For years I very often read the NYT. I stopped, however reading the NYT's political coverage after they did a hatchet job on Bernie Sanders, falsely became a cheering section for Hillary Clinton and then initially sucked up to Donald Trump. Considering that the Public Editor is paid by her employer, it was amazing that the position was ever more than a public apologist for the NYT. Now not even that semi-sham is to continue. At least the NYT, like our disaster of a President, is showing its true colors.
14
Why did you drag this poor woman away from the Post, ignore her for a year and then decide you're too high and mighty for a Public Editor?
19
I am and have always been a "Times Guy."
But I am profoundly disappointed by your decision to eliminate the Public Editor.
All will be just fine until you next screw-up, self-inflicted or not, when you will find yourself without a trusted, independent arbiter to take a good, hard look at the mess.
And then will come the inevitable:
"Several years ago, we .................. We may have thought we were on solid ground, but time and experience dealing with the recent controversy about ............ has made it clear that we acted with haste and ................... And so today we again begin the ..................
But I am profoundly disappointed by your decision to eliminate the Public Editor.
All will be just fine until you next screw-up, self-inflicted or not, when you will find yourself without a trusted, independent arbiter to take a good, hard look at the mess.
And then will come the inevitable:
"Several years ago, we .................. We may have thought we were on solid ground, but time and experience dealing with the recent controversy about ............ has made it clear that we acted with haste and ................... And so today we again begin the ..................
23
This is terrible. The NYT now manages news as propaganda. The Public Editor was the only place in the publication where people could point out the imbalances and distortions that have come to dominate coverage. I will now think seriously about canceling my subscription.
15
One of President Trump's many character flaws is that he does not welcome criticism. You might think the media would want to distinguish itself by being open to it. Someone has to set an example here. So, why not the media itself?
Alas, as goes Trump, so goes the media. What an ironic time for the NYT to terminate the position of Public Editor.
Alas, as goes Trump, so goes the media. What an ironic time for the NYT to terminate the position of Public Editor.
17
The NYT's has no problem releasing the thousands of comments on a Trump article in near real time. When it comes to this article where there is much criticism of a once valued publication that is spiraling downward, it takes five days for comments to appear.
13
I can't agree more with Liz Spayd and I am sad to see the NYT cancelling this decades old role of the public editor.
As a once faithful reader, I no longer trust, nor like the NYT political coverage, editorial and homepage. It started about 3 years ago, and I hoped it will get better after the last election, but it is only getting worse.
Dean Baquet has brought an unscrupulous partisanship to NYT. Under his leadership as Executive editor the credibility of the Gray lady has been utterly destroyed. Apart from an echo-chamber of highly partisan readers and op-ed writers, the Times lost its authority and influence upon all the rest. It was horribly discredited during the last election with all its push for HRC's victory and all the fake data, but it didn't learn its lesson.
These days I get depressed each time I glance at the front page in its third year effort to destroy Trump and cover him 100% negative even when it means making fake news or exaggerating like the National Inquirer. Most of my friends cancelled their subscriptions. From op ed to to news to comments approval, everything is highly partisan.
I also dislike the Times take on immigration, refugees, radical Islam, Bernie Sanders and the progressives, since Baquet took office. It no longer represents the mainstream view and will of the majority, but a narrow political agenda sold to us ad nausea, which crosses all the lines.
Goodbye Liz and say good-riddance to NYT on your way out!
As a once faithful reader, I no longer trust, nor like the NYT political coverage, editorial and homepage. It started about 3 years ago, and I hoped it will get better after the last election, but it is only getting worse.
Dean Baquet has brought an unscrupulous partisanship to NYT. Under his leadership as Executive editor the credibility of the Gray lady has been utterly destroyed. Apart from an echo-chamber of highly partisan readers and op-ed writers, the Times lost its authority and influence upon all the rest. It was horribly discredited during the last election with all its push for HRC's victory and all the fake data, but it didn't learn its lesson.
These days I get depressed each time I glance at the front page in its third year effort to destroy Trump and cover him 100% negative even when it means making fake news or exaggerating like the National Inquirer. Most of my friends cancelled their subscriptions. From op ed to to news to comments approval, everything is highly partisan.
I also dislike the Times take on immigration, refugees, radical Islam, Bernie Sanders and the progressives, since Baquet took office. It no longer represents the mainstream view and will of the majority, but a narrow political agenda sold to us ad nausea, which crosses all the lines.
Goodbye Liz and say good-riddance to NYT on your way out!
11
I agree with the Times decision to abandon the so-called 'Public Editor'. Multiple inhabitants of this office frequently seemed far too willing to offer cutting criticism that hurt more than helped. Often, any possible constructive help was frequently outweighed by the damage to the Times's reputation. I'm guessing morale of the news staff will be improved, knowing that they cannot get dumped on by this or any future Public Editors who seem to think their mission included humiliating Times reporters and editors.
The Times' decision to jettison its Public Editor is bewildering. It's hard to argue that a combination of consumer comments AND an insider with authority to get answers from top editors can best hold the institution accountable. Therefore, this decision has to have been driven by economics. On a base level, Liz Spayd and her predecessors are terrific writers. Their essays, like those of the Times' other wonderful columnists, were interesting to read. So there's that loss too. Like we needed something else to be unsettled by in 2017.
9
If someone is still reading these (thank you, Mr. Gershkovich for all of your hard work) until the Reader Center or whatever the replacement is set up:
I am once again having an issue where News/Opinion moderators keep holding some of my posts for hours or overnight - while letting hundreds of others go through. So it's not a matter of no moderator to publish posts. It's just mine specifically don't go through until long after I've sent them.
Seriously, once last week I submitted a comment when there were about 200 and by the time mine got printed there were 1800+ out of 2500+. And no, I didn't accidentally not see it. It wasn't there.
At least in that instance my original post got printed. Sometimes the original one shows up, sometimes it doesn't. (Funnily, twice I've had a comment not show up at all originally, but when I've resubmitted the exact duplicate it was an NYT Pick.)
(I learned from the last time this was happening frequently - again, only on stories on the front page or Opinion, usually politics-related - to keep copies of my comments and simply submit them again. )
In today's (June 15) case both the original and the resubmitted one went through, (They're just 30 or 40 comments apart -though I submitted them more than two hours apart.) I don't know why this happens so often (it's happened three times in the past three weeks, all when the topic related to Bernie Sanders or the Democratic Party) but I don't appreciate it.
I am once again having an issue where News/Opinion moderators keep holding some of my posts for hours or overnight - while letting hundreds of others go through. So it's not a matter of no moderator to publish posts. It's just mine specifically don't go through until long after I've sent them.
Seriously, once last week I submitted a comment when there were about 200 and by the time mine got printed there were 1800+ out of 2500+. And no, I didn't accidentally not see it. It wasn't there.
At least in that instance my original post got printed. Sometimes the original one shows up, sometimes it doesn't. (Funnily, twice I've had a comment not show up at all originally, but when I've resubmitted the exact duplicate it was an NYT Pick.)
(I learned from the last time this was happening frequently - again, only on stories on the front page or Opinion, usually politics-related - to keep copies of my comments and simply submit them again. )
In today's (June 15) case both the original and the resubmitted one went through, (They're just 30 or 40 comments apart -though I submitted them more than two hours apart.) I don't know why this happens so often (it's happened three times in the past three weeks, all when the topic related to Bernie Sanders or the Democratic Party) but I don't appreciate it.
