Would it be too hard or too expensive for the NY Times to find a reporter who has an earned PhD in the geophysical sciences?
1
I would like to open the digital Times and not be assaulted by a lot of video,for example, of whales swimming, which crowds out or is larger than the headline story. I also wish that I didn't have to see lifestyle articles on the front page competing with world and national news. I wish to see excellent, in depth reporting and explanations of stories on the front page. I used to go to the Times first but now find myself going to the Washington Post as my primary source of news. I wish your digital layout presented itself as more serious. Just a wish...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/arts/jean-michel-basquiat-painting-is...
Inequality prevails - though some leg-iron-strap stillettos are likely to be available for a nominal $1100...
Check in this week's cool NYT mag...
Probably opposite a Kristof piece on how white people just don't get Central Park muggings...
Inequality prevails - though some leg-iron-strap stillettos are likely to be available for a nominal $1100...
Check in this week's cool NYT mag...
Probably opposite a Kristof piece on how white people just don't get Central Park muggings...
I know that you opened an Australian bureau, but outside of the natives, who here in America really cares or needs to know? Take it off your Daily Briefing/Home site.
The Kinsley column is a flop. If it is meant to be satire, it's so insipid that readers can't even tell. I predict it will disappear soon.
3
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/a-conversation-wi...
Spayd: "the job as Public Editor is to collect and absorb reader email."
From Daniel Okrent through Margaret Sullivan, 5 Public Editors described the job as "the readers' representative." Why did you change that? Did you do so on your own, or with collaboration with the Executive Editor and/or the Publisher? Why, when you oversaw redesign of the PE page, why did you also drop interest in "issues of journalistic integrity," only to have it restored after several e-mail exchanges with your assistant?
Q: "Can you give me an example of one (column) you'd do differently?"
Spayd: "I don't really have an example."
Really?
Why is it that the profusion of anonymous sourcing didn't even arise. I suppose you are aware that the Times is placing its entire credibility in a source Michael S Schmidt granted anonymity to regarding a supposed Comey memo describing a President asking him to stop an ongoing probe of fired NS Advisor Michael Flynn? If true, a sure Pulitzer and a questionable future for the Prez. If untrue, the Times' credibility might never recover. A quick search of the PE archive reminds one that Schmidt and frequent collaborator Matt Apuzzo were taken to the PE woodshed in July & Dec, 2015, for anonymously sourced stories-the first needed a correction, the second, the dreaded editor's note. When does a reporter lose the right to confer anonymity?
Spayd: "the job as Public Editor is to collect and absorb reader email."
From Daniel Okrent through Margaret Sullivan, 5 Public Editors described the job as "the readers' representative." Why did you change that? Did you do so on your own, or with collaboration with the Executive Editor and/or the Publisher? Why, when you oversaw redesign of the PE page, why did you also drop interest in "issues of journalistic integrity," only to have it restored after several e-mail exchanges with your assistant?
Q: "Can you give me an example of one (column) you'd do differently?"
Spayd: "I don't really have an example."
Really?
Why is it that the profusion of anonymous sourcing didn't even arise. I suppose you are aware that the Times is placing its entire credibility in a source Michael S Schmidt granted anonymity to regarding a supposed Comey memo describing a President asking him to stop an ongoing probe of fired NS Advisor Michael Flynn? If true, a sure Pulitzer and a questionable future for the Prez. If untrue, the Times' credibility might never recover. A quick search of the PE archive reminds one that Schmidt and frequent collaborator Matt Apuzzo were taken to the PE woodshed in July & Dec, 2015, for anonymously sourced stories-the first needed a correction, the second, the dreaded editor's note. When does a reporter lose the right to confer anonymity?
2
How hilarious is it that Bret Stephens published his commencement address, the theme of which is leaving "safe spaces', and there are no comments? Because to me, that's even funnier that David Brooks pretending to be a centrist.
4
The Times does this constantly, forbidding comments on opeds by controversial, usually far-right, writers. Not only did the paper forbid comments to Stephens' commencement speech, but now it is not permitting comments to the oped by John Yoo, the White House counsel who wrote the so-called "legal opinion" justifying the president's use of torture, contrary to established international law and the American constitution.
Seems that Times editors, and the public editor, have created a right-wing opinion bubble of their own within The NYT.
Ironic.
Seems that Times editors, and the public editor, have created a right-wing opinion bubble of their own within The NYT.
Ironic.
4
How exactly does one poke fun at Donald Trump? The reality outruns any attempt at ridicule or satire.
But the e-mails! Great work @nytimes
But the e-mails! Great work @nytimes
3
Ms Spayd, MSNBC's Christopher Hayes has tweeted, "This suggests to me that a lot of people actually cancelled their subscriptions" over the hiring of climate change denier Bret Stephens.
Times publisher Sulzberger has sent out an email to all Times readers who have cancelled their subscriptions to The Times, suggesting that many have, indeed, cancelled their subscriptions since Bret Stephens was hired. Yet you wrote on May 3 that "relatively few" subscribers have actually cancelled their subscriptions.
You need to tell Times readers the truth: have only a "relatively few" cancelled their subscriptions? Or is Chris Hayes correct, and The Times has experienced a flood of cancellations over Stephens' hiring.
It's time to tell readers and the public the truth. How many cancellations has The Times experienced since Bret Stephens was hired? You cannot pretend that it was insignificant, while your direct boss and the paper's publisher takes to email to plead with readers to return.
It's a matter of your credibility.
Times publisher Sulzberger has sent out an email to all Times readers who have cancelled their subscriptions to The Times, suggesting that many have, indeed, cancelled their subscriptions since Bret Stephens was hired. Yet you wrote on May 3 that "relatively few" subscribers have actually cancelled their subscriptions.
You need to tell Times readers the truth: have only a "relatively few" cancelled their subscriptions? Or is Chris Hayes correct, and The Times has experienced a flood of cancellations over Stephens' hiring.
It's time to tell readers and the public the truth. How many cancellations has The Times experienced since Bret Stephens was hired? You cannot pretend that it was insignificant, while your direct boss and the paper's publisher takes to email to plead with readers to return.
It's a matter of your credibility.
8
I'm one of the subscribers who is holding my decision in abeyance -- waiting to see.
