WE'RE GOING TO TURN NOW TO A TRAILBLAZER FOR WOMEN IN JOURNALISM.

AND SHE IS JILL ABRAMSON, THE "THE NEW YORK TIMES.

"E EDITOR AND HER NEW BOOK, "MERCHANTS OF TRUTH" WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE DEFINITIVE ACCOUNT OF HOW THE NEWS BUSINESS IS EVOLVING IN THE DIGITAL AGE.

BUT ITS PUBLICATION WAS MARRED BY ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AN.

WHEN WALTER ISAACSON DOWN WITH ABRAMSON, HE ASKED HER TO RESPOND TO THE ACCUSATIONS AND HE ALSO TOOK A DEEP DIVE INTO HER OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION ON NEWS.

>> JILL, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANKS SO MUCH, WALTER.

>> YOU'VE BEEN ACCUSED OF PLAGIARISM IN THE BOOK BECAUSE A FEW PASS ANDS THAT ARE PRETTY MUCH VERBATIM FROM SOURCES THAT WEREN'T CITED WELL.

MY STUDENTS THAT I TEACH WOULDS.

TELL ME THE PROCESS YOU WERE USING IN WHICH YOU TOOK SOMETHING OUT OF ANOTHER THING AND YOU PUT IT IN AND DIDN'T CITE IT.

AND WHAT TYPE OF SORT OF TECHNOLOGY WERE YOU USING?

WERE YOU CUTTING AND PASTING?

>> I WASN'T DOING THAT MUCH CUTTING AND PASTING.

SOME.

YOU KNOW, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IN THE -- THERE ARE THREE EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT JUST WENT UNCITED.

EITHER AUTHORS OR PUBLICATIONS.

I HAVE 70 PAGES OF FOOTNOTES AND 835 SEPARATE CITATIONS.

AND I WAS USING A FORM OF FOOTNOTING THAT I HAD NEVER USED BEFORE CALLED TRAILING FREEZE END NOTES AND WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER FOR A SOURCE, SOME PEOPLE WERE ANGRY BECAUSE I CREDITED SOME MATERIAL BUT USED OTHER QUOTES FROM SOMEONE'S INTERVIEW AND DIDN'T DO A SEPARATE END NOTE ON THAT.

I DIDN'T THINK THAT IS WHAT THAT FORM REQUIRED.

BUT LOOKING BACK, I WISH I HAD BEEN MORE CAREFUL.

AND AS YOU KNOW, AS A BOOK AUTHOR, THE FOOTNOTING AND CITATION IS A LITTLE BIT LEFT TOWARDS THE END AS UNFORTUNATELY IS FACT CHECKING.

IN ONE CASE I KNOW I LOOKED AT A LONG PARAGRAPH, AND SAW THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CITATION TO "THE WASHINGTON POST" WHICH THERE IS.

BUT THE TOP OF THE PARAGRAPH WHICH FLOWS RIGHT INTO THAT CAME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

AND I FAILED TO CITE THAT.

THAT WAS JUST SLOPPINESS.

>> BUT IT WASN'T JUST A LACK OF CITATIONS.

IT WAS IN THREE, FOUR, FIVE SIX INSTANCES PASSAGES, SENTENCES, TWO OR THREE SENTENCES THAT WERE ALMOST VERBATIM FROM SOMEBODY ELSE'S WRITING.

I MEAN, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BOOK ABOUT JOURNALISTIC ETHICS.

SHOULDN'T YOU BE CAREFUL ENOUGH NOT TO JUST VERBATIM, TAKE TWO OR THREE SENTENCES -- >> OR PUT THEM IN QUOTES IN THE TEXT AS PREFERABLE TO A FOOTNOTE.

BUT YOU KNOW, I NOW WISH I HAD PUT THEM ALL IN QUOTATIONS RATHER IN CITATIONS BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS I WASN'T INTENTIONALLY STEALING ANYBODY'S WORK.