6
I have red Ms Spayd's last column but haven't yet read the 491 comments already posted as I type. I can easily imagine where most come out. There is no question that the Times is excessively partisan, even unwittingly so, in these difficult days. It is making a big mistake by eliminating an important check on its partisanship and I honestly wonder whether it will survive the coming wars -- cultural, political, and worse. The newspaper must redouble its efforts to improve itself: to insure accountability, to report the news fairly, to insist on identification of its sources and to eschew cheap sensationalism and pandering to its base. Or, I will predict, it will surely fail.
5
It wasn't enough for the Times that it got to select the person charged with being the readers' representative. It never liked the idea that any employee of the paper got space to criticize the reporting and editorializing. So, for reasons unexplained to us of course, there's no "public editor" at all.
Most of the people who served were often apologists for the Times, and all of their critical comments were expressed in very measured terms.
The breadth of the Times is its best quality. But its smugness, snobbish perspective( (e.g. the Sunday Real Estate section), and refusal to be self-critical are weaknesses that do readers and the paper itself a disservice.
The writing is not what it was: copy editing seems to have been cut back.
Because in many ways the Times is more like a club than a business, Times reporters use similar language and identical fancy words (like "roil") that most intelligent people rarely or never utter, as if there's a language virus in the newsroom. And while it is the great promoter of equality in the workplace. its hiring practices are more opaque than country club admissions standards.
Were readers ever told why any op-ed page writer was selected or let go? Why the previous executive editor was fired? Why the publisher position is repeatedly handed down from father to son? There may be good reasons. Readers should be told them; an independent public editor could tell us the bad ones. The Times itself never will.
Most of the people who served were often apologists for the Times, and all of their critical comments were expressed in very measured terms.
The breadth of the Times is its best quality. But its smugness, snobbish perspective( (e.g. the Sunday Real Estate section), and refusal to be self-critical are weaknesses that do readers and the paper itself a disservice.
The writing is not what it was: copy editing seems to have been cut back.
Because in many ways the Times is more like a club than a business, Times reporters use similar language and identical fancy words (like "roil") that most intelligent people rarely or never utter, as if there's a language virus in the newsroom. And while it is the great promoter of equality in the workplace. its hiring practices are more opaque than country club admissions standards.
Were readers ever told why any op-ed page writer was selected or let go? Why the previous executive editor was fired? Why the publisher position is repeatedly handed down from father to son? There may be good reasons. Readers should be told them; an independent public editor could tell us the bad ones. The Times itself never will.
8
Thank you.
Bizarre time for this decision. Liz Spayd has bee the weakest by far in this position, but the position itself is useful. As the Trump destruction proceeds, sadly, the Times is transforming itself into a more colorful and quick-to-read publication, with videos galore but with fewer reporters. And the Times has been a lap behind the Washington Post on DC coverage of crimes, misdemeanors and unclassifiable sleaze.
8
Shame on the NY Times for its craven corporate newspeak. It can't stand to have its errors & biases challenged. This is another sad day for American journalism.
7
Its the New NYT, begun some years ago.
Recent examples are the repeated dishonest slamming of Bernie... Running a contest for questions for him to answer during the campaign and then only publishing one.
Half the time when I open a My Comment in my email, it does not open to the comment I made, even when scrolling through comments, way down the page.
Recent examples are the repeated dishonest slamming of Bernie... Running a contest for questions for him to answer during the campaign and then only publishing one.
Half the time when I open a My Comment in my email, it does not open to the comment I made, even when scrolling through comments, way down the page.
6
I found it remarkable that June 7, 2017 article by Bossert, "Congress Must Reauthorize Foreign Surveillance", was open to comments. Now that this is no public editor, will the NY Times make it clear to its readers how they should provide feedback? Do you still accept letters to the editor? I am not exactly a novice when it comes to navigating the web, but it is not at all obvious what forum to use for feedback on your website. Are social media the vehicles you are promoting going forward?
4
So far I have seen few articles with "comments" or that challenge the premise of the article. Even good articles could use improvement. The Times seems to be retreating into a self-satisfied bubble.
3
The Public Editor. The Haggler. Streetscapes. All gone now. Plenty of articles about $500 t-shirts and $3000 table-lamps however.
13
Your perspective concerning the NY Times overplaying its disdain for Donald Trump ever since the primary season is absolutely excellent. The New York Times gave Mr. Trump considerable help with the minute by minute coverage and the enormous amount of print provided free of charge. It gave his supporters ammunition and helped to galvanize the country into two camps. The Times gave up its credibility in exchange for the political views of its - editors? owners? readers? And once lost it is hard to recover as you say so very well. Use tone and innuendo in place of fact and reflection and the extremely intelligent readers of the NYT will see it which I believe is exactly why they lost so many readers and had to put out the request for loyalty a while back. Keep the kevlar on, no doubt you will need it when and where you next land. And wherever you land, we will be reading.
1
Farewell, Ms. Spayd. You and your important position will be missed by many, many readers. Meantime, the decision to abandon a public editor is inexplicable and depressing.
9
The Times concept of reader participation is publishing thousands of comments on single articles that all reliably say the same thing.
7
If the comments all say the same thing, then the numbers of them are what begin to count. 700 on Chelsea Manning in heels; 5000 on Comey's testimony - that begins to tell you something.
2
Well, it's sad the NYT doesn't have room for a proper ombudswoman but in fact this column, though asking a few mild questions, mostly provided comforting explanations rather than corrective action when the news organ got out of tune with the truth. It seemed clear the paper did not welcome the suggestion that it might do more than "splainin'" and actually make corrections to some of its missteps.
Good luck in the future, Liz Spayd, wishing you all the best.
Good luck in the future, Liz Spayd, wishing you all the best.
9
For what it's worth: I wrote this comment about five days ago. I used to love the Times...We are headed into dark times....
28
Comments I posted here 4 DAYS AGO are finally getting through "moderation". So much for the "accountability" of social media NYTimes' style. And this article is now buried somewhere deep in the web site never to be found again.
For shame NYT.
For shame NYT.
36
Sadly, it's becoming more evident that the Times has lost its way. After reading it for a lifetime (since I was first able to read) I was sad to see the recent changes Ms. Spayed talked about -- the changed op-ed page, p.3, valuable real estate now filled with soundbites and "here to help" the young and clueless with hangover problems, etc.
I knew something was amiss when such huge changes were afoot and so little reader commentary about them in print. The changes were, in fact, changes that might better be tolerated online, where the readership for this nonsense is, than in print where we print subscribers pay to subsidize the Times.
And now this. Though the previous public editors far surpassed Ms. Spayed, eliminating the position without a clear link to where the readers may directly address our concerns, tells me the Times is no longer responsive to me, someone to whom the paper never had to be relevant to my life (how could it be to a child?) but was always aspirational. My aspirations are sadly diminished now.
I knew something was amiss when such huge changes were afoot and so little reader commentary about them in print. The changes were, in fact, changes that might better be tolerated online, where the readership for this nonsense is, than in print where we print subscribers pay to subsidize the Times.
And now this. Though the previous public editors far surpassed Ms. Spayed, eliminating the position without a clear link to where the readers may directly address our concerns, tells me the Times is no longer responsive to me, someone to whom the paper never had to be relevant to my life (how could it be to a child?) but was always aspirational. My aspirations are sadly diminished now.
25
I'm sad this position is being eliminated. The public editor is a check on the excesses of "easily-written" journalism in the NYT. I love the NYT. However, months ago I felt like I had to resubscribe to the WSJ, because there is just too much opinion and I just want news and numbers. Mind you, the WSJ took a nose dive last month, sadly.