My biggest problems with the NY Times that have been exposed by le affaire Stephens are:
* the unmitigated baloney of claiming that op-ed writers are fact-checked is far worse than Stephens' offenses. The blatant nonsense op-ed writers get away with in the NY Times (and always have) clearly makes this proposition ridiculous. Your readers are just not that gullible; it's insulting.
* The NY Times has never made Stephens defend or retract, never actually fostered any real "dialog" between opposing views. Stephens "answered" only the questions he wanted to answer.
Now we have the spectacle of Trump pulling the US out of the Paris accords, and Trump and Stephens can go down that idiot's walk holding hands and mumbling "covfefe ... covfefe" and "Nothing is certain, I can believe anything I want to."
I wonder if Stephens realizes how much damage he has done to his own reputation by doing what is fundamentally the "Trump thing:" tweeting idiocy out of spleen and ignorance?
My biggest problems with the NY Times that have been exposed by le affaire Stephens are:
* the unmitigated baloney of claiming that op-ed writers are fact-checked is far worse than Stephens' offenses. The blatant nonsense op-ed writers get away with in the NY Times (and always have) clearly makes this proposition ridiculous. Your readers are just not that gullible; it's insulting.
* The NY Times has never made Stephens defend or retract, never actually fostered any real "dialog" between opposing views. Stephens "answered" only the questions he wanted to answer.
Now we have the spectacle of Trump pulling the US out of the Paris accords, and Trump and Stephens can go down that idiot's walk holding hands and mumbling "covfefe ... covfefe" and "Nothing is certain, I can believe anything I want to."
I wonder if Stephens realizes how much damage he has done to his own reputation by doing what is fundamentally the "Trump thing:" tweeting idiocy out of spleen and ignorance?
1
Why comments for a political article only allowed when the Times expects a great majority to support the piece? But when there's a political article that may evoke a whole gamut of opinions - there's no comments possible for it? Like the recent examples of columns by a Palestinian prisoner on a hunger strike or a Muslim playwright about position of Muslims in the current society.
4
You missed this week's entries from Erick Erickson and Charlie Sykes?
3
Why comments for a political article only allowed when the Times expects a great majority of support for the piece? But when there's a political article that may evoke a whole gamut of opinions - there's no comments possible for it? Like the recent examples of columns by a Palestinian prisoner on hunger strike or a Muslim playwright on position of Muslim in current society.
I must admit that I took Michael Kinsley's column at face value and did not assume it to be tongue-in-cheek. Yet, Danielle Rhoades-Ha seems to assume that we would all recognize it as satire (and, apparently, know that Michael Kinsley is a well-known commentator and satirist).
So was the hiring of Bret Stephens as a serious columnist also meant to be tongue-in-cheek and, once again, I missed the joke?
So was the hiring of Bret Stephens as a serious columnist also meant to be tongue-in-cheek and, once again, I missed the joke?
8
If the Kinsley column is satire (and I'm still not sure it is), and the Stephens hire was not (and I'm sure it's not), it would seem that the NYT has reached the point of satirizing itself.
4
There's also the running gag of having Peter Wehner, who has worked for the administration that carried out Iran-Contra, the administration that covered up Iran-Contra, and the administration that lied about WMDs to start a war in Iraq, writing about executive branch ethics.
4
Thursday finds the second entry just this year from treaty nullifier and potential war criminal John Yoo, encouraging a Reagan post Iran-Contra housecleaning.
This from the guy who tried to put a veneer of legality on waterboarding, which the US successfully prosecuted as a capital war crime after WWII, hanging Japanese officers who ordered our troops waterboarded.
This from the guy who tried to put a veneer of legality on waterboarding, which the US successfully prosecuted as a capital war crime after WWII, hanging Japanese officers who ordered our troops waterboarded.
4
re: the oil spill -- I have to wonder if the NYT still had an environment desk, whether this would have been covered.
6
If it's supposed to be "media criticism and satire" Mr. Kinsley is doing an amazing job of obscuring it.
2
Yes, it's like ask Breitbart readers to say something good about Hillary.
As Public Editor perhaps you should avoid the trivial and discuss the serious issues the Times faces: The Times News publisher has sent a rear-guard defensive letter defending its climate change "News" coverage to subscribers who cancelled because the Opinion editor hired and allowed Bret Stephens to push scientifically inaccurate falsehoods about climate change. We learn about this from Politico instead of the Times. Spayd is really becoming the NY Times Sean Spicer, defending the Times as truthful while news sources contradict her.
What is clear from your and Bennet's statements that you don't understand that science fact checking is not just verifying that a source said what it said but also to verify whether the statement is true. Stenographic journalism makes you a tool of every lying source.
What is clear from your and Bennet's statements that you don't understand that science fact checking is not just verifying that a source said what it said but also to verify whether the statement is true. Stenographic journalism makes you a tool of every lying source.
8
The unit of scientific/technical idiocy or lying is the "Shibani" ... "Germany gets more sun."
1
(No honorific) Spayd: The next time you wish to make the lazy assumption that the Times in general, or its opinion pages in particular, is liberal, please stop for a moment, and have your noble assistant count for you the number of opinion pieces accepted for publication by Charlie Sykes, by Erick Erickson, by Max Boot, and by Peter Wehner, just to name four off the top of my head, all published here this very week.
It is a lazy assumption, and one that consistently is, as Nick Lowe put it, "Nutted By Reality."
It is a lazy assumption, and one that consistently is, as Nick Lowe put it, "Nutted By Reality."
6
Second sighting of the year of Torture Memo author John Yoo. Also, an apologia from Elizabeth Price Foley claimng Trump innocent of obstruction of justice. She whiffed on the idea that Trump's tweet that "Comey had better not hope that there are no 'tapes' before leaking to the press" might amount to witness tampering or intimidation.
Yep, so, so liberal. Yeah, that's the ticket
Yep, so, so liberal. Yeah, that's the ticket
3
And on Saturday, the third entry from December, 2016, from Mark Moyar, this one in the "Vietnam 67" series.
In it Moyar posits that the US could have "won" the war in Vietnam, without even a scintilla of definition of what that simplistic claim even means, or how to define "winning."
