Good for Evan Smith starting his interview of Levien asking about the WSJ story on The Times' efforts to plug leaks from the newsroom. She blames "polarization" for the turmoil.

At the conference this year, I keep hearing -- from Levien, too -- that the starting point for news today is to "make something worth paying for." Hmmm.

To "make something worth paying for" is just transactional: not mission, not service, but retail. In The Gutenberg Parenthesis, I argue that we must move past the print-era notion of "content," now commodified. That strategy will, in the long run, be outmoded.

"This is a journalism conference, so I'm supposed to ask a question: subject - verb - AI." - @evanasmith at #isoj24

A lot of talk from Levien about games. After The Times bought About.com in 2005, I was brought in to consult. It was similarly touted as game-changing: SEO. Games are helping The Times now; good. But I can imagine a new Angry Birds making this strategy outdated.

"Our news reporters are not stenographers," says Levien. Depends on who. Peter Baker is labeled as "analysis," she says. That is a thin veil. Then she says The Times tries to make people understand. Understand their worldview.
"There are plenty of people today who wish The Times to cover the world as they wish it to be, not as it is." - Levien.