Opinion I love too but it has ventured into the Courtiers Reply. Or writing about The Emperor's New Clothes. Especially the he said, she said stuff. I guess you don't have to do any real reporting with navel gazing, twitter content, and P.R. releases. It would be great if those particular reporters actually went down to D.C., or the courthouse, or the police station, to find out what is going on. Pavement work is important. You do have some wonderful reporting and you should nip this in the bud. Or full-flower.
I loved the previous slice of life stuff, Harpers or New Yorker-style, that is now almost totally gone except in N.Y./ Metro. Just remember how boring it is to read about what people tweet or put out in press releases. Please don't turn into Raw Story. We need intellectuals at the mast, writing about all sorts of things. Context is important, as is the past history of the U.S., in terms of congress, the Supreme court and the presidency. Lastly, don't skeletonize your newspaper like Gannett. Thanks for reading my rant. Sorry to see you go Mrs! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/
Opinion I love too but it has ventured into the Courtiers Reply. Or writing about The Emperor's New Clothes. Especially the he said, she said stuff. I guess you don't have to do any real reporting with navel gazing, twitter content, and P.R. releases. It would be great if those particular reporters actually went down to D.C., or the courthouse, or the police station, to find out what is going on. Pavement work is important. You do have some wonderful reporting and you should nip this in the bud. Or full-flower.
I loved the previous slice of life stuff, Harpers or New Yorker-style, that is now almost totally gone except in N.Y./ Metro. Just remember how boring it is to read about what people tweet or put out in press releases. Please don't turn into Raw Story. We need intellectuals at the mast, writing about all sorts of things. Context is important, as is the past history of the U.S., in terms of congress, the Supreme court and the presidency. Lastly, don't skeletonize your newspaper like Gannett. Thanks for reading my rant. Sorry to see you go Mrs! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/
7
NYT: Please release the rest of the comments.
26
I've long felt that the "public editor" position at the NYT should be abolished. That's not because a responsible journalistic organization shouldn't have an ombudsman, but because the position as implemented by the Times was an entirely phony one.
I know from repeated personal experience that the practice of the first five public editors was simply to stonewall reader complaints that no honest journalist could have dismissed as insubstantial. The only response received to such complaints was an automated one, despite repeated attempts to follow-up.
In fairness, I can't speak to Ms. Spayd's performance, since by the time she assumed her position I had concluded that writing to the public editor was a complete waste of time and had stopped doing it.
Although I'm sure that financial considerations were a major factor in the NYT's decision, the changes that have occurred over the last 15 years in the kind of newspaper the Times is rendered the public editor position an absurd anachronism. The Times I grew up with, and revered, was dedicated to reporting the news "without fear or favor" and to confining editorializing to the opinion pages. That journalistic standard has now been totally jettisoned in favor of letting reporters write in their own "voice." And, invariably, the "voices" at the NYT reflect the paper's re-conception of its mission from one of objective news reporting to that of aid to the "resistance."
I know from repeated personal experience that the practice of the first five public editors was simply to stonewall reader complaints that no honest journalist could have dismissed as insubstantial. The only response received to such complaints was an automated one, despite repeated attempts to follow-up.
In fairness, I can't speak to Ms. Spayd's performance, since by the time she assumed her position I had concluded that writing to the public editor was a complete waste of time and had stopped doing it.
Although I'm sure that financial considerations were a major factor in the NYT's decision, the changes that have occurred over the last 15 years in the kind of newspaper the Times is rendered the public editor position an absurd anachronism. The Times I grew up with, and revered, was dedicated to reporting the news "without fear or favor" and to confining editorializing to the opinion pages. That journalistic standard has now been totally jettisoned in favor of letting reporters write in their own "voice." And, invariably, the "voices" at the NYT reflect the paper's re-conception of its mission from one of objective news reporting to that of aid to the "resistance."
8
Here! Here! Well said.
Who cares what you feel??? You make it seem as if your opinion is most important.
Au revoir, um, Liz. Gosh, this is so awkward: I've observed your wish to be "just Spayd" in all my comments here--except for this one. I for one have been a fan of yours; you have been a fine Public Editor. So there, I tried to make it a little more personal Spayd!
So the Times will be letting commenters, Twitter, Facebook, et. al. take the Public Editor's place? As in "Twitter is furious with the New York Times," the internet goes wild over Times article," "Times op-ed goes viral," like the zillions of click-bait sites proclaim everyday while begging you to click their links?
I'm sure that will hold the Times editors' feet to the fire. Yeah, I'm certain of it--given how, after the buyouts, there won't be many feet to scorch.
So the Times will be letting commenters, Twitter, Facebook, et. al. take the Public Editor's place? As in "Twitter is furious with the New York Times," the internet goes wild over Times article," "Times op-ed goes viral," like the zillions of click-bait sites proclaim everyday while begging you to click their links?
I'm sure that will hold the Times editors' feet to the fire. Yeah, I'm certain of it--given how, after the buyouts, there won't be many feet to scorch.
10
I understand the Public Editor's bemoaning her loss of employment, but it's important to note that the "public editor" - in house critic - role is a new one in American journalism. Certainly the 24 hour news cycle and 60/60/24/365 cycle of the Internet have changed journalism reality and demands, but there was no Public Editor at the Washington Post - or at the Times, during the years of Richard Nixon and Deep Throat, and I doubt that few would disagree with the contention that those years were the high point of American journalism in the past 100 years.
3
Eloise,
If the Public Editor's role is so insignificant why did the Times initiate the role in the first place?
If the Public Editor's role is so insignificant why did the Times initiate the role in the first place?
4
Watergate wasn't the high point of journalism in the last century. Today's journalism is. This joyous old-fashioned newspaper war between NYT and WaPo (with the AP, WSJ, Reuters, CNN and others biting at their ankles) is acting as a check on the catastophic Executive Branch we elected last November. In a democracy people get the government they deserve, so journalism is saving us from ourselves.
2
Well nowthat a bit of journalistic integrity has left the building, along with the better part of editorial supervision of accuracy and quality, it will not be long before the Times becomes the "New York Tweet", aka "all of the news that's fit to print as long as its164 bytes or shorter". Bruni, Dowd and occasionally Hentoff do provide adult writing and quality, however you opine on their subjects, but now that the paper of record is becoming a one-note screed of dubious veracity and writing standards, what's the point? Farewell Liz, you had the courage to stand up to power and take the abuse from all comers, we wish you well. You deserve better, guess the Times does not.
7
1. I don't think Nat Hentoff ever wrote for the Times, and
2. I think his death means he never will in the future.
2. I think his death means he never will in the future.
1
NYT is biased and so far from the definition of journalism, I wonder how it will stand much longer. Why can the Editors not see our nation needs honest, neutral, fact-reporting (NO anonymous reports) information. It seems the writers believe the reader to be ignorant and unable to make an informed decision; I personally find it insulting. What a time to rise and shine when there are few publications that meet the above criteria.
6
The bottom line is that Ms. Spayd raised uncomfortable questions about the times' fairness, or (to be blunt) lack thereof, regarding the coverage of President Trump. It is now long since Jayson Blair, and so the Public Editor is surplus to requirements and has been axed (possibly her contract wasn't quite as ironclad as Ms. Sullivan's). Thus, the times will rely on readership reaction, and the readership will want nasty things said about Trump. The conflict between readership desires and the libel laws is a question for another day.
7
Dear Mr. Bacquet and Mr. Sulzberger,
If you think the cacophony of feedback from social media is equivalent to a professional journalist with access to you both and other editors and writers internally you are vastly mistaken. The last thing you want is to give critics on the right (or anywhere for that matter) more ammunition that the Times is a partisan left wing, anti-Trump screed.
PLEASE reinstate this position. The general public needs it more than the paper does.
