Equating saving a newspaper to saving Darfur demonstrates just why this paper is failing. They think that they are on a par with saving a country where thousands of people are being systematically killed, tortured and raped. The arrogance of this statement is just appalling:

NEW York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller equated the Gray Lady to a PBS pledge drive, claiming readers have offered to donate money to keep the Times alive.
[…]
The bombastic broadsheet editor went on to equate the keep-the-Times-alive movement to the cause of starving African refugees, saying, “Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause.”

Another reason the paper is failing is that these guys just don’t get how to move away from an dinosaur model (printed paper) to embrace a new model (online traffic generated by links from websites):

Keller said he had little use for Web sites like Google and Drudge Report: “If you’re inclined to trust Google as your source for news — Google yourself.”

That’s such a stupid statement. Drudge links to the NY Times all the time and probably sends thousands of hits to a story and what happens when you get there half the time? Yo\u’re stopped at their login screen that stops eyes from seeing their advertisements. This guy is denigrating the very people who could generate income for his paper to stay afloat. Arrogant dinosaur brain, it’s a business killer. It’s not surprising that the Times is in the trouble it’s in with that type of attitude.
BTW, if I were a lefty, I would denote to keep the Times afloat. Why lose such a good propaganda rag? Obama should certainly throw them some money, they’ve been carrying his water for awhile now.