>> HOW MUCH, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT WHETHER IT WAS INTENTIONAL OR NOT?

>> WELL, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'VE -- SINCE THIS HAS BECOME A CONTROVERSY I'VE TALKED TO MANY PEOPLE ABOUT HOW TO DEFINE PLAGIARISM AND IT'S SORT OF ALL OVER THE MAP.

AND A NUMBER OF YOU KNOW, PROFESSORS HAVE SAID TO ME, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS TO BE SORT OF A VENAL INTENT.

MENIAL MISTAKES.T I DID AS >> MEANING SORT OF UNINTENTIONAL.

>> YES.

>> YOU WEREN'T TRYING TO ACTUALLY STEAL SOMEBODY'S WORDS.

>> YES.

>> EVEN THOUGH YOU SORT OF CHANGE A FEW WORDS HERE AND THERE, BUT THAT WAS JUST INADVERTENT SLOPPY OR IS THAT YOU SORT OF TRYING NOT TO USE SOMEBODY ELSE'S WORDS?

THROUGH.IT WAS JUST RUSHING.

>> YOU TEACH JOURNALISM SOME ANN JOURNALISM.

>> TWO.

>> TWO SEMINARS ON JOURNALISM.

ISSUES YOU'VE GONE THROUGH NOW ON USING OTHER PEOPLE'S MATERIAL AND PLAGIARISM, IS THAT A TEACHABLE MOMENT AND HAVE YOU FIGURED OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT INTO SOMETHING WHERE YOU CAN LOOK INSIDE YOURSELF AND THEN SHARE IT WITH STUDENTS?

>> I BROUGHT IT UP FIRST THING.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR, MY SEMINAR IS THREE HOURS.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN ONE CLASS FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR AND ANOTHER FOR AT LEAST AN HOUR.

TEACHABLE MOMENT IS SUCH A CLICHE.

I HATE TO USE IT.

BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, ACADEMIC PLAGIARISM HAS BEEN A BIG ISSUE IN EVERY COLLEGE.

YOU TEACH, AS WELL.

AND I WANTED TO EXPLAIN TO THEM EXACTLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED.

HOW I COULD HAVE DONE BETTER, THAT I WAS DISAPPOINTED IN MYSELF, AND SORRY AND THAT THESE WERE, YOU KNOW, ERRORS THAT WERE INADVERTENT AND, YOU KNOW, THAT I REGRET COMPLETELY.

AND YOU KNOW, I JUST HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION WITH THEM.

>> YOU WRITE A LOT ABOUT VICE AND HOW VICE REALLY HELPED REINVIGORATE THE WHOLE NOTION OF NEWS.

DOES A LOT OF GREAT REPORTING.

YET YOU ALSO GOT A LOT OF PUSH BACK FROM THE PEOPLE AT VICE.

TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS ON VICE AND WHY THERE WAS SO MUCH PUSH BACK ON THE SECONDS ON VICE YOU WROTE ABOUT IN YOUR BOOK.

MY THOUGHTS ON VICE WERE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID ESPECIALLY I WATCH THEIR HBO NIGHTLY NEWS SHOW "VICE NEWS TONIGHT."

AND YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T HAVE AND AND CHORE.

THEY DON'T HAVE YOU KNOW, VERY MUCH.ENTS DOING STANDUP AND YOU KNOW, THEIR CORRESPONDENTS ARE YOUNG, MANY OF THEM ARE EXCELLENT.

I MEAN, THEIR COVERAGE CONFIDENE CONFEDERATE STATUES WERE JUSTAM.

LONG VIDEOS PIECE.

YOU KNOW, YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT WATCHING NIGHTLY NEWS.

THEY DON'T WATCH APPOINTMENT TV PERIOD.

SO THEY'RE TRYING TO REINVIGORATE YOUNG NEWS FOR A YOUNGER AUDIENCE WHICH IS VITAL AND IMPORTANT.