If you think the cacophony of feedback from social media is equivalent to a professional journalist with access to you both and other editors and writers internally you are vastly mistaken. The last thing you want is to give critics on the right (or anywhere for that matter) more ammunition that the Times is a partisan left wing, anti-Trump screed.
PLEASE reinstate this position. The general public needs it more than the paper does.
13
Is it the case that Liz Spayd is signing off or that the Times is signing off? The last moderated comment was two days ago. Oh, now I remember. Last fall the Times said that henceforth most moderation was going to be done by Google algorithms. So, probably, the two fifteen year old kids in Mumbai and Riga writing the algorithms for a last column were given the day off. And, miraculously, tomorrow when Liz's last column is no longer on the Home Page or even directly accessible under Opinion, stacked up comments will suddenly appear.
Hey folks, would you buy a used Public Editor Algorithm from the Times? Maybe the Times could save even more money by replacing Rosenthal and Baquet with algorithms. I mean I'm sure you can get a copy of the Jason Blair algorithm cheaply. Fake news vs fake algorithms, hmmm, now there's an interesting match-up. OK, I'm wandering. Unfortunately, such seems appropriate.......... 10-30
Hey folks, would you buy a used Public Editor Algorithm from the Times? Maybe the Times could save even more money by replacing Rosenthal and Baquet with algorithms. I mean I'm sure you can get a copy of the Jason Blair algorithm cheaply. Fake news vs fake algorithms, hmmm, now there's an interesting match-up. OK, I'm wandering. Unfortunately, such seems appropriate.......... 10-30
10
Requiescat in pace
This may be Liz Spayd's best column. And that is much of the problem! For years I looked forward to Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan's, columns and to the comments, usually the most substantive and perceptive of any set of comments. Meanwhile, I frequently added my own two cents.
When Spayd took over from Sullivan, the column changed dramatically. It became boring and irrelevant to pertinent issues, often sounding like editorial rear covering. Finally I stopped commenting and reading it and, eventually not bothering to read the comments, as I noticed many of the regular, more interesting commenters seemed to have stopped commenting.
There were two alternatives, and to this day I do not know which tells the story. On one hand it is simply possible that Spayd was incapable of understanding and/or executing the job. The other possibility is that the Times leadership dramatically changed the job description, trapping Liz in narrow confines. As a likely corollary, it seems such a new job description might have been the reason Margaret chose to leave.
As a very public figure, Spayd is legitimately open to public criticism in her area of claimed expertise. Nonetheless, I would like to thank her for giving it a good try and wish her well in her next endeavor. More than her role at the Times, her role at the Columbia Journalism Review gives her much credibility.
I would also like to second Spayd's acknowledgement of the capable, positive role played by Evan Gershkovich. Thanks !
When Spayd took over from Sullivan, the column changed dramatically. It became boring and irrelevant to pertinent issues, often sounding like editorial rear covering. Finally I stopped commenting and reading it and, eventually not bothering to read the comments, as I noticed many of the regular, more interesting commenters seemed to have stopped commenting.
There were two alternatives, and to this day I do not know which tells the story. On one hand it is simply possible that Spayd was incapable of understanding and/or executing the job. The other possibility is that the Times leadership dramatically changed the job description, trapping Liz in narrow confines. As a likely corollary, it seems such a new job description might have been the reason Margaret chose to leave.
As a very public figure, Spayd is legitimately open to public criticism in her area of claimed expertise. Nonetheless, I would like to thank her for giving it a good try and wish her well in her next endeavor. More than her role at the Times, her role at the Columbia Journalism Review gives her much credibility.
I would also like to second Spayd's acknowledgement of the capable, positive role played by Evan Gershkovich. Thanks !
9
It is astonishing that Spayd, someone who ascended to Managing Editor at the Washington Post, and Publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, could be so abysmally incompetent as Public Editor, but it is the truth.
She told The Atlantic that "The job of Public Editor is to collect and absorb reader email. So that's the job," she said, accurately describing the job of her estimable assistant, Evan Gershkovich.
She told The Atlantic that "The job of Public Editor is to collect and absorb reader email. So that's the job," she said, accurately describing the job of her estimable assistant, Evan Gershkovich.
3
The Sunday Magazine is a comic book this week. Soon the whole paper will be composed of comic strips - no need for editors or a public editor anymore.
The Times seems to be on a misguided mission to target younger and younger readers (not sure if that's the appropriate word). But they've been brought up expecting the internet to be cost-free as well as easy to digest. Does the Times really expect to attract and keep them as paying customers?
Full disclosure: I get the Sunday paper delivered - costs almost $10 a week. Well worth it for the in depth articles that usually (used to?) appear in the Magazine. No regrets that the delivery service here is so bad - I got a credit for today's missed paper - glad I didn't have to pay for this drivel (dribble?).
The Times seems to be on a misguided mission to target younger and younger readers (not sure if that's the appropriate word). But they've been brought up expecting the internet to be cost-free as well as easy to digest. Does the Times really expect to attract and keep them as paying customers?
Full disclosure: I get the Sunday paper delivered - costs almost $10 a week. Well worth it for the in depth articles that usually (used to?) appear in the Magazine. No regrets that the delivery service here is so bad - I got a credit for today's missed paper - glad I didn't have to pay for this drivel (dribble?).
6
no
2
Sending off the "Public" editor indicated that the editors and owners of the New York Times did not like the comments of the last readers editor because that column contained, cleverly, what could be called chastising the editors of the comments written by the columnists. Well, most of them, the columnists who defined Trump as the wrong president of the entire United States. Mr. Trump was and is the perfect wrong president. But for the Times commenters, the accusations of the wrong man in Washington by attacking from side to side, rather than simply explaining in obvious reasons, gave readers of the newspaper deviations of attacks in various modes rather than simply noting what Trump did foolishly or wrongly or simply badly, period, end of column. The art of fiction writing ran over the writing of journalist wording, leaving the Times as makers of sheer comment instead of honest truths.
'And large newsrooms are faced with a choice: to maintain an independent voice'
I'm sorry to say and this may come as a shock to the NYT staff, but that ship sailed years ago. If the building this media organization is based in leaned as far to one side as the writers, it would have already fallen over. To many the NYT is as bad as that 'other' paper based in the capitol.
I'm sorry to say and this may come as a shock to the NYT staff, but that ship sailed years ago. If the building this media organization is based in leaned as far to one side as the writers, it would have already fallen over. To many the NYT is as bad as that 'other' paper based in the capitol.
3
Sure there should be a public editor, but not Liz Spayd.
7
The Times has been the Pravda of the deep socialist state for some time. This only makes official its status as an organ of statist propaganda.
8
Disappointing that the Times is ending the position of Public Editor. Editorial page deplores incidences of lack of transparency in government such as over-classification of documents. Times advocates repeatedly and strongly for protection for whistleblowers. Optics here are do as I say, not as I do.
4
What a shame that the Times is axing the Public Editor! I look for a column by Liz Spayd, or her predecessors, before anything else. I learned so much about the workings of a paper, and the decisions that must be made, from the columns. I also learned that there is a constant discussion (dare I say, argument) about how to handle a news item in the context of producing a daily product, and yet keeping the public's trust.
Bring the Public Editor back!
Bring the Public Editor back!
5
One thing amuses me-- conservatives who think the NYT has a far left bias.
The reality is that the NYT has a centrist liberal bias-- if one insists on putting it in political terms, they fit in with the Democratic Party power structure and not with the Sanders types. That's for better or worse.
On foreign policy they are essentially apologists for what they would consider to be globalism and what we further left see as imperialism.