How many more Americans that the 58,000 dead, would such an effort have required?
Yeah, Spayd, the Times opinion pages are so, so liberal, as we add Moyar's name to Wehner, Yoo, Arthur Brooks, Erick Erickson and Charlie Sykes as now fairly regular contributors.
In it Moyar posits that the US could have "won" the war in Vietnam, without even a scintilla of definition of what that simplistic claim even means, or how to define "winning."
How many more Americans that the 58,000 dead, would such an effort have required?
Yeah, Spayd, the Times opinion pages are so, so liberal, as we add Moyar's name to Wehner, Yoo, Arthur Brooks, Erick Erickson and Charlie Sykes as now fairly regular contributors.
1
Here is my recent comment on the Erick Erickson story today, could apply it to the issue at hand here too:
The Times has really lost me -- a life long reader-- with content like this of late. It's not that I am opposed to other's views, it is the intelligence of those views. This is not the first article that is so lazy as far as awareness and facts and details-- drawing broad strokes about "liberals" and the "left" and "media elite." It's, frankly, unintelligent and intellectually super lazy.
There was a similar article this week that lead with a click-bait headline about liberals "hating" Trump. I don't know many people who have "hate" as their main driver right now. I expect this kind of broad stroke laziness from certain talk shows.
I am considering taking my subscription to the Washington Post. They have been extraordinary lately and don't mix up their "facts" with climate change deniers or broad, lazy strokes about "liberals." (What even does that mean? I expect MUCH more from the Times!)
The Times has really lost me -- a life long reader-- with content like this of late. It's not that I am opposed to other's views, it is the intelligence of those views. This is not the first article that is so lazy as far as awareness and facts and details-- drawing broad strokes about "liberals" and the "left" and "media elite." It's, frankly, unintelligent and intellectually super lazy.
There was a similar article this week that lead with a click-bait headline about liberals "hating" Trump. I don't know many people who have "hate" as their main driver right now. I expect this kind of broad stroke laziness from certain talk shows.
I am considering taking my subscription to the Washington Post. They have been extraordinary lately and don't mix up their "facts" with climate change deniers or broad, lazy strokes about "liberals." (What even does that mean? I expect MUCH more from the Times!)
10
A look at the opinion section and front page of the Times on any day will show the paper hardly has any interest in portraying Trump in a favorable light for anything. If nothing else, we have learned that all of the caterwauling over the last few years that nothing could be done about illegal information was false. Simply enforcing the law has resulted in a dramatic reduction. It appears the people that said enforcement would work were correct.
1
The Times is having an identity crisis: Do we want to be all things to all people or do we want to be the best at what we do- and stick to it?
8
Meanwhile, the Bret Stephens embarrassment isn't going away, to the point of requiring damage control by The Times's publisher:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/05/12/new-york-times-bret-st...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/05/12/new-york-times-bret-st...
6
As they used to say during newspapers' long past heyday, "you read it here first."
Not The New York Times
Not The New York Times
2
Another "decades-long" reader (is there any other kind?) declares an intent to "cancel my subscription" unless a particular feature/writer is terminated.
And these are your so-called elite, highly educated readers who, one hoped, would have learned in college to seek out and RESPECT all points of view.
Just like the New UC Berkeley.
And, just to let you know, unless you change your archaic slogan, "All the news that's fit to print," I am cancelling my subscription.
And these are your so-called elite, highly educated readers who, one hoped, would have learned in college to seek out and RESPECT all points of view.
Just like the New UC Berkeley.
And, just to let you know, unless you change your archaic slogan, "All the news that's fit to print," I am cancelling my subscription.
1
It's now Day 100+ and we are not yet dead and the Earth has not yet been burnt to a nuclear cinder and the global economy has not yet collapsed.
Congratulations, Donald Trump.
Congratulations, Donald Trump.
4
Maybe Kinsley should initiate a retrospective column about Obama since most of his policies were failures -- he could try to salvage something of his legacy.
1
Nice? Trump has not yet shot someone in the street, as he offered during his campaign. That's all I've got. (The day isn't over.)
4
Shouldn't the Times be writing about the woman who was arrested for"chuckling" in Congress when Jeff Sessions was described as having a history of being for equality? (She faces a year n jail.) and how about the reporter who was arrested somewhere in the South fr asking questions of Tom Price? Really, what good is the Times if it doesn't speak out forFreedom of the Press?
26
The Times has its own soap box, and at this point in time, that which they are trying to sell from the box is the destruction of the Trump presidency.
What the Times and most of the liberal nutcases that go along with this charade don't understand is that Trump with do that all by himself, and the Times will look like the self-aggrandizing fools that made themselves look like last fall.
What the Times and most of the liberal nutcases that go along with this charade don't understand is that Trump with do that all by himself, and the Times will look like the self-aggrandizing fools that made themselves look like last fall.
2
"The Times has its own soap box, and at this point in time, that which they are trying to sell from the box is the destruction of the Trump presidency."
He is perfectly capable of doing that all on his own. I expect hacks like Pence, Sessions, Ryan and McConnell to go along out of political expediency. But those with long cultivated, well regarded reputations I, like others, expected to be the adults in the room.
Rod Rosenstein put his reputation on the line as the "author" of the fire Comey rationale, said by Pence to be the only reason why Comey was fired. Of course, the very next day, Trump gave the lie to that in a series of interviews.
Just yesterday, HR McMaster said: "I was in the room, no such things were said." And this morning, the Twit-in-Chief went off and said that he said precisely what McMaster denied, was allowed to, and had hopes of steering the Ru$$ians to his position.
In under a week, the Prez threw both Rosenstein and McMaster under a Dump Truck, for a position, influencing Ru$$ia, that is laughable on its face.
Smiley, just imagine yourself 30 years ago allying yourself with Ru$$ia. But here you are, John Reed a hundred years further on. At least Reed didn't know what was to come. What is your excuse to be an apparatchik?
He is perfectly capable of doing that all on his own. I expect hacks like Pence, Sessions, Ryan and McConnell to go along out of political expediency. But those with long cultivated, well regarded reputations I, like others, expected to be the adults in the room.