I THINK I GOT PUSHBACK FROM THEM MAINLY BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THERE WAS A TONE OF SNARKINESS WHEREAS LIKE A MEDIA ELITIST I WAS SOMEHOW LOOKING DOWN ON THEM AND SAYING THEY WEREN'T AS GOOD OR AS QUALIFIED AS PEOPLE AT "THE NEW YORK TIMES" OR "THE WASHINGTON POST."

>> ONE OF THE THINGS IN YOUR BOOK IS SORT OF THIS NOTION THAT THE AD SUPPORTED MODEL OF MEDIA ISN'T GOING TO SUSTAIN ITSELF.

AND THAT THE TWO OLD "THE WASHINGTON POST" AND THE "NEW YORK TIMES," HAVING ACTUALLY TURNED OUT TO BE BETTER THAN YOU WOULD HAVE EXPECTED WHEN YOU BEGAN THE BOOK.

>> THAT WAS YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT REPORTING AND WRITING THIS BOOK IS THAT WHEN I BEGAN IT, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE SHINY NEW DIGITAL UPSTARTS, BUZZFEED AND VICE, THAT EVERYONE WAS ENVIOUS OF BECAUSE THEY WERE FULL OF VERY LUCRATIVE NATIVE BRANDED ADVERTISING.

THEY WERE REALLY SUCCESSFULLY USING OTHER PLATFORMS LIKE FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE AND GETTING A TON OF BOTH AUDIENCE AND BECAUSE THEY HAD SUCH BIG AUDIENCES, ADVERTISING, THE WORLD CHANGED ON THEM REALLY IN THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF VERY SHARPLY.

AND YOU KNOW, FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE ARE NOW TAKING FOR THEMSELVES LIKE BY FAR MOST OF THE DIGITAL ADVERTISING.

AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY SHARING REVENUE TO A SIGNIFICANT OR MEANINGFUL DEGREE WHERE IT WOULD SUPPORT A COMPANY WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPLYING THEM WITH THE NEWS AND VIDEO THEY PUT IN PEOPLE'S NEWS FEEDS OR YOU KNOW THAT GOOGLE PUTS ON YOUTUB.

THEY'RE STARVING BECAUSE ADVERTISING WAS THEIR CHIEF AND SINGLE REVENUE SOURCE.

AND FOR THE LEGACY NEWSPAPERS, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" AND "THE POST," YOU KNOW, ADVERTISING FOR THEM WAS GOING THIS WAY IN THE NEWSPAPER AND THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, THEIR OLD CHIEF FORM OFRE.

>> HOW DID ARTHUR SULZBERGER AND A.G. SULZBERGER'S SON, YOUR FORMER PUBLISHERS WHEN YOU WERE AT "THE NEW YORK TIMES," HOW DID THEY END UP FIGURING IT OUT?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THATT NECESSARY THAT YOU KNOW, THE "TIMES" NEEDED TO HAVE MORE THAN ADVERTISING REVENUE TO SUPPORT ITS GIGANTIC NEWS GATHERING OPERATION AND IN 2006, THE "TIMES" HAD TRIED CHARGING READERS ESPECIALLY FOR OPINION CONTENT.

AND OTHER KIND OF SPECIAL SPECIAL MATERIAL.

BUT IT WAS CALLED TIMES SELECT.

IT'S BEEN A BIG FLOP.

SO YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS A COMBINATION OF JUST NEEDING THE NEW REVENUE BUT BEING BRAVE.

IT WAS A BRAVE DECISION OF ARTHUR SULZBERGER JUNIOR TO TRY IT AGAIN AND LO AND BEHOLD, YOU KNOW, IT WORKED.

I THINK THE FIRST MONTH THAT THEY PUT A DIGITAL PAY PLAN IN, YOU KNOW, 300,000 PEOPLE HAD TAKEN THEM OUT.

AND IT WAS -- IT'S CHEAP.

I MEAN IT'S STILL VERY CHEAP.