By removing the public editor they basically deal with a mass of readers attacking them from all directions. Nobody with the job of being objective has the responsibility of sifting through the various complaints and determining which ones are factually based. It will be easy to let the complaints cancel each other out and fall back on the cliche that if tgey get criticism from all sides they must be doing something right. Unfortunately that isn't necessarily the case.
The reality is that the NYT has a centrist liberal bias-- if one insists on putting it in political terms, they fit in with the Democratic Party power structure and not with the Sanders types. That's for better or worse.
On foreign policy they are essentially apologists for what they would consider to be globalism and what we further left see as imperialism.
By removing the public editor they basically deal with a mass of readers attacking them from all directions. Nobody with the job of being objective has the responsibility of sifting through the various complaints and determining which ones are factually based. It will be easy to let the complaints cancel each other out and fall back on the cliche that if tgey get criticism from all sides they must be doing something right. Unfortunately that isn't necessarily the case.
8
Thank you for serving as public editor and to NYT for establishing the role. I am sorry for not writing in to support after each column and sort of taking the public editor for granted.
Thank you again
Thank you again
4
Note that the NYT announcement of a Reader Center contains no information as to how readers are expected to react with it. At best there is a generic contact link at the bottom of the page, which mostly points to a seemingly endless list of Twitter tags/topics. Journalists and politiicans seem to have paired off in an embrace of Twitter.
6
The last thing the Times wants is to have someone who publicly acknowledges their incredible left wing biases or notes that what is being written is unsubstantiated propaganda. The position of public editor has been a thorn in the side of the Alinsky-ites that run the paper for many years. I really believe that those who run the Times actually believe their propaganda is having any effect. They only preach to their choir and they have lost middle America readers completely, which is why they are essentially bankrupt. It makes no sense to me that the left wing editors and publisher continue preaching their progressive ideology, when they are not changing anyone's minds and are only losing revenue. However, given their mindset, I am happy to see them pursue this course. I only hope they can't get some Zuckerberg like billionaire progressive to buy them for the WAPO dollar as they go under.
1
Years ago I sent a 1st Edition hand-lettered copy of my prophetic Television Scripture, The Book ov Lev It A Kiss to Mr. Sulzberger. I used a red flair pen to enunciate with comments, on some of the prophetic pages as a number of world events are explicitly foretold: Nixon leaves the White House in disgrace, Agnew, a tragic hero over money, the Arctic ice caps melt, and other events c. 1971.
I invited The Times to attend a press conference so I could officially declare my candidacy for president. After all, I bring to the political table a Vehicle for World Peace, my work of art to perform from as old blind Homer, dusk until dawn, with every line a delicate sensible rhyme, this time on all channels for all peoples and nations at once.
Holding a press conference to put these innovative ideas into the public domain seemed reasonable to me. I stated that in the event The Times would not attend my press conference, then return my hand lettered 1st Edition in the enclosed stamped envelope.
A week later my book arrived with a note from Sulzberger. He stated, "The Times is not interested in attending your press conference, and good luck in your campaign."
In retrospect, had I complained, I hold the public editor would have been relieved from service for writing about it.
Visit my page. See Lev-Care my health care idea that will save my country one trillion dollars a year. See my c. design for ICBM counter-measure to zap N. Korea's intent.
http://thegovernmentinexile.live
I invited The Times to attend a press conference so I could officially declare my candidacy for president. After all, I bring to the political table a Vehicle for World Peace, my work of art to perform from as old blind Homer, dusk until dawn, with every line a delicate sensible rhyme, this time on all channels for all peoples and nations at once.
Holding a press conference to put these innovative ideas into the public domain seemed reasonable to me. I stated that in the event The Times would not attend my press conference, then return my hand lettered 1st Edition in the enclosed stamped envelope.
A week later my book arrived with a note from Sulzberger. He stated, "The Times is not interested in attending your press conference, and good luck in your campaign."
In retrospect, had I complained, I hold the public editor would have been relieved from service for writing about it.
Visit my page. See Lev-Care my health care idea that will save my country one trillion dollars a year. See my c. design for ICBM counter-measure to zap N. Korea's intent.
http://thegovernmentinexile.live
What exactly were we expecting from a publisher who sends an apology letter to "progressive" readers who cancelled their subscriptions when he hired a columnist who doesn't share their views? Does anyone think it has ever occurred to him to apologize to subscribers who think the paper has veered from moderate to far left under his administration? Where is Orson Welles when he is needed again?
1
Shame on you, NYT. Especially from a progressive viewpoint, this assault on diversity of opinion leaves the paper less credible, more exposed to allegations of partisanship and partiality.
3
Well, it seems you were braver than I thought you were and got your head handed to you. Godspeed.
The problem with using the public to be the public editor is that you only hear the loudest noises.
And while I mention it, Ms. Speyd, it is never too late to leave the Dark Side, since you've been kicked out of the New Darth Times ...
The problem with using the public to be the public editor is that you only hear the loudest noises.
And while I mention it, Ms. Speyd, it is never too late to leave the Dark Side, since you've been kicked out of the New Darth Times ...
Not surprising really, is it? Judith Miller, Brett Stephens, buying leaked intelligence on the Manchester bombing - how could one person defend all those journalistic atrocities and still pretend the NYT is actually a newspaper?
I should go and work with the 'Russia-ate-Hillary's-election' fantasy crowd, Liz. There'll always be plenty of money to be made from the DNC for peddling that rubbish..
I should go and work with the 'Russia-ate-Hillary's-election' fantasy crowd, Liz. There'll always be plenty of money to be made from the DNC for peddling that rubbish..
3
I have held up the NYT as different from the rest when others threw the liberal media label around. "Look!" I said, "They have a public editor!" This is a sad day for the New York Times and for journalism. I hope that outcry from your readers causes you to reconsider so I don't have to reconsider my staunch defenses of your publication.
2
What was the original reason for having a Public Editor, and what changed to make that reason obsolete now? Certainly not money. The Times is doing fine financially, just look at its stock price over the last 12 months.
The paper cannot credibly criticize Trump for intolerance of pesky reporters' criticism when it terminates Liz Spayd's position for her (and future PEs') criticism of the Times. With this action the Times has sealed its alliance with the Democratic Party and leftward. A sad day for the paper of record and for the larger cause of journalism itself.
The paper cannot credibly criticize Trump for intolerance of pesky reporters' criticism when it terminates Liz Spayd's position for her (and future PEs') criticism of the Times. With this action the Times has sealed its alliance with the Democratic Party and leftward. A sad day for the paper of record and for the larger cause of journalism itself.
1
I suppose the Times decided it was easy/easier to eliminate the PEditor while Ms. Spayd was filling the spot, since not many will be sorry to see her retired.
If it had done the same while Margaret Sullivan was editor there would have an outcry.
If it had done the same while Margaret Sullivan was editor there would have an outcry.
7
ARRRRGH!
The Times, like all newspapers, knows the ideological boundaries within which it must stay to retain its coveted reader demographic, even more important than and key to its advertising. We've never really had the full measure of independent journalism that journalists congratulate themselves on providing.
This is why the public editor at the Times and the few similar positions at other papers have been a must resource for so many of us. Thank you, Liz Spayd, for your work here and thanks as well to your predecessors. The loss of this position diminishes the Times measurably.
This is why the public editor at the Times and the few similar positions at other papers have been a must resource for so many of us. Thank you, Liz Spayd, for your work here and thanks as well to your predecessors. The loss of this position diminishes the Times measurably.
1
After the bald-faced contortions and outright lies published in this newspaper in its attempt to elect Hillary Clinton and then blame her loss on unproved allegations of "Russian hacking", the Times has completely lost any pretence of objectivity.