Rod Rosenstein put his reputation on the line as the "author" of the fire Comey rationale, said by Pence to be the only reason why Comey was fired. Of course, the very next day, Trump gave the lie to that in a series of interviews.
Just yesterday, HR McMaster said: "I was in the room, no such things were said." And this morning, the Twit-in-Chief went off and said that he said precisely what McMaster denied, was allowed to, and had hopes of steering the Ru$$ians to his position.
In under a week, the Prez threw both Rosenstein and McMaster under a Dump Truck, for a position, influencing Ru$$ia, that is laughable on its face.
Smiley, just imagine yourself 30 years ago allying yourself with Ru$$ia. But here you are, John Reed a hundred years further on. At least Reed didn't know what was to come. What is your excuse to be an apparatchik?
3
Below is what I wrote to the NYT on this matter on Tuesday. An automated response today pointed me to this Public Editor mailbag.
The question still remains as to whether the Times will continue Kinsley's boneheaded idea for a column.
--
“Say Something Nice About Trump” ?
No.
Just, no.
If you keep this up, framed copies of these columns will someday line the walls of The Museum of The Death of American Democracy, in the exhibit dedicated to The Complicity of The Press.
I have been reading and subscribing to the NY Times for decades. If you don’t drop this preposterous idea for a column, I will drop my subscription.
PS. I just subscribed to Teen Vogue, who is kicking your journalistic ass right now.
The question still remains as to whether the Times will continue Kinsley's boneheaded idea for a column.
--
“Say Something Nice About Trump” ?
No.
Just, no.
If you keep this up, framed copies of these columns will someday line the walls of The Museum of The Death of American Democracy, in the exhibit dedicated to The Complicity of The Press.
I have been reading and subscribing to the NY Times for decades. If you don’t drop this preposterous idea for a column, I will drop my subscription.
PS. I just subscribed to Teen Vogue, who is kicking your journalistic ass right now.
10
Thanks for mentioning the oil spill. We certainly could do with less news about the latest Trump circus and a lot more about what else is happening in the world.
Given the escalation of climate change and the evidence of planet-wide extreme weather, it would be helpful to have more news, for example, about the floods last week.
And the bit where last year's Hurricane Matthew flood victims were defunded, along with the "blame the victim" Haitian purge is a scandal that should not go unmentioned.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/arti...
"Gov. Roy Cooper on Wednesday expressed his “shock and disappointment” in the small amount of federal disaster money the Trump administration and Congress authorized in the latest round of funding for Hurricane Matthew recovery in North Carolina – less than 1 percent of what the state requested.
"Cooper expressed his dismay in a letter to President Donald Trump, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.
"The governor hoped for more than $900 million in federal relief, an amount the Democratic governor says was a conservative request made in consultation with U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, a Huntersville Republican, and U.S. Reps. David Price, a Democrat from Chapel Hill, and David Rouzer, a Republican from Johnston County ... Just $6.1 million in federal money was approved this week."
Given the escalation of climate change and the evidence of planet-wide extreme weather, it would be helpful to have more news, for example, about the floods last week.
And the bit where last year's Hurricane Matthew flood victims were defunded, along with the "blame the victim" Haitian purge is a scandal that should not go unmentioned.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/arti...
"Gov. Roy Cooper on Wednesday expressed his “shock and disappointment” in the small amount of federal disaster money the Trump administration and Congress authorized in the latest round of funding for Hurricane Matthew recovery in North Carolina – less than 1 percent of what the state requested.
"Cooper expressed his dismay in a letter to President Donald Trump, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.
"The governor hoped for more than $900 million in federal relief, an amount the Democratic governor says was a conservative request made in consultation with U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, a Huntersville Republican, and U.S. Reps. David Price, a Democrat from Chapel Hill, and David Rouzer, a Republican from Johnston County ... Just $6.1 million in federal money was approved this week."
6
Blather on Susan. I invite you to read the following re atmospheric CO2
https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/083/mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
True -- from 1955, but by a climatologist in a refereed journal -- and it calls into question whether there actually has been an increase in atmospheric CO2 since the 19th century -- or if there has been much of an increase.
And you, like Lee Harrison, continue not to respond in any coherent way to the data I've presented from NOAA which clearly shows no US warming trend in the contiguous US of A during the 20th century.
Could that be because you can't?
https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/083/mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
True -- from 1955, but by a climatologist in a refereed journal -- and it calls into question whether there actually has been an increase in atmospheric CO2 since the 19th century -- or if there has been much of an increase.
And you, like Lee Harrison, continue not to respond in any coherent way to the data I've presented from NOAA which clearly shows no US warming trend in the contiguous US of A during the 20th century.
Could that be because you can't?
Insult as argument. Nice. You're beginning to channel wmar, and me responding to variations on Schopenhauer's 38 ways to win an argument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right - is guaranteed to prolong the conversation, but not to produce facts. Or you could use Rove's version (granted, not a direct quote):
Entangle, Demoralize, Attack, Confuse, Contain, Intimidate, Insult, Deceive, Demean
Have you given up on our bet? As I said before it will be like taking candy from a baby, since you are too incurious to check out anything that corrects your conviction, including the weather (over time worldwide) outside your mentally sealed room.
Entangle, Demoralize, Attack, Confuse, Contain, Intimidate, Insult, Deceive, Demean
Have you given up on our bet? As I said before it will be like taking candy from a baby, since you are too incurious to check out anything that corrects your conviction, including the weather (over time worldwide) outside your mentally sealed room.
4
Oh, and Ralphie, you ignore the content I provided, which was about disaster relief being cut to the bone. That was from a deep red area.
That's more blindness to increases in extremes in our current lifetimes, not a publication decades ago.
That's more blindness to increases in extremes in our current lifetimes, not a publication decades ago.
4
The nicest thing about Trump is his age.
Did Michael kinsley really expect serious comments?
Reminds me of how people commented about how cultured Nazis were because they listened to classical music.
Did Michael kinsley really expect serious comments?
Reminds me of how people commented about how cultured Nazis were because they listened to classical music.
11
I definitely don't want to view his id (in the psychological definition of id).
It hasn't developed since age one !
I would like the NYTimes NOT to mention DJT at all !
It hasn't developed since age one !
I would like the NYTimes NOT to mention DJT at all !
