How the NY Times broke its own monopoly

How the NY Times broke its own monopoly

In the years before the New York Times began its long-awaited reorganization, its editors began to make changes.

The paper had begun publishing the Times Op-Ed page, which included columns by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Michael Pollan, but the paper was still struggling to find a way to pay the staff that churned out Op-eds for the newspaper.

And that was in a market that was growing rapidly.

In fact, the Times had become one of the fastest-growing newspapers in the country.

In the 1990s, the number of op-eds in the paper rose from about 30 to more than 200,000.

The staff was growing, but it was not growing at the rate that the paper expected.

At the same time, the paper faced a crisis of editorial independence, as it sought to make it easier for the company to print the Op-ed page.

The result was a major overhaul of the newspaper’s structure, which put a heavy emphasis on the op-ed section and its readers.

But the changes also gave the Times a lot of room to expand, as its editorial structure and editorial staffs became increasingly integrated.

The biggest challenge facing the paper today is that it has only one op- ed page, and its editorials have become more diverse, too.

The Op-ED page is a central hub of the Times, as well as a source of insight into the issues facing society, as Pollan’s columns and his writing are read by readers all over the country, and by the public at large.

And in a changing world, the op:ed page has become a critical element of the news coverage that informs our understanding of events and people, says David Sirota, a former managing editor who now serves as editor in chief of the NYT.

In his new book, How the New NY Times Changed, Mr. Sirotsa, who is the author of several books, including the bestseller The New York Public Library, traces the changes in the Times’s editorial structure.

It began as an experiment, with the paper launching a pilot program in 1996 to give readers an overview of a topic and the paper would provide them with a series of articles about it.

The experiment quickly developed into a giant experiment in the delivery of news.

The goal was to give the public a more informed, balanced look at the news.

And as the years passed, the experiment gained momentum.

The Times, for example, began offering an analysis of a news story, rather than just a commentary on it.

And it began publishing a full column each day on an issue, rather then the occasional opinion piece.

The op- editorials grew in importance as well.

The column became an important source of information on issues, like climate change and gun control, and it became a crucial part of the paper’s content strategy.

“The op-editorials grew more important in the 1990ies because the world changed, because things changed,” Mr.

Sirotsaa says.

“You were now reporting on major events like the invasion of Iraq.

And you were reporting on those events in a way that the oped section wasn’t doing.

The way the op was presented changed.

The format of the op wasn’t the same as it was then.”

In 2000, the editorial structure was so changed that the Times was no longer considered a news publication.

But its role as the paper that everyone in America reads and that the public reads became increasingly important.

Its Op- Ed page now accounts for nearly one-third of the article.

It has been the paper of record for over 20 years, but its Op- Essays page, the page that the NYT published more often, has been shrinking for years.

It now accounts only for less than half of the entire article, down from more than 70 percent in 2002.

In a series on how the op essay page changed, Mr, Sirosasay wrote that the main change was that there was no reason for the Times to have an Op- Opinion page.

There were several reasons, says Mr. Shirota.

“One was that people were beginning to read opinion pieces on things that were not very relevant to the content of the articles,” he says.

In other words, it was a time when many people weren’t reading opinion pieces at all.

The other reason, he says, was that the editorial team at the Times started to realize that the way they presented opinion pieces was fundamentally wrong, even in a newsroom.

It didn’t make sense.

In response, they made changes.

They started giving readers more information about what was happening in the world, which meant they gave them more information.

And they started doing the same things with their op- Essay page, with their Op- Column page, that they did with the Op Page in the past.

In 2002, the Op Essays and Op Column pages were merged, and the Op Column page became Op Essay.

“I don’t know if