I'M SURE SOME OF YOUR VIEWERS GET THOSE A DOLLAR A WEEK, YOU KNOW.

>> DID TRUMP HELP?

>> WELL, DEFINITELY TRUMP HELPED.

AND YOU KNOW.

>> THE TRUMP BUMP.

>> THE SO-CALLED TRUMP BUMP FOR SURE.

I MEAN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" HAS GAINED, YOU KNOW, MILLIONS OF NEW DIGITAL SUB SKRISHS SINCE TRUMP'S ELECTION.

>> IS THE "NEW YORK TIMES" EITHER WHEN YOU WERE THE EDITOR NOW SORT OF CONGENITAL LITTLE ANTI-TRUMP?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, "THE NEW YORS CONGENITALLY URBAN AND COSMOPOLITAN AND REFLECTING THE VALUES AND INTERESTS OF PEOPLE ON THE BLUE COASTS AND TO THAT EXTENT, I THINK YOU KNOW, THE PAPER IS AND I THINK DESERVEDLY SO.

I THINK YOU KNOW, READERS ARE SO SORT OF INTERESTED IN LOVING THE TOUGHNESS OF "THE TIMES" AND "THE POST" WHICH SOME PEOPLE DO SEE AS ANTI-TRUMP BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE STORIES ARE INVESTIGATIVE STORIES THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONABLE BUSINESS DEALINGS AND HOW HE ACQUIRED HIS WEALTH AND HIS TAX AVOIDANCE, AND YOU NAME IT.

BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE TIMES.SEEN A PY LIKE THIS.

AND IT IS ON AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE THAT IS DIFFERENT AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, "THE POST" AND THE "TIMES" HAVE BEEN EMBOLDENED TO, YOU KNOW, LOAD THEIR NEWS REPORTS UP WITH STORIES ABOUT DONALD TRUMP, MOST OF WHICH ARE CRITICAL AND, YOU KNOW, THEY ATTRACT HUGE HUGE NUMBERS OF READERS WHO WANT, YOU KNOW, WANT TO READ ABOUT DONALD TRUMP.

I HAVE FRIENDS AT THE "TIMES" WHO HAVE SAID WHEN THEY AREN'T WRITING ABOUT TRUMP, YOU KNOW, CHART BEAT NUMBERS FOR THEIR READERSHIP GO DOWN.

>> IS THE "NEW YORK TIMES" ALMOST ADDICTED NOW TO PUNCHING DONALD TRUMP BECAUSE IT GETS THE TRAFFIC?

>> I THINK THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY.

I THINK THERE IS AN ADDICTION TO TRUMP AND YOU KNOW, THE COMEDIAN AT THE WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS DINNER A YEAR AGO MADE THE JOKE TO ALL OF THE JOURNALISTS THERE, I THINK YOU.

SO YOU KNOW, IT'S WIDESPREAD.

AND YOU KNOW, "THE WASHINGTON POST" THEIR POST PRODUCT, HAS TWO OR THREE -- THEY'RE NOT ABOUT TRUMP BUT THERE'SOBVIOUSL.

YOU KIND OF CAN'T RESIST.

THEY END IN HEADLINES LIKE, AND YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, WHICH IS STRAIGHT OUT OF BUZZFEED.

>> YOU COVER FOUR ORGANIZATIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE TIMES" WHERE WERE ABOUT YOUR OWN TURMOIL AS EDITOR OF "THE TIMES."

WHY WERE YOU FIRED?

>> WHY DO YOU -- YOU'VE READ IT.

WHY DO YOU THINK I WAS FIRED?

>> WELL, YOU EXPLAIN IT A LOT IN THE BOOK.

BUT I WAS WONDERING IF -- >> IT DOESN'T LIKE BOIL DOWN TO A SOUND BITE.

AND WHAT I TRIED TO DO IN WRITING ABOUT THAT PAINFUL PASSAGE OF MY CAREER, IT'S THE ONLY PART OF THE BOOK THAT ISN'T THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE.