4
I want serious coverage from the New York Times about Trump's damaging behavior. Please do what you're good at and be who you are as an organization and newspaper.
13
Well I dunno, it struck me that trying a weekly column about Trump's good deeds would be done out of sheer derring-do, so to speak. The incredible challenge of such a task would be akin to climbing K-2 blindfolded, just because it was there, or that you heard it was there.
I mean really, Trump is such a complete disaster that I can't think of anything he's done yet as being really good. Maybe if you count saving us from a Ted Cruz presidency.
As for the 30,000 gallons of oil spilled into the East River, for one thing, that's pretty minor compared to how polluted that estuary already is, and it's nowhere near as toxic as the Gowanus, so it's not that huge a deal. For another, this does sound more like something Trump would do.
I mean really, Trump is such a complete disaster that I can't think of anything he's done yet as being really good. Maybe if you count saving us from a Ted Cruz presidency.
As for the 30,000 gallons of oil spilled into the East River, for one thing, that's pretty minor compared to how polluted that estuary already is, and it's nowhere near as toxic as the Gowanus, so it's not that huge a deal. For another, this does sound more like something Trump would do.
2
Actually, Dan, as bad as the Gowanus Canal is, pollution wise, I think you might find that it pales in comparison to Newtown Creek, where a leaking Exxon tank farm, over decades, slow leaked a greater volume of oil than the Exxon Valdez spilled. Both empty into the East River, but the East River, with its rapid current, has actually been remarkably well cleaned compared to thirty years ago.
3
Thanks Paul, you're right, Newtown Creek is a lot worse, and the East River is not as bad as it used to be. Thirty years ago I worked on a ship that went out on it, and when I got East River water on my hands, they would lose the top layer of skin, in what felt like a basic (as opposed to acidic) reaction. There's one quibble though, the East River is just a tidal estuary, so while the current is often strong it goes back and forth; a lot of the water never gets completely out of it before the tide changes. I still wouldn't swim in it nor drink it.
Dan, I regularly see folks fishing in it. I might not recommend eating that catch, either, but I'm sure that they do.
1
Didn't see the "nice" column, won't read it if I do. The Times echoes James Comey's CYA make everybody happy mentality. How about sticking to the: reporting what has happened. You're doing great on that, and may preserve the republic.
6
Note the following: "It is a place to point out positive things Mr. Trump has said or done ***from the viewpoint of The New York Times and its readers.***"
The implication is that the NYT and its readers share a viewpoint; clearly that viewpoint is not the viewpoint of someone who voted for Trump. Rather, it is the viewpoint of someone who is in general a Trump critic. It is interesting that the NYT apparently sees itself as a partisan newspaper that is no longer the "newspaper of record" -- a newspaper of record would have (or seek to have) readers from across the entire political spectrum.
The implication is that the NYT and its readers share a viewpoint; clearly that viewpoint is not the viewpoint of someone who voted for Trump. Rather, it is the viewpoint of someone who is in general a Trump critic. It is interesting that the NYT apparently sees itself as a partisan newspaper that is no longer the "newspaper of record" -- a newspaper of record would have (or seek to have) readers from across the entire political spectrum.
4
Unfortunately the opinions of readers who support Trump is difficult to report on, as they are incapable of communicating coherently. Often they just yell things like, "Benghazi! Lock her up! Make us great! Muslims out! Benghazi!". Very rarely do they use complete sentences, and they never have a grasp of reality anyway.
9
@Dan Stackhouse,
And that's coming from Dan who uses only ad hominem attacks, praises himself on the inventive ways to insult Trump by some empty but dirty descriptions, and never argues with facts - only with people. Like here. Rich! :)
And that's coming from Dan who uses only ad hominem attacks, praises himself on the inventive ways to insult Trump by some empty but dirty descriptions, and never argues with facts - only with people. Like here. Rich! :)
I guess the oil spill in the East River was a "modest story" because most of the sludge was going to the Brooklyn/Queens side and there wasn't a reporter around who knew how to get there.
14
I am astonished at the readers AND the Public Editor, who fail to realize that (a) Michael Kinsley is writing an opinion column, and (b) this series is obviously satiric. They probably get upset about stuff in the Onion too.
6
In a world in which Donald Trump is president, a six-time bankrupt multi-adulterous lady-grabber in chief, backed up by a Congress which is deeply concerned that women have access to Planned Parenthood and keenly upset that rich people don't have another trillion dollars yet (but they will, oh yes they will), the line between satire and reality is blurred indeed. We really don't know, hearing that the Canadians are our latest enemies or that a republican congressman has declared that good people don't get sick, whether it's the onion or just another day in America. So congratulations on your self-assigned superiority to the bemused masses; enjoy it while you can.
3
No, we don't, because we're not idiots — we want excellence in journalism and news from the newspaper of record. I don't have time for The Onion, although I appreciate its humor.
2
"We looked into this and didn’t think it was something we needed to cover with our limited resources. It felt like a very modest story."
Yet, today you have a front page story about a veterinary hospital in Manhattan that treats exotic animals. On any day of the week, there are plenty of articles in your paper where the NYT's journalist was reporting from some far away land.
It is not that you do not have the resources, it is how the NYT's chooses to allocate them.
Yet, today you have a front page story about a veterinary hospital in Manhattan that treats exotic animals. On any day of the week, there are plenty of articles in your paper where the NYT's journalist was reporting from some far away land.
It is not that you do not have the resources, it is how the NYT's chooses to allocate them.
23
Let’s get things straight.
I was pleased as punch that the Times on May 11 published my letter.
I have had letters published in the Times. Not all that many. From time to time people ask me how does one manage to get published in the Times. Play to the New York Times version of balance, I tell them. Write a letter with a conservative take which can then be the one letter from the right among the many from the left. This time my letter was one of eight. The last time it was one of six.
The New York Times is what it is and the New York Times readership is what it is. The abuse heaped on Bret Stephens says something about that, although his latest column does a masterful job of cutting up Donald Trump and may “count for something,” in the words of the Public Editor. The Bret Stephens version of Dale Carnegie’s 1936 best seller, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”
Balance from the Times on Donald Trump? Cozying up to Donald Trump? Currying favor with Donald Trump? About as likely as elephants flying.
