, and expressed her belief that the story's reporting was sound.[230]

text: In September and October 2015, nail salon owners and workers protested at The New York Times offices several times, in response to the story and the ensuing New York State crackdown.[231][232] In October 2015, Reason magazine published a three part re-reporting of the story by Jim Epstein, charging that the series was filled with misquotes and factual errors respecting both its claims of illegally low wages and health hazards. Epstein additionally argued that The New York Times had mistranslated the ads cited in its answer to Bernstein, and that those ads actually validated Bernstein's argument.[233][234][235] In November 2015, The New York Times' public editor concluded that the exposé's "findings, and the language used to express them, should have been dialed back — in some instances substantially" and recommended that "The Times write further follow-up stories, including some that re-examine its original findings and that take on the criticism from salon owners and others — not defensively but with an open mind."[236]

text: Iran

text: A 2015 study found that The New York Times fed into an overarching tendency towards national bias. During the Iranian nuclear crisis the newspaper minimized the "negative processes" of the United States while overemphasizing similar processes of Iran. This tendency was shared by other papers such as The Guardian, Tehran Times, and the Fars News Agency, while Xinhua News Agency was found to be more neutral while at the same time mimicking the foreign policy of the Peoples' Republic of China.[237]

text: Hiring practices

text: In April 2016, two black female employees in their sixties filed a federal class action lawsuit against The New York Times Company CEO Mark Thompson and chief revenue officer Meredith Levien, claiming age, gender, and racial discrimination. The plaintiffs claim that the Times advertising department favored younger white employees over older black employees in making firing and promotion decisions.[238][239] The Times said that the suit was "entirely without merit" and was "a series of recycled, scurrilous and unjustified attacks."[239]

text: Accusations of bias

text: New York Times public editor (ombudsman) Elizabeth Spayd wrote in 2016 that "Conservatives and even many moderates, see in The Times a blue-state worldview" and accuse it of harboring a liberal bias. Spayd did not analyze the substance of the claim, but did opine that the Times is "part of a fracturing media environment that reflects a fractured country. That in turn leads liberals and conservatives toward separate news sources."[240] Times executive editor Dean Baquet stated that he does not believe coverage has a liberal bias, but that: "We have to be really careful that people feel like they can see themselves in The New York Times. I want us to be perceived as fair and honest to the world, not just a segment of it. It's a really difficult goal. Do we pull it off all the time? No."[240]

text: Times public editor Arthur Brisbane wrote in 2012: "When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper's many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."[241]

text: In mid-2004, the newspaper's then-public editor Daniel Okrent, wrote an opinion piece in which he said that The New York Times did have a liberal bias in news coverage of certain social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. He stated that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City.[177] He wrote, "if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world."[177] Okrent wrote that the Time's Arts & Leisure; the Sunday Times Magazine, and Culture coverage trend to the left.[242]

text: In December 2004, a University of California, Los Angeles study by former fellows of a conservative think tank gave The New York Times a score of 73.7 on a 100-point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal, making it the second-most liberal major newspaper in the study after The Wall Street Journal (85.1).[243] The validity of the study has been questioned, however. The liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America pointed out potential conflicts of interest with the author's funding, and political scientists, such as Brendan Nyhan, cited flaws in the study's methodology.[244][245]

text: Donald Trump has frequently criticized The New York Times on his Twitter account before and during his presidency; since November 2015, Trump has referred to the Times as "the failing New York Times" in a series of tweets.[246] Despite Trump's criticism, New York Times editor Mark Thompson noted that the paper had enjoyed soaring digital readership, with the fourth quarter of 2016 seeing the highest number of new digital subscribers to the newspaper since 2011.[247][248][249]

text: Critic Matt Taibbi accused The New York Times of favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the paper's news coverage of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries.[250] Responding to the complaints of many readers, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote that "The Times has not ignored Mr. Sanders's campaign, but it hasn't always taken it very seriously. The tone of some stories is regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate's age, appearance and style, rather than what he has to say."[251] Times senior editor Carolyn Ryan defended both the volume of New York Times coverage (noting that Sanders had received about the same amount of article coverage as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio) and its tone.[252]

text: Reputation

text: The Times has developed a national and international "reputation for thoroughness" over time.[253] Among journalists, the paper is held in high regard; a 1999 survey of newspaper editors conducted by the Columbia Journalism Review found that the Times was the "best" American paper, ahead of The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times.[254] The Times also was ranked #1 in a 2011 "quality" ranking of U.S. newspapers by Daniel de Vise of The Washington Post; the objective ranking took into account the number of recent Pulitzer Prizes won, circulation, and perceived Web site quality.[254] A 2012 report in WNYC called the Times "the most respected newspaper in the world."[255]

text: Nevertheless, like many other U.S. media sources, the Times had suffered from a decline in public perceptions of credibility in the U.S. from 2004 to 2012.[256] A Pew Research Center survey in 2012 asked respondents about their views on credibility of various news organizations. Among respondents who gave a rating, 49% said that they believed "all or most" of the Times's reporting, while 50% disagreed. A large percentage (19%) of respondents were unable to rate believability. The Times's score was comparable to that of USA Today.[256] Media analyst Brooke Gladstone of WNYC's On the Media, writing for The New York Times, says that the decline in U.S. public trust of the mass media can be explained (1) by the rise of the polarized Internet-driven news; (2) by a decline in trust in U.S. institutions more generally; and (3) by the fact that "Americans say they want accuracy and impartiality, but the polls suggest that, actually, most of us are seeking affirmation."[257]

text: Awards

text: The New York Times has won 122 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper. The prize is awarded for excellence in journalism in a range of categories.[258]

text: It has also (as of 2014) won three Peabody Awards (and jointly received two).[259]