No wonder it had to eliminate the position of Public Editor. When you've decided to become a blatant propaganda outlet for The Blob, it's one job that makes no sense.
No wonder it had to eliminate the position of Public Editor. When you've decided to become a blatant propaganda outlet for The Blob, it's one job that makes no sense.
4
Blah blah blah....The lamestream media decided long ago to go full-Alinsky. So it doesn't matter what they say or do any more. They are completely and utterly discredited.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" (Orwell).
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" (Orwell).
2
I'm with those that weren't impressed by Liz Spayd but agree that The Public Editor should continue. I'm also with those that find the Times' explanations for abolishing the position unpersuasive. In fact I'm insulted that the Times thinks their film flam will satisfy their readers.
8
This may be Liz Spayd's best column. And that is much of the problem! For years I looked forward to Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan's, columns and to the comments, usually the most substantive and perceptive of any set of comments. Meanwhile, I frequently added my own two cents.
When Spayd took over from Sullivan, the column changed dramatically. It became boring and irrelevant to pertinent issues, often sounding like editorial rear covering. Finally I stopped commenting and reading it and, eventually not bothering to read the comments, as I noticed many of the regular, more interesting commenters seemed to have stopped commenting.
There were two alternatives, and to this day I do not know which tells the story. On one hand it is simply possible that Spayd was incapable of understanding and/or executing the job. The other possibility is that the Times leadership drastically changed the job description, trapping Liz in narrow confines. As a corollary, it seemed that such a new job description might have been the reason Margaret chose to leave.
As a very public figure, Spayd is legitimately open to public criticism in her area of claimed expertise. Nonetheless, I would like to thank her for giving it a good try and wish her well in her next endeavor. More than her role at the Times, her role at the Columbia Journalism Review gives her much credibility.
I would also like to second Spayd's acknowledgement of the capable, positive role played by Evan Gershkovich. Thanks !
When Spayd took over from Sullivan, the column changed dramatically. It became boring and irrelevant to pertinent issues, often sounding like editorial rear covering. Finally I stopped commenting and reading it and, eventually not bothering to read the comments, as I noticed many of the regular, more interesting commenters seemed to have stopped commenting.
There were two alternatives, and to this day I do not know which tells the story. On one hand it is simply possible that Spayd was incapable of understanding and/or executing the job. The other possibility is that the Times leadership drastically changed the job description, trapping Liz in narrow confines. As a corollary, it seemed that such a new job description might have been the reason Margaret chose to leave.
As a very public figure, Spayd is legitimately open to public criticism in her area of claimed expertise. Nonetheless, I would like to thank her for giving it a good try and wish her well in her next endeavor. More than her role at the Times, her role at the Columbia Journalism Review gives her much credibility.
I would also like to second Spayd's acknowledgement of the capable, positive role played by Evan Gershkovich. Thanks !
3
The media haven't become partisan enemies of Trump. Their problem is not having been, and not being, critical enough.
When the MSM took the role of enemy, with the Times leading the way, was thir sweeping attacks on Bernie Sanders.
They claimed, in the face of counter examples all over the world, that universal single payer health care and publically-funded higher education were impossible.
Mainstream media are owned and run by large corporations. Hence, they attack programs that help the majority. Their careless coverage of Trump helped the GOP get close enough to, as in 2000, steal the election.
Now that it's too late, they challenge his lies.
When the MSM took the role of enemy, with the Times leading the way, was thir sweeping attacks on Bernie Sanders.
They claimed, in the face of counter examples all over the world, that universal single payer health care and publically-funded higher education were impossible.
Mainstream media are owned and run by large corporations. Hence, they attack programs that help the majority. Their careless coverage of Trump helped the GOP get close enough to, as in 2000, steal the election.
Now that it's too late, they challenge his lies.
2
Every single time the Times leads me to new hope for its quality and repute, it manages do disappoint me. This is a perfect example.
Shame on you. The one person you had on staff specifically to try to hold you to high standards, and you pull a Trump and fire your watchdog. What a cheap move.
Integrity matters in news, as well as in government. You have just ensured I trust you that much less.
Shame on you. The one person you had on staff specifically to try to hold you to high standards, and you pull a Trump and fire your watchdog. What a cheap move.
Integrity matters in news, as well as in government. You have just ensured I trust you that much less.
1
Outgoing Public Editor Liz Spayd shouldn't worry about the news media being harshly critical of Donald Trump as President, the public if anything is even more disgusted and appalled by his antics. Just a look at his unbelievably low approval numbers should be enough to tell you that.
No, what the New York Times should worry about is that in the midst of climate change deniers convincing President Trump to make a decision that has held out country up to ridicule by virtually the entire world, the newspaper just hired a climate change denier from the right-wing Wall Street Journal as an opinion columnist.
In fact, when the climate change denying head of the EPA under Trump gave his comically partisan and divorced from reality press conference this week, one of the people he quoted to bolster the climate change denial was none other than Bret Stephens, the NYT's new denier at large.
Liz Spayd seemed mostly focused on bolstering and apologizing for Republican propaganda, so I won't miss her presence here. Were it a choice between the previous public editor and Spayd, I'd say by all means keep the position and bring back the previous editor. If it's a choice between Spayd and no one, then the choice is easy. Having yet another voice of conservative propaganda is the last thing the newspaper needs, and now one of them at least is gone.
No, what the New York Times should worry about is that in the midst of climate change deniers convincing President Trump to make a decision that has held out country up to ridicule by virtually the entire world, the newspaper just hired a climate change denier from the right-wing Wall Street Journal as an opinion columnist.
In fact, when the climate change denying head of the EPA under Trump gave his comically partisan and divorced from reality press conference this week, one of the people he quoted to bolster the climate change denial was none other than Bret Stephens, the NYT's new denier at large.
Liz Spayd seemed mostly focused on bolstering and apologizing for Republican propaganda, so I won't miss her presence here. Were it a choice between the previous public editor and Spayd, I'd say by all means keep the position and bring back the previous editor. If it's a choice between Spayd and no one, then the choice is easy. Having yet another voice of conservative propaganda is the last thing the newspaper needs, and now one of them at least is gone.
4
Saturday Night Massacre at the NYT.
1
One more thought: Ms. Spayd, perhaps you should pass on that Kevlar to Bret Stephens. He's clearly going to need it.
1
In his memo to the newsroom, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. claimed that the public editor’s role has become obsolete.
Mr. Sulzberger wrote: “Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be.”
Really? Have social media and the internet become united, positive forces for constructive discussion in today's world?
I, for one, thought that Liz Spayd did a truly fine job. But even many readers who were critical of her performance share my anger -- and, yes, sense of betrayal -- at the use of the latest wave of staff reductions to suddenly purge the public editor.
This major loss of good will is no small thing for the future of the New York Times.
Mr. Sulzberger wrote: “Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be.”
Really? Have social media and the internet become united, positive forces for constructive discussion in today's world?
I, for one, thought that Liz Spayd did a truly fine job. But even many readers who were critical of her performance share my anger -- and, yes, sense of betrayal -- at the use of the latest wave of staff reductions to suddenly purge the public editor.
This major loss of good will is no small thing for the future of the New York Times.
1
If Trump is drowning in scandal, it's with the media's full assistance. Scandal is pretty much all the NYT reports. Half the time it's wrong, like the NYT's false front-page claim that Comey was fired for asking for more resource.
Not sure what's behind the NYT's role in all this anti-Trump coverage (Increased circulation? Liberal vendettas?) but I no longer believe anything I read about Trump in this paper or any major media for that matter. The NYT really doesn't know anything about Trump. That's what its incessant coverage has shown me.
