Edward Felsenthal, Editor-in-Chief and CEO of TIME
Edward Felsenthal is the Editor-in-Chief and CEO of TIME Magazine. His presence in media and journalism began with his work for the PBS NewsHour and the Wall Street Journal, serving as a reporter and Deputy Managing Editor for the latter for more than 12 years. In 2008, Felsenthal co-founded the Daily Beast with Tina Brown as its Executive Editor, in which he was heavily involved in joint ventures and audience development, particularly with SEO and social media. This experience translated directly into his work at TIME, where he directed its digital operations and successfully created a global 24/7 news operation that brought in more than 50 million followers monthly. In particular, TIME’s fast-growing video operation caused it to garner an Emmy Award in 2017 and the National Magazine Award in 2018; within the same year, Felsenthal was named the CEO of the magazine. Felsenthal is a graduate of Princeton University and holds both a J.D. from Harvard Law School and an MALD from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Business Today (Mallory Williamson): My first question is about your educational background, which is quite unique for someone in journalism. How did you decide to go from a concentration in law and international affairs to a career in journalism?
Edward Felsenthal: Well, there are actually a lot of lawyers in journalism. I always had a sense that I wanted to be a journalist. I didn't know a lot of journalists growing up, and I didn't I have the foresight to join Business Today. I didn't quite know how to pursue a career in journalism, but I knew how to go to school, and I loved school. So, I just kind of thought I'd continue it — studying public affairs was right in sync with my interests in journalism and community and the people and ideas that shape the world. Law to me felt like an extension of that education. I didn't know I was going to be in journalism. I didn't really quite know what I wanted to do, so what I did was go to law school and explore journalism in my spare time. I got a part time job at WGBH, the PBS affiliate in Boston working on a healthcare program hosted by Phil Donahue. We looked at topics of healthcare delivery and healthcare reform, which continues to be front and center in my work today and in the public discussion today. WGBH also produced some of what was then called MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour, which is now the NewsHour. I loved it, and I and then I wound up working in the summers in journalism. I spent a summer at working for Rita Braver, who was then the law correspondent at CBS News. I got a summer internship covering law at The Wall Street Journal and then another summer internship at The Journal. After that, I went to a law firm for a summer. At the end of that, I had an offer from The Journal and I had an offer from the law firm, and I went with my heart and was off from there. My legal education, you know, actually gave me some expertise to sell to Kay, my future boss at The Wall Street Journal who ran its law coverage. So that’s my journey.
BT: That's incredible. As someone who is super interested in law and super interested in journalism, following that career path would be like a dream come true.
EF: When I was maybe a junior or senior [at Princeton], there was a publication distributed on college campuses called Newsweek on Campus. In one issue of Newsweek on Campus, there was a column written by successful journalists with the headline “Bad Reasons to Study Law.” And it listed four of them — all my reasons. There really are a lot of journalists. What I found as I was applying for journalism jobs was the value of going to people with similar backgrounds. I wound up reaching out to many journalists who had gone to law school.
“I think having and an expertise and a passion for a topic is crucial. You don’t go into journalism unless you’re at some level interested in asking questions and interested in getting underneath beneath headlines to try and understand the world better.”
I found that many of them understood me and my skills and my interests. Some journalists hiring journalists would look at me at my background and say “why do you want to do this?” Or, “what experience do you bring?” But I talked to people like Evan Thomas, who was then the Washington Bureau chief at Newsweek and had gone to law school and Steve Adler, who ultimately hired me at The Wall Street Journal and had gone to law school. I think he practiced for eleven days. Ruth Marcus at The Washington Post had gone to law school. I found kindred career spirits who helped guide me. I think having and an expertise and a passion for a topic is crucial. You don't go into journalism unless you're at some level interested in asking questions and interested in getting underneath beneath headlines to try and understand the world better. The other advice I often give is that I think it helps to have an area of expertise, an area of passion, whether it's its health or entertainment or law or politics or technology. That’s not the only way into journalism, but I think it's a way of distinguishing yourself in the job market and your work as a journalist.
BT: Before joining TIME, you were the founding Executive Editor at The Daily Beast. What’s it like to start a publication?
EF: I was the second person there. The founding editor was Tina Brown, who hired me as her Executive Editor. We were the first the first two employees. With her, I hired the team, built the team, and built the site.
BT: I bet that expertise is coming in handy.
“I had the chance to go help start what became the business to consumer—B to C—business of The Wall Street Journal. It was really mostly prints and a section called Weekend Journal, which still exists. At the end of 1998 and early 1999, it was a radical notion that the Journal would speak to people as human beings and not just as stockholders or businesspeople.”