IT'S FIRST PERSON IS, YOU KNOW, BE CANDID ABOUT MY OWN FAILINGS AS A MANAGER.

A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT I THINK IS STILL A GENDER DOUBLE STANDARD AT MANY COMPANIES WHERE, YOU KNOW, A WOMAN IS CRITICIZED FOR BEING TOO PUSHY OR ASSERTIVE OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER WORSE WORDS.

BUT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT'S SEEN AS LEADERSHIP IN MEN.

AND THAT WOMEN'S LIKABILITY GOES WAY DOWN WHEN THEY GET THE TOP JOB.

SO THERE'S SOME OF THAT.

YOU KNOW, THERE WAS INTERNAL POLITICS.

THERE WERE CONCERNS ON MY PART ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE LOWERING OF THE WALL BETWEEN THE NEWS AND BUSINESS SIDES OF THE TIMES IN THE DIGITAL ERA.

AND SO IT WAS A COMBINATION OF THINGS.

>> YOUR BOOK SHOWS THE EXCITEMENT OF THINGS LIKE BUZZFEED AND VICE COMING ALONG WITH A WHOLE NEW VITALITY BUT RECENTLY, THEY'RE THE ONES DOING THE LAYOFFS.

>> 250 STAFFERS EACH GONE.

>> AND "THE WASHINGTON POST" ANE STILL STAFFING UP.

>> I THINK THE "TIMES" IS UP TO 1600 JOURNALISTS.

I MEAN, THAT'S A BIG BUMP UP FROM, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS >> AND DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IE OF THOSE ROLLER COASTER THINGS THAT'S HAPPENING?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE "TIMES" FINANCIAL PICTURE WILL OUTLAST THE TRUMP BUMP.

YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT CAN CONTINUE TO SUPPORT SUCH A LARGE STAFF OF JOURNALISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS AND DESIGNERS I DON'T KNOW.

THINGS GO IN CYCLES.

>> YOU LOOK AT BUZZFEED AND YOU LOOK AT VICE.

THEIR BUSINESS MODEL HASN'T YETT REVENUE FROM THE USER, FROM THE READER.

IS THAT A FATAL FLAW?

>> KNOW, I HOPE IT'S NOT A FATAL FLAW BUT I THINK THAT BOTH OF THEM ARE IN REAL, YOU KNOW, TROUBLE RIGHT NOW.

AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE FUTURE AND YOU KNOW, JONAH PERETTI HAS EVEN TOSSED OUT A PROPOSAL THAT MAYBE SOME OF THESE COMPANIES SHOULD AMERICAN AND THAT THAT WOULD CREATE A PATH OUT OF THIS VERY DIFFICULT MOMENT.

PRETTY HIGH VALUATION.HAVE A WHY IS THAT?

>> BECAUSE THEY HAD CRAZY HIGH VALUATIONS, YOU KNOW, STARTING, YOU KNOW, FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO.

IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO THAT BUZZFEED'S VALUATION WAS LIKE $1.7 BILLION AND VICE'S WAS THE HIGHEST OF ANY DIGITAL MEDIA COMPANY AND GOT TO THE $6 BILLION.

AND YOU KNOW, I THINK FOR BOTH OF THEM, YOU KNOW, THAT MEANT THE IDEA THAT THERE WOULD BE A WHITE KNIGHT COMING TO ACQUIRE THEM, THAT THAT MOMENT HAS PASSED, TOO.

THEIR VALUATION IS TOO BIG.

MAYBE THE TIME WILL COME THAT IT'S LIKE NEWSPAPERS.

I MEAN THE "TIMES" BOUGHT ""THE BOSTON GLOBE"" AND ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, THE WORCESTER PAPER FOR $1.2 BILLION OR $1.3 BILLION AND SOLD "THE GLOBE" FOR $70 TIME.N, SO SURPRISING SOMETHINGA >> UH-HUH.

>> THANKS, WALTER.ITH US.