I was pleased as punch that the Times on May 11 published my letter.
I have had letters published in the Times. Not all that many. From time to time people ask me how does one manage to get published in the Times. Play to the New York Times version of balance, I tell them. Write a letter with a conservative take which can then be the one letter from the right among the many from the left. This time my letter was one of eight. The last time it was one of six.
The New York Times is what it is and the New York Times readership is what it is. The abuse heaped on Bret Stephens says something about that, although his latest column does a masterful job of cutting up Donald Trump and may “count for something,” in the words of the Public Editor. The Bret Stephens version of Dale Carnegie’s 1936 best seller, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”
Balance from the Times on Donald Trump? Cozying up to Donald Trump? Currying favor with Donald Trump? About as likely as elephants flying.
3
The "abuse heaped on" BS was about his misrepresentation of the state of affairs. I agree it was overdone given the NYT is actually doing better with reporting on climate events.
But that he is a good writer and can think straight (as in the recent column) makes his lack of curiosity about science and climate change, and his slavish following of the party line against climate action (as per Bjorn Lomborg) more culpable.
But that he is a good writer and can think straight (as in the recent column) makes his lack of curiosity about science and climate change, and his slavish following of the party line against climate action (as per Bjorn Lomborg) more culpable.
4
The NY Times is an elephant, and yes, it is still trying to fly after all these years of sinking into oblivion.
No. The abuse was gratuitous, unnecessary, and typically vile.
Perhaps it would be wise for you to put down your foam rubber light saber and tinfoil hat for a while, Ms. Anderson. You are losing sight of reality.
Perhaps it would be wise for you to put down your foam rubber light saber and tinfoil hat for a while, Ms. Anderson. You are losing sight of reality.
How about Trump's hair turning from red, to yellow, to white in his first 100 days?
8
I think the White House barber is attempting to fix the horrid color/cut/style situation atop Trump's head and is moving slowly to avoid obvious changes that would make headlines.
About Kinsley: I think the readers who complained may be satirically challenged, which I've noticed a lot among my fellow NYT readers.
About the oil spill: OK, so it wasn't crude oil. Recently, I carelessly misdirected maybe half a cupful of gasoline when beginning to fill my lawn mower, and within hours every bit of lawn that it touched - grass, weeds, everything - was dead. This oil spill should have been a big story. If the Times can't cover such a thing because of limited resources, maybe a change in priorities would be in order - maybe less fawning on the rich homes and lifestyles of the super wealthy.
About the oil spill: OK, so it wasn't crude oil. Recently, I carelessly misdirected maybe half a cupful of gasoline when beginning to fill my lawn mower, and within hours every bit of lawn that it touched - grass, weeds, everything - was dead. This oil spill should have been a big story. If the Times can't cover such a thing because of limited resources, maybe a change in priorities would be in order - maybe less fawning on the rich homes and lifestyles of the super wealthy.
21
"raise good questions about why there’s a platform dedicated to stabbing a president in the back."
For a moment, I thought Ms. Spayd was being truthful about her employer. Then I realized that I had misread it and she actually said "raise good questions about why there’s a platform dedicated to patting a president on the back."
Pity.
For a moment, I thought Ms. Spayd was being truthful about her employer. Then I realized that I had misread it and she actually said "raise good questions about why there’s a platform dedicated to patting a president on the back."
Pity.
2
Perhaps, Here, this is merely the NY Times staff doing something to keep their Publisher and Executive Editor from being complete frauds and idiots on the issue of reporting "without..favor"
There certainly have been few indications of this from the reportorial, feature, and columinist staff.
I find it particularly interesting that many writing for the Times believe that Trump's firing of Comey was a criminal offense, even an offense worthy of impeachment.
There is an astonishing void of understanding that any appointee to and Executive Branch position that requires Senate confirmation serves at the pleasure of the President.
What makes it more astonishing is that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals...the Court on which Merrick Garland sits...held that the CPFB authorizing legislation was unconstitutional on its stripping of the President to fire such appointees.
Why is it that the writers of the Times, including their cherished legal analyst are so ignorant of the extent of presidential power...
Oh, sorry...no need to answer that question...in the eyes of the Times, anything that Trump or the Republicans who control Congress may do is tantamount to impeachable high crimes.
With that belief so extent, one has to think that our democratic republic is in danger from the such anti-democratic rhetoric.
There certainly have been few indications of this from the reportorial, feature, and columinist staff.
I find it particularly interesting that many writing for the Times believe that Trump's firing of Comey was a criminal offense, even an offense worthy of impeachment.
There is an astonishing void of understanding that any appointee to and Executive Branch position that requires Senate confirmation serves at the pleasure of the President.
What makes it more astonishing is that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals...the Court on which Merrick Garland sits...held that the CPFB authorizing legislation was unconstitutional on its stripping of the President to fire such appointees.
Why is it that the writers of the Times, including their cherished legal analyst are so ignorant of the extent of presidential power...
Oh, sorry...no need to answer that question...in the eyes of the Times, anything that Trump or the Republicans who control Congress may do is tantamount to impeachable high crimes.
With that belief so extent, one has to think that our democratic republic is in danger from the such anti-democratic rhetoric.
5
Yes, the need to pat this President on the back and to have to constantly defend him is a pitiful thing. Sean Spicer deserves the pity of all Americans. I would also pity this nation for having to endure such an embarrassment of inanities that its "leader" represents, but for the fact that we brought it upon ourselves: the Republicans for nominating him and the Democrats for nominating the one person he could beat (with a little help from his friends in Moscow and at Fox News, history's most incongruent allies).
3
Owl, Graland is Chief Judge for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Second Circuit, which is in NYC.
1
Strange that the info at the bottom of this column gives the public editor's email address and suggests that letter writers email in order "To be featured here." Should that really be the impetus for a letter?
6
"We looked into this and didn’t think it was something we needed to cover with our limited resources. It felt like a very modest story."
Why are the editors' defenses so frequently purely subjective, like this one? Jamieson doesn't state any _reasons why_ the oil spill didn't merit coverage. He only says how the editors "felt" about it, not how they came to feel that way. In previous weeks, we've seen the editors simply give an account of the conversation that took place around a story -- who felt what, when -- but still not giving any substantive reasons for their decisions.
