The New York Times has reached crisis point. Contending accusations of plagiarism, facing competition from online news outlets, and suffering diminished circulation, its future looks uncertain in an environment still reeling from the financial crisis.  This excellent new documentary from director Andrew Rossi casts a sharp but thorough look at the inner workings of The Times, prompting one to consider, for how much longer can the New York paper stay afloat?

Rossi was especially lucky to be filming the year of the leaking of Afghanistan footage by Wikileaks. By contrasting this with the leaking of the Pentagon papers to The Times in 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg, he offers a particularly effective illustration of the changing face of media. The Afghanistan footage became available instantly to the public via the internet whereas The Times had taken four months to publish the Pentagon papers. Were he to have a similar opportunity again, Ellsberg says in an interview with Rossi, he would go straight to the web.

When news stories are immediate and free on the internet are newspapers at all relevant? This is the question that underscores the film but unfortunately is largely left unanswered. Whilst it is made obvious that The Times faces a difficult period, we are never told just how difficult. The identikit financial analysts scattered throughout the film, all pronouncing the imminent ‘death’ of the paper, are unhelpful, offering no concrete evidence to justify their stark view of The Times’s fate.

The attaining of any sort of conclusion is prevented by the self-interest of interviewees. The paper is vehemently defended as relevant and sustainable by its employees, and, of course, is dismissed as a relic by bloggers and rival news outlets.

The occasional lack of focus and slightly chaotic way in which the interviews and stories are melded together works to the film’s advantage, reflecting the disorder of the newsroom, and making it lively and watchable. This energy is further cemented by the reporters on the paper Rossi chooses to follow.

There is young, idealistic Tim Arango whose childhood dream was to work at The Times and whose goal it is to tackle life’s big questions through journalistic pursuit. We also see blogger Brian Stelter, a softly spoken techno whizz who laments his colleagues disengagement with new media. Much of the focus of the film is given to media reporter David Carr, a sarcastic, ex-coke addict with the voice of Tom Waits, who delights in aggressively defending the paper from the attacks of smug young bloggers.

The film was intended to be based solely on Carr and it is obvious why- he is by far the most interesting watch; his dry humour constitutes almost all the film’s comedic moments.

Whether Page One would have been as compelling without his presence is worth consideration, for there is a noticeable tendency for Rossi to fall back on sometimes irrelevant and repetitive footage of the reporter.

We watch Carr travelling, Carr arguing, Carr at media gatherings, Carr arguing some more and Carr making slightly cloying, introspective statements about the nature of journalism. Regardless, it is this character focus that is crucial to the documentary’s success. It looks beyond The Times as a faceless, aged institution to the passionate and committed individuals keeping it running.

Some moments of the film carry real emotional power.  Shots of staff tearfully making goodbye speeches after particularly vicious job cuts in 2009, and the overwhelming sense of loss at Tim Arango’s send-off to Iraq, gives one a real sense of the camaraderie in the office. It is not just the paper, but also a real community that is being challenged. It is through this the film best engages its audience, making one genuinely care for its fate.

It is noteworthy that the film is dominated by white males. Whether this is an accurate reflection of staff at the paper or a flaw of the film’s scope is debatable. The paper appointed its first female executive editor shortly after filming finished, so I am inclined to say the latter. The image of the testosterone-fuelled newsroom is dated and not especially conducive towards making The Times appear relevant in an otherwise supportive and sympathetic documentary.

Ultimately though, this is a thought-provoking, compelling and very watchable portrait of the ‘Grey Lady.’ It puts a human face to the US institution, and manages to be humorous, touching and consistently interesting, whilst raising a number of important and weighty issues.