The New York Times on Tuesday released its 2020 report, outlining a vision for how its newsroom can help build a sustainable news business into the next decade. The report emphasizes the need to provide value for subscribers, introduce more visual forms of journalism, and change workflows to better suit today’s news ecosystem.

You can find our thoughts and summary of the report here, but of course, an entire second layer of reaction took place on Media Twitter.

Times columnist David Leonhardt, one of the report’s authors, tweetstormed some of the report’s main points. (These are some highlights; click on the tweets for the full thread.)

3/ @nytimes is in a very strong position, with more digital revenue than several of our closest rivals combined.

— David Leonhardt (@DLeonhardt) January 17, 2017

5/ NYT is in that position because of the quality of its journalism and the rapid move toward a digital report.

— David Leonhardt (@DLeonhardt) January 17, 2017

10/ @nytimes isn't trying to win a pageviews arms race and sell low-margin ads against the clicks.

— David Leonhardt (@DLeonhardt) January 17, 2017

11/ Our strategy is to provide journalism so valuable that several millions people will pay for it.

— David Leonhardt (@DLeonhardt) January 17, 2017

Others emphasized the paper’s focus on digital revenue — specifically subscriptions — as the key to its future.

The shift from a newspaper as a tool for selling an audience to advertisers, to newspaper-as-membership-club: https://t.co/vvArTOFMRI pic.twitter.com/eW9V0jPMPL

— Yoni Appelbaum (@YAppelbaum) January 17, 2017

Not bad. https://t.co/kqwc7ekO9Z pic.twitter.com/JRJYNDIE2U

— Steve Kovach (@stevekovach) January 17, 2017

One implication of this which is not in the report: More name-brand journalists, perhaps, who can singlehandedly draw subscriptions https://t.co/bYO4annKIp

— Felix Salmon (@felixsalmon) January 17, 2017

The Post swarms a topic, writing as much as possible + impressing readers less with an individual story than the breadth of coverage.

— Lucas Shaw (@Lucas_Shaw) January 17, 2017

NYT strategy sounds more like a magazine: fewer stories, each carefully selected to have a huge impact.

— Lucas Shaw (@Lucas_Shaw) January 17, 2017

@Lucas_Shaw not really like a magazine. Just focusing more on quality stories that justify a subscription not quantity of stories for clicks

— Sydney Ember (@melbournecoal) January 17, 2017

The NYT says it publishes 200 pieces of content a day — the Washington Post publishes almost 10 times that many https://t.co/nIgRmMbMwR

— Mathew Ingram (@mathewi) January 17, 2017

(Note that those numbers are disputed by Timesfolk and mostly driven by the Post’s more aggregation-heavy content strategy.)

There was also comment on the paper’s internal processes — from its CMS to the type of journalism it is producing.

On a per-dollar basis, NYT freelance-written journalism attracts a larger audience than its staff-written journalism https://t.co/8g4uyrCtmH

— Tim Carmody (@tcarmody) January 17, 2017

It me! https://t.co/FeZHCoNJEW pic.twitter.com/wYiEW3gRMI

— erin mccann (@mccanner) January 17, 2017

It enshrines as policy many of the things that our year-old Express Team has stressed: streamlined editing, native digital voice, visuals

— Patrick LaForge (@palafo) January 17, 2017

One thing I've learned in nearly a year of consulting: nearly all newsroom have crap CMSes that thwart production. https://t.co/RVXiOnexKY

— Heidi N Moore (@moorehn) January 17, 2017

an interesting theme in the @nytimes 2020 report: how editors and copyeditors often make work worse https://t.co/ZPLSsFcwUk

— Chris Coletta (@chris_coletta) January 17, 2017

Another thread of discussion focused on the Times’ training processes, which the report says it plans to revamp.

During my time at NYT, the barriers preventing reporters from learning new skills were mostly (but not entirely) self-imposed. pic.twitter.com/W8LsQH3OZq

— Derek Willis (@derekwillis) January 17, 2017

@derekwillis Union rules and tribalism played no role?

— Ben Welsh (@palewire) January 17, 2017

@palewire oh, they surely did, but this idea that reporters working at the NYT were utterly dependent on others was too common.

— Derek Willis (@derekwillis) January 17, 2017

@derekwillis @palewire In the past, bigr newsrooms implied: "If u made it here, u know how to 2 everything for your job." Not anymore

— Sarah Cohen (@sarahcnyt) January 17, 2017