EF: Frankly, it is coming in handy. When I had an opportunity about halfway through [my time at the Journal] to help start what became a whole series of new products—and really a new business for The Wall Street Journal, which since its founding, had really been a business-to-business publication. I had the chance to go help start what became the business to consumer—B to C—business of The Wall Street Journal. It was really mostly prints and a section called Weekend Journal, which still exists. At the end of 1998 and early 1999, it was a radical notion that the Journal would speak to people as human beings and not just as stockholders or businesspeople. I thought I'd do it for a couple of years. I actually stayed in Washington and commuted from Washington to New York because I was sure I would go back to the Washington coverage I loved. I thought I would do that for my career. But I found that I loved launching new products. I particularly loved the idea of a startup within a century-old, great institution like The Journal. So, I spent the next eight years, until I left in 2007, on launching the Weekend Journal. I was the founding editor of Personal Journal, which was about technology, travel, personal finance, and health. Then I ran consumer coverage as a Deputy Managing Editor for a couple of years. I found that I just loved being a part of creating something new. So, when I left The Journal, my goal was twofold. One, as much as I loved starting something within an established institution like The Journal, I wanted to do a pure startup and see what that was like, how that felt, and what I could learn in that environment. Two, I wanted to go to a purely digital media company which I thought would be valuable and interesting, and just seemed like the right thing to do at the moment. I had some opportunities to take senior jobs at very established print media organizations or print based media organizations, but I really wanted to go all-in at a digital company. And I think by happenstance, Tina [Brown] and I found each other. She was looking for an executive editor and I was looking for just that kind of opportunity. The timing was great.
BT: Digital media clearly seems to be the future, but it seems to me it’s taken two different routes. One is online publishing of what used to be print journalism, and another is Twitter and more informal, sometimes crowd-sourced, media. In the era of 280-character Tweets and hot takes, what keeps long-form journalism relevant?
EF: I love what social media has done for our brand at TIME, and the ways in which it amplifies our journalism. At TIME, we've built one of the largest Twitter presences in journalism with over 16 million followers. It’s similar for Facebook. We've got, I think, the second largest Instagram following in news after CNN. We care a lot about and invest a lot in social media, and I see the power of limited character posts and media. There are pros and cons, but on balance it's a fabulous development for communication, and I think that environment has really only heightened the need for and power of traditional journalism. I mean, I would just call it journalism. I also think it's heightened the power and impact of what some people call legacy journalism, legacy media. There was a period of four or five years where the word ‘legacy’ almost became a bad word in media. You saw the rise of these fast-growing digital startups doing phenomenal work, and many of them continue to. But what you've seen also in the last couple of years is that these organizations—which were thought by some to have all the answers about the business model for journalism—don't. That’s in an era where trust is threatened. Disinformation and misinformation are everywhere. ‘Legacy,’ I think, has become a positive word again. You're seeing organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, TIME, and others thrive.
“We care a lot about and invest a lot in social media, and I see the power of limited character posts and media. There are pros and cons, but on balance it’s a fabulous development for communication, and I think that environment has really only heightened the need for and power of traditional journalism.”
BT: That’s an excellent point. This fall’s magazine is about marketing, and you've seen huge success in expanding TIME’s audience. We’re living in an era where legacy journalism has come back as a really credible source of information. What would you say are contemporary challenges in this age of disinformation and mistrust to marketing journalism, especially well-reported, thought-out journalism which tends to be in major publications?
EF: Yeah, I think there are two kinds of threats. One is to truth itself. My friend and colleague Walt Mossberg, who was the technology columnist at The Journal for many years, once said that “citizen journalism is like citizen surgery.” Threat one is the ease with which people can manipulate images and manipulate video to make the fake seem real. One of the dangerous things that Donald Trump has done relative to the journalism business, in addition to giving verbal ammunition to tyrants around the world who want to target journalists, has been this notion of fake news being applied to great reliable organizations like The New York Times. In fact, the real threat from fake news is the incredible ease with which images and video in particular can now be manipulated. That's threat one.
“I think students should read, watch, and engage. Support outlets and news organizations that deserve your trust and further the effort to get to a shared version of facts — that is the lifeblood of democracy.”
The second is also related to truth. It is not just the business model of media—journalism, in particular—that has been threatened by new competition. Massive platforms like Facebook and Google become purveyors of information with no responsibility for accuracy or liability for inaccuracy. That's what journalism is: the filter that ensures best efforts to get at the facts. If I publish something that is defamatory and false, TIME can get sued. If I do it on Google or Facebook, and I link to something with correspondingly descriptive language that's false, defamatory, or even deadly in some cases, there's no liability. There’s a business model that is dissemination of information with no responsibility for fairness and accuracy. That's where the challenges come, both to our society and to the business that I'm in. They’re held to a vastly lower legal standard than we are, and it has completely distorted the system. I think you're just beginning to see some efforts to fix that.
BT: How would you encourage students not formally trained in or studying journalism to not only be aware of the moment that the world is currently in, but to disseminate and properly inform others in a meaningful way*?
EF: I think students should read, watch, and engage. Support outlets and news organizations that deserve your trust and further the effort to get to a shared version of facts — that is the lifeblood of democracy. Subscribe to great news organizations and do your part to ensure that they thrive amidst all of this chaos.
*Question submitted by Sami Ayele at Johns Hopkins University