Andrew Rossi of "Page One" Talks About the Changing Face of Journalism

"Page One" is a riveting documentary that takes viewers behind the scenes and through the hallowed halls of The New York Times. Armed with only his camera, filmmaker Andrew Rossi follows reporters like Brain Stelter and David Carr through everyday newsroom activities, from reactions to painful layoffs to candid conversations about the stark contrast between legacy journalism and journalism 2.0.

The film raises many questions about the future of reporting and journalism. Can "The Grey Lady" continue to survive the rapidly growing digital revolution? I spoke to Andrew Rossi about his experience filming and directing "Page One" for more insight on the changing face of the industry.

Q: I would love to talk about the inspiration behind the documentary and how the idea was put into motion.

A: I had been developing a different project about web 2.0 and the idealistic benefits of social media and it was right around the time that people began speculating that The New York Times, as a result of a lack of advertising and changes that were happening across the media landscape, could potentially go out of business... There were a lot of very smart people talking about how in the digital revolution there would have to be a lot of dead bodies on the side of the road, including places that provide original, new reporting. I felt that this was a very scary idea, a very scary proposition and it would be interesting to take a look at what actually goes on in these traditional journalistic institutions like The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or Reuters or AP or, of course, The New York Times.

I knew David Carr, who was one of the main characters of "Page One" and I was actually slated to interview him for another movie about web 2.0. But in the middle of it, we kept circling back to what was going on at The New York Times and I said, what about doing a movie about you and the media desk at The New York Times functioning as a play within a play? The things that the reporters at the media desk are writing about function as a sort of tutorial on everything that's happening in the media, but those writers themselves are part of the bigger story at The New York Times. He basically said, "OK, that sounds interesting, I don't know if you'll get access, but here are the people to talk to." Six months later after many discussions and meetings, I started shooting.

Q: How did you gain access to The New York Times?

A: It's something that happens with trust. When I first started shooting, there were no broad commitments on how long I would be there filming. It was kind of a test phase... I just started off the first couple of weeks sitting in cubicles, filming (reporters) for hours without very much going on and I think over time they got to know me and trust me and that's really what it's about.

I shoot by myself, I do my own sound when I do cinema verite. There's no producer. It's just me. It's a very intimate kind of dynamic.

Also, I think the idea that it was supposed to be an observational documentary (helped in gaining access). It's not supposed to be a Michael Moore, take-down, satirical piece. Michael Moore films have a certain kind of approach. And this was not supposed to be like that.

Q: Beyond getting the trust of the people you were filming, how did you get the trust of Bill Keller (editor of The New York Times at the time of filming)?

A: I had a meeting with Bill and we talked about this play within a play construct. Ultimately, what he said to me is, I am proud of my journalists and I would like the world to see them. He felt that if the journalists were being captured as they are, he was confident enough that those writers would equip themselves in a way he could be proud of. So he didn't have concerns about them. He trusted the writers to the extent that I was able to communicate that all I was trying to do was make a documentary about what these folks do on a daily basis.

Certainly when we edited it together there's another track with outside opinions about where the industry is headed and you have to look at Arianna Huffington, Clay Shirky and Jeff Jarvis who are not New York Times cheerleaders. They tend to be very critical and they support new media.

It was funny because The Daily Show had done a piece about The New York Times shortly before I started and they had one of their correspondents go to The New York Times, walk through the building and basically made fun of everyone there.

Q: I'm guessing that didn't go over very well?

A: Everybody was sort of burned by it.

Q: Was there anything that you weren't allowed to cover or film while you were there?

A: I guess the only thing I wasn't able to film was when there was a period in which some of the reporters were laid off. Because of financial constraints, they had people who needed to be eliminated from the newsroom. I was there for the first phase of that period and I was able to capture some interviews with the people who had announced that they were taking buyouts. But when that phase ended and they started to fire people, at that moment I wasn't able to shoot.

Q: In the beginning (of the interview) you referenced The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. Why did you decide to film The New York Times, specifically?

A: I would say mainly because of David Carr. Wherever David Carr is, is where I want to be... He has a fascinating back story, he is so brilliant in his insights about where media is going. It really all started with him.

And I really do think that The Times is in a small group of (traditional media) places that are doing original reporting and investing tons of money into that. Those are the kind of places that we wanted to have represented. But then again, it could have been anywhere. But not anywhere has David Carr.

Q: I loved how the film seemed to come together so perfectly with WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange becoming an emerging figure, and the paywall going up all while you were filming. Did you know what the documentary was going to be about from the get go or did these events become the film?

A: It was definitely always going to be about the changing state of The New York Times and about their movement towards the paywall and about the collision of old media and new media, as perfectly exemplified by WikiLeaks when we first discovered the Apache video that was on YouTube.

It's this collision of old world of expertise and content that's guarded within certain walls and this new world that just wants to crack it all open from sources within the military without being filtered. But when we first started in November 2009 we didn't know that WikiLeaks would be such a big story. I just sort of rolled the dice and said, look, if I am The New York Times at the media desk, given the incredible rate of new information every day, if you give it a year you're sure to find some stories that these guys are writing about which illuminate what's going on. That's how I went into it.

Q: Other than David Carr, how did you choose to follow characters like Brian Stelter?

A: Well Brian, is this fantastic example of all the great things that young people reared on the internet have to offer to institutions like "The Grey Lady." The New York Times was very forward-looking in hiring him right out of college without much experience other than his blog. In a way, he's a foil to David Carr, someone who came up in the alternative, weekly magazine culture that was so big in the 80s and 90s. Although David is a huge proponent of the new media world as well, nonetheless he is part of that old school world too. Brian is this total breath of fresh air.

Q: Considering you filmed for 14 months, what got cut? Are we missing out?

A: I think we shot over 250 hours, there was a ton of stuff that we couldn't use. We covered The Wall Street Journal's New York edition and their attempt to compete more directly with what The New York Times does. We also filmed more on the polarization of the political landscape and how that effects political reporting. But ultimately, in order to make the film a riveting 90 minute ride for viewers, we had to cut things down.

Q: Where do you stand on the new school digital journalism vs. old school legacy journalism debate and was it hard to remain objective?

A: I think the future is a hybrid future. It's about places like ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism site that funds the creation of these stories that are then published in The New York Times, The LA Times, or broadcast on 60 Minutes. I think the future is going to see more collaborations or hybrid relationships that are hard to quantify, unfortunately it has to rest on a word that's as nebulous as "hybrid." But as long as new media partners have original reporting, then quality journalism can survive and the future is a bright one.

This film is trying to alert viewer to the notion that we shouldn't take for granted places like The New York Times. Information wants to be free, but that doesn't mean that a price isn't associated with it.

Q: What did you learn while filming?

A: I would say that [above]!

Q: I heard there are rumors of a feature film remake in the works and who do you think would make a great David Carr?

A: There is interest from certain Hollywood producers about remaking the film and I think that would be great if they did that because it's a cinematic film and well as a documentary. I think he (David Carr) would be great by Jim Carrey, when Jim Carrey plays a straight guy or a serious, sober role. Or Robert Downey Jr!