The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
huffingtonpost.com
The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
1–10 of 110 posts
Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
#2Interesting choice — I love the NYT Public Editor's work and was actually just about to add her column to my media literacy / filter bubble project, Read Across the Aisle. Many people have never heard of a Public Editor and have no idea what the position entails. From a media literacy standpoint, this column offered a behind-the-scenes look at why certain decisions were made, how journalistic standards were applied, and the pros/cons of alternative options.
In this time of political discord and journalistic polarization, I am surprised and disappointed that such an esteemed paper would decide this position is no longer necessary.
I hope the NYT keeps the existing archive online, and frankly I may still add this archive to my media literacy app — even though the underlying stories would become increasingly stale over time. IMO, it is that good!
Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
#3The NY Times created the Public Editor role in response to a fabrication scandal. Are they trying to tell us something?
Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
#4So they think that they can just replace that role with social media? Wasn't the whole issue with newspapers in the 2016 election was they relied far too much on social media and ended up in a bubble?
I don't see anything in the article that makes me feel like they are interested in fixing that problem.
Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
#5Interesting choice — I love the NYT Public Editor's work and was actually just about to add her column to my media literacy / filter bubble project, Read Across the Aisle. Many people have never heard of a Public Editor and have no idea what the position entails. From a media literacy standpoint, this column offered a behind-the-scenes look at why certain decisions were made, how journalistic standards were applied,…
You love Liz Spayd’s work, or the previous public editor, Margaret Sullivan? I’ve found Spayd’s column pretty anodyne.
Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
#6On one hand, having an ombudsman (whatever you want to call it) is a good thing for an institution like the Times.
On the other hand... having Liz Spayd in that role is pointless, so this isn't a loss. The past year has shown us how the New York Times has let false equivalence and the need to sell newspapers to both sides of the aisle has severely damaged the quality of the paper's coverage, and Spayd has continually carried water for this rather than hold the paper to account. I for one am tired of watching the Times sell itself with ads about how the truth is more important than ever and then follow it up with coverage like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/health-care-f...
Where Pelosi saying "Up to 17 million children" is supposed to be misleading because it chooses the high side estimate, when that is exactly what 'up to' means.
Getting rid of the public editor won't make this better, but not having to read a public editor who won't confront this sort of coverage head-on will at least make me a bit less cranky about it.
Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
#7Interesting choice — I love the NYT Public Editor's work and was actually just about to add her column to my media literacy / filter bubble project, Read Across the Aisle. Many people have never heard of a Public Editor and have no idea what the position entails. From a media literacy standpoint, this column offered a behind-the-scenes look at why certain decisions were made, how journalistic standards were applied,…
You love Liz Spayd’s work, or the previous public editor, Margaret Sullivan? I’ve found Spayd’s column pretty anodyne.
I have mostly read Spayd's work, and I enjoy the analytical aspects of it. How would you say Sullivan's work differed? Worth combing through the archives?
Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
You love Liz Spayd’s work, or the previous public editor, Margaret Sullivan? I’ve found Spayd’s column pretty anodyne.
I have mostly read Spayd's work, and I enjoy the analytical aspects of it. How would you say Sullivan's work differed? Worth combing through the archives?
Yes absolutely. Margaret Sullivan is a national treasure.
Here's her 'back catalog' of stories from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/by/margaret-sullivan
Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
#9So they think that they can just replace that role with social media? Wasn't the whole issue with newspapers in the 2016 election was they relied far too much on social media and ended up in a bubble? I don't see anything in the article that makes me feel like they are interested in fixing that problem.
Agreed. I have occasionally tweeted corrections at authors of articles and have never gotten any response. And these aren't famous authors who get too many tweets to respond too — these are contributors with a handful of Twitter followers. If the new model of interacting with the public is anything like this, I don't have much hope for it.
I will say that when I eventually sent an email to the NYT's corrections email address, they immediately fixed the errors in the articles. This won't help with close judgment calls or understanding how the newsroom works, but at least it can be used to address blatant errors.
Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role
#10So they think that they can just replace that role with social media? Wasn't the whole issue with newspapers in the 2016 election was they relied far too much on social media and ended up in a bubble? I don't see anything in the article that makes me feel like they are interested in fixing that problem.
ended up in a bubble?
Yes they did. They know it. And they don't really give a fuck.
After the election they did some public navel gazing about what went wrong. To prove they were serious, there was even an editorial about The Future of the Times.
So I wrote to Ms Spayd. I challenged her, at the next meeting of journalists and editors, to say something like: "show of hands, who voted for Donald Trump for president".
My contention is that the result would be zero. Nada. Zilch. Even if they did vote for Trump, they wouldn't be dumb enough to admit it publicly to a room full of their colleagues.
So how can the Times ever begin to understand the 46% of the country who are the deplorables who voted for Trump?
They can't, and they don't want to.
Or, maybe, Ms. Spayd actually did what I suggested. And the powers that be decided that she just wasn't a good fit for them anymore. And that's why she was shown the door. :)