Not sure what's behind the NYT's role in all this anti-Trump coverage (Increased circulation? Liberal vendettas?) but I no longer believe anything I read about Trump in this paper or any major media for that matter. The NYT really doesn't know anything about Trump. That's what its incessant coverage has shown me.
2
Sat nite massacre at the NYT!
If you draw a paycheck from the NYT you must all sing from the same sheet...simple.
If you draw a paycheck from the NYT you must all sing from the same sheet...simple.
1
Having started my career as a art director in the publishing industry in the mid-70s, I learned more about good editing from the company's copy editors than from and other source, including grad school.
This was a medical publisher so extremely high level copy was required.
There were numerous editorial layers, just like at the Times. The copy editors were critical to producing grammatically correct, polished text.
This education about proper usage and sophistication has been invaluable my clients and myself ever since.
The general public is often unaware of correct grammar and high level journalism, and they need a standard bearer--The New York Times. (That should probably be an "en" dash but I can't seem to do that on my iPad.)
Reporters are not editors.
I love the Times but just last week I was dismayed to see "in regards" used in an NYT article.
Yes, the world is changing but please uphold your standards. There are no longer many examples of good journalism and the world looks to The New York Times.
This was a medical publisher so extremely high level copy was required.
There were numerous editorial layers, just like at the Times. The copy editors were critical to producing grammatically correct, polished text.
This education about proper usage and sophistication has been invaluable my clients and myself ever since.
The general public is often unaware of correct grammar and high level journalism, and they need a standard bearer--The New York Times. (That should probably be an "en" dash but I can't seem to do that on my iPad.)
Reporters are not editors.
I love the Times but just last week I was dismayed to see "in regards" used in an NYT article.
Yes, the world is changing but please uphold your standards. There are no longer many examples of good journalism and the world looks to The New York Times.
2
Not surprising.
The NY Times believe they are above everyone else.
But if they had so much credibility it would be President Hillary Clinton.
Losing influence daily.
Revealing information on Manchester and outing a CIA agent are the reasons why the NY Times is no longer worth your time.
The NY Times believe they are above everyone else.
But if they had so much credibility it would be President Hillary Clinton.
Losing influence daily.
Revealing information on Manchester and outing a CIA agent are the reasons why the NY Times is no longer worth your time.
2
I never thought I'd live long enough to see the likes of the New York Times or the Washington Post lose every last shred of credibility they ever had and drop all journalistic standards to become a propaganda rag devoted to crazy conspiracy theories and magical thinking, but well, here we are. But do not be decieved. You think the world has gone mad, but don't worry, it hasn't. You have, however.
It's a death spiral. Like someone in a casino losing his shirt, making crazier bets, going back to the cash machine (how much has been spent on the Georgia 6th on the 5th "referendum on Trump" since the Nov election?), making bolder and sillier pronouncements about what's going to happen.
It's pathetic and I mean that in the literal sense of the term. Also tragic, and I mean that in the literal sense, as well. These are all chickens come home to roost. You were nuts all along but just hid it well.
It's a death spiral. Like someone in a casino losing his shirt, making crazier bets, going back to the cash machine (how much has been spent on the Georgia 6th on the 5th "referendum on Trump" since the Nov election?), making bolder and sillier pronouncements about what's going to happen.
It's pathetic and I mean that in the literal sense of the term. Also tragic, and I mean that in the literal sense, as well. These are all chickens come home to roost. You were nuts all along but just hid it well.
1
"The Trump administration is drowning in scandal."
Is it? I guess I missed that one.
Glad to hear that Liz "Chicken Little" Spayd and others like her have held Donald Trump accountable (whatever that means). Too bad there will be one less voice in that choir now. I am sure no one will notice as they continue to sing about the sky falling.
Is it? I guess I missed that one.
Glad to hear that Liz "Chicken Little" Spayd and others like her have held Donald Trump accountable (whatever that means). Too bad there will be one less voice in that choir now. I am sure no one will notice as they continue to sing about the sky falling.
2
Please bring back the public editor - I am disappointed that the NYT is taking this step, and as a liberal person, equally as disappointed in the slide toward partisanship that I have felt happening overall. I also see the loss of the more formal written tone in the content as a negative. The newsroom and editorial staff can still present "all the news that's fit to print" without pandering to the masses. I enjoyed reading high quality, factually correct and distinctive content written by people with differing views from my own - please don't cut that quality for financial or political (internal and external) constituencies (dis) comfort.
Sorry to see you go. But when you were on Tucker Carlson and got crucified by your fellow scribes for telling the truth about the corrosive Liberal bias at the Times, I knew the writing was on the wall.
If we've learned anything from the Trump era is that any pretense of objective journalism, or journalistic ethics is now gone. Trump didn't kill the 4th estate. The Press did it to themselves by putting blinders on and following a single narrative - to destroy the Presidency by any means necessary- instead of just telling the truth, not having any narratives at all, and letting the chips fall where they may.
I commend you for being true to yourself, and true to your craft. I am sure that with your dedication to objectivity and fairness you will land on your feet somewhere, probably in some other field. It's just too bad that having those ethical qualities is now seen as a "career killer" for those working in the "4th Estate".
If we've learned anything from the Trump era is that any pretense of objective journalism, or journalistic ethics is now gone. Trump didn't kill the 4th estate. The Press did it to themselves by putting blinders on and following a single narrative - to destroy the Presidency by any means necessary- instead of just telling the truth, not having any narratives at all, and letting the chips fall where they may.
I commend you for being true to yourself, and true to your craft. I am sure that with your dedication to objectivity and fairness you will land on your feet somewhere, probably in some other field. It's just too bad that having those ethical qualities is now seen as a "career killer" for those working in the "4th Estate".
2
I've lost all respect for the NYT. It has become blatantly partisan and the fact that they've eliminated their ombudsman is only a sign of further deterioration.
4
The NY Times eliminating the Public Editor is the equivalent of Donald Trump firing the Special Prosecutor on Russia.
2
I haven't been a Times subscriber all my life. It took the 2016 election to propel my old tired soul into political "activism" (as sedate as that might be), and my very first steps into political involvement were subscriptions to the New York Times and the Washington Post. Over the last seven months of reading both, often several hours a day, the Times has risen far above the Post in my estimation, and I have been vocal about that with my husband and our (adult) children. Asked why, I had to search for the right word: "The Grey Lady Is just so much more . . . more . . . leavened."
Maybe the NYT was even more leavened 50 years ago (I wouldn't know) but it is far more balanced--and more intelligently so--than your other current choices. Look at the "Best on the Left/Best on the Right" compilations of diverse thought, the hiring of Bret Stephens, the moderated comments sections on a significant number of articles/opinion pieces each day. Having intelligent ideas presented on the "other" side rarely persuade me, but reading views that don't necessarily align with my own almost always makes me think--and that has the effect of leavening my own assessments.
I don't know if the Public Editor is who has kept the Grey Lady from listing too far to the left, becoming shrill and devolving into the cat fight frenzy of WaPo commenters. But if is is, I mourn the loss of the leavening agent. Flat bread will be difficult to swallow wth the thin gruel of our presidency.
Maybe the NYT was even more leavened 50 years ago (I wouldn't know) but it is far more balanced--and more intelligently so--than your other current choices. Look at the "Best on the Left/Best on the Right" compilations of diverse thought, the hiring of Bret Stephens, the moderated comments sections on a significant number of articles/opinion pieces each day. Having intelligent ideas presented on the "other" side rarely persuade me, but reading views that don't necessarily align with my own almost always makes me think--and that has the effect of leavening my own assessments.