Why are the editors' defenses so frequently purely subjective, like this one? Jamieson doesn't state any _reasons why_ the oil spill didn't merit coverage. He only says how the editors "felt" about it, not how they came to feel that way. In previous weeks, we've seen the editors simply give an account of the conversation that took place around a story -- who felt what, when -- but still not giving any substantive reasons for their decisions.
20
It would be nice, and honorable, if NYTimes editors would actually admit to screwing up coverage once in a while instead of issuing a Trump-like defense of every decision they make. The absence of an oil-spill story was a major goof. Own up to it. Tell us, "Yes, we missed that one, but we plan to follow up on the environmental impacts." The quick dismissal of the news as minor was ludicrous.
43
It is likely they won't make such admissions because they are even worse than Trump or any elected politician in admitting errors.
Remember, the letter from Sulzberger and Baquet on the Times failures in the 2016 wasn't as extraordinary in what it said as it was that they actually stepped forward to say anything.
Remember, the letter from Sulzberger and Baquet on the Times failures in the 2016 wasn't as extraordinary in what it said as it was that they actually stepped forward to say anything.
6
To the letter writer who complained that Kinsley's column "isn't journalism": Columnists aren't necessarily "journalists" to begin with (except in the very strictest sense that they write for journals). Traditionally, they've been considered as such, but I think that's a rather kind, and more than a little misleading, label. Those who specialize in news analysis based on reliably reported facts may be, while those at the other end of the spectrum specializing in something else (e.g., fact-free spin, humor, etc.) are not. Most lie somewhere between these poles.
There may or may not be good reasons to read a particular columnist, but trying to get at the unvarnished truth isn't one of them. We have reporters for that, and that's what we should expect from them and their stories. If you're looking to columnists to provide unbiased, purely serious takes on the world around us, you're looking in the wrong place.
There may or may not be good reasons to read a particular columnist, but trying to get at the unvarnished truth isn't one of them. We have reporters for that, and that's what we should expect from them and their stories. If you're looking to columnists to provide unbiased, purely serious takes on the world around us, you're looking in the wrong place.
3
Wendell Jamieson is such a card. Here he presides over the rapidly dwindling resources of a once proud Metro Section, sitting in the chair once occupied by Sydney Schanberg. A former full section once sported a police beat reporter named Maureen Dowd.
Now the "limited resources" preclude covering a fairly large oil spill, though much smaller than the decades long spill befouling Newtown Creek.
Clicking on New York on the main menu gives this as the Metro digital page:
https://www.nytimes.com/section/nyregion?action=click&contentCollect...®ion=TopBar&version=BrowseTree
The lead article in the Metro Section? "The Doctor Will See Your Iguana Now."
Evidently, while unwilling or unable to cover the local environment, the Metro Section DOES support a feature called "Pet City."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/nyregion/exotic-animal-hospital.html
Do the Metro Editor and the Public Editor think that we won't do even perfunctory looks at their remits to reveal exasperatingly embarrassingly misplaced priorities?
Lifestyles of the rich exotic pet lovers...
Now the "limited resources" preclude covering a fairly large oil spill, though much smaller than the decades long spill befouling Newtown Creek.
Clicking on New York on the main menu gives this as the Metro digital page:
https://www.nytimes.com/section/nyregion?action=click&contentCollect...®ion=TopBar&version=BrowseTree
The lead article in the Metro Section? "The Doctor Will See Your Iguana Now."
Evidently, while unwilling or unable to cover the local environment, the Metro Section DOES support a feature called "Pet City."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/nyregion/exotic-animal-hospital.html
Do the Metro Editor and the Public Editor think that we won't do even perfunctory looks at their remits to reveal exasperatingly embarrassingly misplaced priorities?
Lifestyles of the rich exotic pet lovers...
28
Gee, Wendell, for a few hours, the Iguana and Duck doctor was actually the lead article on the Times' digital front page.
So for Wendell, that is a spectacular use of "limited resources," a Metro article made it to the top of the digital front page.
I give it five monocles!
So for Wendell, that is a spectacular use of "limited resources," a Metro article made it to the top of the digital front page.
I give it five monocles!
7
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/nyregion/theres-more-than-one-way-to-...®ion=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region
Still no Metro coverage of pollution, but another "Pet City" feature, this one on the hazardous job of shaving cats. What, no waxing, or is that left to the Well Blog?
Still no Metro coverage of pollution, but another "Pet City" feature, this one on the hazardous job of shaving cats. What, no waxing, or is that left to the Well Blog?
1
A column about patting a President on the back?
Depends on the President. Not looking for that kind of column for at least
3 1/2 years.
Depends on the President. Not looking for that kind of column for at least
3 1/2 years.
10
Sooner than that, surely. I'm confident the paper will give Pence a fair shake.
"Write something nice about the president"... Words fail me.
16
For a person like Trump who is a bigoted, rabble rousing, admitted sexual predator, pathological liar, ego maniac and demagogue, I think the NY Times has gone out of their way in trying to be objective re him.
You have the thankless task of covering this demagogue in a dignified, professional way.
You have the thankless task of covering this demagogue in a dignified, professional way.
10
With respect to the oil spill story... Reporters and editors assume that their readers are following Twitter, TV news, and other newspaper sites -- because that is what they do all day as they work. The readers have to follow the news sources related to their own specific industry or profession. We count on The Times to cover major local and national stories.
5
One would think that an oil spill in the NYT's backyard would qualify as a "major local" story. Regardless of how big the actual spill was, as other media outlets have reported, the spill will likely have significant environmental impact on the area for some time. I agree with other commenters that the Metro editor who responded to this inquiry should have just owned up to the mistake, rather than providing a wishy-washy response that makes it abundantly clear The Times really no longer has any interest in covering New York City. That's a shame but all signs point to the fact that The Times is slowly abandoning its local coverage.
10
Has anybody written in to say "something nice" about Mr. Trump? Anything at all?
5
Inquiring mind want to know: Which members of the Executive Branch did swear loyalty to Donald Trump personally, if Comey didnt?
