New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly
New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly
November 12, 2016
http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnew....jpg?ve=1&tl=1
The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.
“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxAfOrrUQAEHOjw.jpg
New York Post columnist and former Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote, "because it (The Times) demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.
Sulzbergers letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.
She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the Trump discombobulated.
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...bk8_bigger.jpg Liz Spayd @spaydl
The NYT would do well to plant some roots in Red America
https://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t=HB...6LeKQTMWmUhWu8
Want to Know What America’s Thinking? Try Asking
As Times editors reflect on how they (and so many others) called the election so wrong, they should look at how well they cover ordinary Americans.
nytimes.com
Spayd wrote, “Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston:
“Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”
She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.”
“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”
Sulzberger—who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly-- also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”
“But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias,” he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...-honestly.html
Want to Know What America’s Thinking? Try Asking
Want to Know What America’s Thinking? Try Asking
NOV. 9, 2016
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016...-master768.jpg
Donald J. Trump arrived for a rally in Raleigh, N.C., on Monday. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times
It was the night that wasn’t supposed to happen, that had almost no chance of happening. Having relied on major media, and the overflow of polls it fed readers on a near-daily basis, the audience sat back and waited for a Democratic victory, possibly a rout. Could the Senate be reclaimed by Democrats, or even the House?
On Tuesday afternoon, The New York Times told readers in its Upshot polling feature that Hillary Clinton had an 84 percent chance of winning. And for many weeks leading up to Election Day, The Times delivered a steady stream of stories. One described Clinton’s powerful and well-organized ground operation — and
Trump’s frazzled counterattack. Another claimed a surge in the Latino vote that could decide the election. Others speculated on the composition and tenor of a Clinton cabinet. The picture was of a juggernaut of blue state invincibility that mostly dismissed the likelihood of a Trump White House.
But sometime Tuesday night, that 84-percent Clinton win Upshot figure flipped. Suddenly it was 95 percent — for Donald Trump. And when readers woke up Wednesday, they learned that the second forecast, at least, was on target.
Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”
Another letter, from Nick Crawford of Plymouth, Mich., made a similar point. “Perhaps the election result would not be such a surprise if your reporting had acknowledged what ordinary Americans care about, rather than pushing the limited agenda of your editors,” he wrote. “Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”
Certainly, The Times isn’t the only news organization bewildered and perhaps a bit sheepish about its predictions coverage. The rest of media missed it too, as did the pollsters, the analysts, the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign itself.
But as The Times begins a period of self-reflection, I hope its editors will think hard about the half of America the paper too seldom covers.
The red state America campaign coverage that rang the loudest in news coverage grew out of Trump rallies, and it often amplified the voices of the most hateful. One especially compelling video produced with footage collected over months on the campaign trail, captured the ugly vitriol like few others. That’s important coverage. But it and pieces like it drowned out the kind of agenda-free, deep narratives that could have taken Times readers deeper into the lives and values of the people who just elected the next president.
In other words, The Times would serve readers well with fewer brief interviews, fewer snatched slogans that inevitably render a narrow caricature of those who spoke them. If you want to further educate yourself on the newly empowered, check out the work of George Packer in The New Yorker. You’ll leave wiser about what just happened. Times journalists can be masters at doing these pieces, but they do them best when describing the lives of struggling immigrants, for example, or those living on the streets.
A fascinating graphic appeared on the front of the paper and home page earlier this week depicting, state-by-state, the powerful American working class — the less educated it called them. Many in this group make up Trump’s base, and the essential questioned posed by the graphic and to readers was this: to what degree will these voters show up at the polls?
We have our answer. The next question is whether The Times is interested in crossing the red line to see what this America wants next.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/pu...?smid=tw-share