13
It would also be interesting if the trumpeter is pushing his non disclosure agreements with employees at the white house. It would be inconsistent for him not to push this approach with employees.
"We looked into this and didn’t think it was something we needed to cover with our limited resources. It felt like a very modest story."
Hmmm....
Yet - Yesterday there was an feature article all about the cosmetic retailer Sephora - and its appeal to the "Under - 40" crowd, which is apparently the reason for its success...
I suppose the Times' limited resources need to be directed towards the interests of its millennial readership - who, apparently, are more focused on the latest hip and trendy cosmetics than they are in a silly old 30,000-gallon oil spill in one of New York's rivers --
Hopefully those readers will become the income stream the Times is looking for as it tries to reinvent itself and stay afloat in the digital age -
One wonders what Russell Baker would have made of this...
Hmmm....
Yet - Yesterday there was an feature article all about the cosmetic retailer Sephora - and its appeal to the "Under - 40" crowd, which is apparently the reason for its success...
I suppose the Times' limited resources need to be directed towards the interests of its millennial readership - who, apparently, are more focused on the latest hip and trendy cosmetics than they are in a silly old 30,000-gallon oil spill in one of New York's rivers --
Hopefully those readers will become the income stream the Times is looking for as it tries to reinvent itself and stay afloat in the digital age -
One wonders what Russell Baker would have made of this...
25
Of course...Millennials are the profit center of the 21st century Times. Simple as that.
Public Editor Liz Spayd's esponses to reader complaints demonstrate once again why she is failing utterly to fulfill her function as The Times' internal critic. First, Spayd only contacts a Times editor or reporter for a comment. At no time does she actually confront those editors and reporters with her own criticism. At no time does she demand a retraction or argue with those editors that what they did was misguided or wrong. All we get are the mildest of after-the-fact "public editor's takes."
To reader complaint #1: "...the readers we've heard from...raise good questions about why there's a platform dedicated to patting a president on the back."
To reader complaint #2: "...it would have been helpful to readers to publish a wire story, if there was no one available on staff."
To reader complaint #3: "...ideally, readers would be given more information to determine for themselves whether there's a conflict."
To reader complaint #4: "It might have been useful to drop a sentence into the piece letting readers know of its quality and to beware generally."
In short, The Times' internal critic offers up only the mildest comments, and refuses to criticize Times management for any journalistic failings.
This is not a public editor functioning as she should.
To reader complaint #1: "...the readers we've heard from...raise good questions about why there's a platform dedicated to patting a president on the back."
To reader complaint #2: "...it would have been helpful to readers to publish a wire story, if there was no one available on staff."
To reader complaint #3: "...ideally, readers would be given more information to determine for themselves whether there's a conflict."
To reader complaint #4: "It might have been useful to drop a sentence into the piece letting readers know of its quality and to beware generally."
In short, The Times' internal critic offers up only the mildest comments, and refuses to criticize Times management for any journalistic failings.
This is not a public editor functioning as she should.
33
So you want a typical, New York-esque, in-your-face response? It might make for good reading entertainment but it definitely would not work in a newsroom environment riven by creative tensions bordering on explosions. Besides, as my old daddy would say, you get a helluve more with honey than vinegar.
PLEASE just report the news, and let the White House, the Republicans in Congress, and the Cabinet market Trump.
11
Trump is the funniest president since Nixon
5
Yeah - except for one thing --
Nixon wasn't funny...
Nixon wasn't funny...
3
There is a song in the 1941 Disney film Dumbo: I will have seen everything “When I see an elephant fly.”
We read in regard to the Michael Kinsley column that the Times is “cozying up to Donald Trump.” The Times is attempting to “curry favor” with the president.” From the Public Editor, the Times might be making a ”serious effort to balance out the negative with a little positive.”
Welcome to the elephant flying.
How comforting it must be to Donald Trump to open up the Times each day, see the Times assault on his presidency from every possible corner-editorial, columnists, news coverage, letters- and every possible angle, and think, terrific. The Times is now cozying up to me, currying favor with me, balancing out the negative with a little positive.
Right. Welcome to the real world, not the world in which elephants fly. What Pravda is to championing Communism, the New York Times is to “the Resistance.”
On May 11 the Times published eight letters on Trump’s firing of James Comey. Seven were anti-Trump. One letter pointed out how until that firing, to the Democrats and the liberal media, Comey was the arch-villain who had cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. With the firing Comey became to these same Democrats and liberal media a hero, a victim, an Archibald Cox to Trump’s Nixon, someone who was let go as part of the Trump cover-up of Russian collusion.
That letter was mine. Seven one way, one the other way. The New York Times concept of balance.
We read in regard to the Michael Kinsley column that the Times is “cozying up to Donald Trump.” The Times is attempting to “curry favor” with the president.” From the Public Editor, the Times might be making a ”serious effort to balance out the negative with a little positive.”
Welcome to the elephant flying.
How comforting it must be to Donald Trump to open up the Times each day, see the Times assault on his presidency from every possible corner-editorial, columnists, news coverage, letters- and every possible angle, and think, terrific. The Times is now cozying up to me, currying favor with me, balancing out the negative with a little positive.
Right. Welcome to the real world, not the world in which elephants fly. What Pravda is to championing Communism, the New York Times is to “the Resistance.”
On May 11 the Times published eight letters on Trump’s firing of James Comey. Seven were anti-Trump. One letter pointed out how until that firing, to the Democrats and the liberal media, Comey was the arch-villain who had cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. With the firing Comey became to these same Democrats and liberal media a hero, a victim, an Archibald Cox to Trump’s Nixon, someone who was let go as part of the Trump cover-up of Russian collusion.
That letter was mine. Seven one way, one the other way. The New York Times concept of balance.
3
Donald, you are sounding like a "poor little snowflake."
9
it doesn't sound like your letter had anything positive to say, either. Complaining if the Democrats appear to have flip-flopped on Comey (which is not necessarily true, but anyway) says nothing positive about his actual firing. Only in Trump's "my team vs. your team" world does attacking the Democrats' reaction mean supporting Trump's action. Maybe it's because there is nothing positive to say about it?
8
I will note that the Republican party appears to be being held captive at the elephant camp being run by Donald Trunk, I mean Trump, as they trample the values of American democracy.
10