I don't know if the Public Editor is who has kept the Grey Lady from listing too far to the left, becoming shrill and devolving into the cat fight frenzy of WaPo commenters. But if is is, I mourn the loss of the leavening agent. Flat bread will be difficult to swallow wth the thin gruel of our presidency.
This subscriber signs off too.
5
Good luck to Ms. Spayd. That being said, I have found the quality of this column has not lived up to the standards of past PE's.
But the Times eliminating the PE is a wrong move. Large media outlets are under attack for being biased in their reporting. This is not the time to be making this change. It gives more ammunition to your critics and I think damages your integrity.
But the Times eliminating the PE is a wrong move. Large media outlets are under attack for being biased in their reporting. This is not the time to be making this change. It gives more ammunition to your critics and I think damages your integrity.
3
Liz, you did a great job, and i'm sorry your tenure was so short. Good luck!
Apparently, the NYT's does not have enough money to fund the Public Editor position, but has no problem paying someone to write an article about Phil Mickelson skipping the U.S. Open for his daughter’s graduation.
Priorities? Go figure.
Priorities? Go figure.
3
I've read the Times regularly, usually daily, since the late 1950s. I cannot think of a worse symbol than it's doing a complete about-face on having the public editor, made worse still by the incredible assertion that the sub-groups of social media which focus on the institution which is the Times, have obviated the need for an in-house function, responsible to and accessible by the public. Good form and common decency seem to me to require a fuller explanation in terms of of the processes by which the paper initially established the office, be they the public announcement or the internal corporate documents which proposed and ratified it or, ideally, both. Absent such and mindful of its use by, and broad association with, the person who appears to me to epitomize the antithesis of Times values, I conclude with "sad."
Very sad and short-sighted decision. Big mistake NYT!
2
This column is absolutely terrific. Glad you saved a Greatest Hit for the encore.
And so the Times closes the one last door which provided a glimpse of impartiality, leaving us readers without an advocate who can filter and communicate our concerns directly to those we seek to hold accountable.
The Times has been at a crossroads requiring it to decide whether to follow an economic model driven by a desire to please a mostly urban, liberal readership, or to act as the truly independent giant which forged its reputation as the newspaper of record. Tragically, it has chosen the former course, with the departure of Mz. Spayd perhaps symbolizing the abandonment of any pretense of impartiality.
The editors and managers of this paper know exactly what I mean. The paper is on a single minded mission , so lopsided that I'm surprised that the ink does not simply flow off the edge of the page. Instead of being a beacon of truth, it has become an arbiter of truth. It's targeted readers, to their delight, will consistently be fed what the paper decides they should consume. The beacon of light which once burned brightly from its pages, is now a flicker, on its way to darkness. How utterly, incredibly, tragically sad.
The Times has been at a crossroads requiring it to decide whether to follow an economic model driven by a desire to please a mostly urban, liberal readership, or to act as the truly independent giant which forged its reputation as the newspaper of record. Tragically, it has chosen the former course, with the departure of Mz. Spayd perhaps symbolizing the abandonment of any pretense of impartiality.
The editors and managers of this paper know exactly what I mean. The paper is on a single minded mission , so lopsided that I'm surprised that the ink does not simply flow off the edge of the page. Instead of being a beacon of truth, it has become an arbiter of truth. It's targeted readers, to their delight, will consistently be fed what the paper decides they should consume. The beacon of light which once burned brightly from its pages, is now a flicker, on its way to darkness. How utterly, incredibly, tragically sad.
1
I'm sure the Times will want to provide its readers with an explanation for its killing of the public editor role and I look forward to reading it.
2
Sad day, indeed. I used to answer my conservative friends claims of the NYT being nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece. As biased as Fox or Brietbart? Ridiculous! As proof, they have a person whose entire job is to monitor and report on their journalistic integrity, to answer for the decisions the paper made as to what to publish and why, and if mistakes were made, to show how. Did a supposedly factual article veer into partisan propaganda? Did they report on unsubstantiated rumor as if it was fact? No, I would say, they hold their people to higher standard, both in the subjects chosen and the final copy printed - they are the Nations journal of record, for gosh sakes, the shining beacon of what a liberal democracy means, to speak truth to power, to ignore the rabid emotional mobs demand for blood when all that was needed is a little light.
Are you? Do you still have that burning devotion to Democracy, or have you ceded the cause to the highest bidder?
Are you? Do you still have that burning devotion to Democracy, or have you ceded the cause to the highest bidder?
1
The NYT has been increasingly been going in the wrong direction over the past few years. The elimination of the Public Editor is just one more step closer to the Times becoming just another newspaper.
3
Until the NYT makes it easy and visible for readers to send comments to editors and staff, this removal of the Public Editor's position is just sad. Why not an article about how we respond to what we're reading, should we want to? Why not the clear ability to reach staffers at the NYT without having to scroll down to the bottom of the page and trying to read the tiny print? Why is there no longer any response, at least that the comments were received, if not that they were read?
3
Maybe if you had done your job well, the Public Editor role would still exist. You can't wear anything "like a badge" because you haven't earned it.
5
The NYT has now fully embraced the click era news. If it bleeds, it leads. Whatever it takes to get readers to click on stories. More clicks means more advertising revenue.
Isn't anyone else concerned that the news is now more and more based on "unnamed sources?" So if my co-worker is mad at me and lies to the NYT, if it will generate enough clicks, the NYT will now run this story, whether true or not, and base it on unnamed sources.
Just because you like the story you are reading, and hope that it's true, doesn't make it so. It just adds to the echo effect.
Isn't anyone else concerned that the news is now more and more based on "unnamed sources?" So if my co-worker is mad at me and lies to the NYT, if it will generate enough clicks, the NYT will now run this story, whether true or not, and base it on unnamed sources.
Just because you like the story you are reading, and hope that it's true, doesn't make it so. It just adds to the echo effect.
1
Sorry, but Spayd was so bad at her job that she needed to go. Margaret Sutherland was excellent and perhaps under appreciated. If NY Times pays attention to its commenters, that may be enough to keep them on track. That said, I am dismayed by the hiring of unqualified opinion writers and the onslaught of access journalism pieces recently.
1
I've submitted my complaints about dumping the Public Editor here four or five times, but the NYT seems averse to posting them. Why could that be? Why is this departure note from Liz so hard to find? Why is the NYT apologia for ending this function so patently absurd? Is it possible the Times holds its readership in low esteem? Hunh?
1
As a subscriber of some 30 years' standing who wishes to see The Times sustained as the gold standard, I want the paper to reverse its decision to eliminate the Public Editor role. The "cost" of the position can't be more than a couple of $100K -- not a make-or-break line item, I trust. The cost in both substantive and symbolic terms is of far greater proportion.
2
Oh boy. Shame on the NY Times. I remember the days of Jayson Blair and the reporter who helped foster the Bush administration Iraq war lies. I remember when the NYTimes had a real archive not run by Google. Very very bad timing. Will rethink renewing my subscription because of this. Already subscribe to the Washington Post and The Guardian and Foreign Affairs. What do I need you for? Rethink this decision, please.
1
While on its surface this decision does not look good, I can't say it will really be a loss. I was not impressed by Liz Spayd. I thought she usually just defended the paper, at most offering a weak "it was a tough call" instead of saying the paper was wrong. How much independence can anyone expect from someone whose paycheck is signed by the entity they are evaluating?
3
Re: "And who will be watching, on this subject or anything else, if they don’t acquit themselves well? At The Times, it won’t be the public editor."
It will be the readers who are watching and who will walk away with their dollars if they don't like it. Self-importance is also one of journalism's perils.
Personally, I think the comments keep the journalists more honest than any single public editor would have time and space to do. Announced plans to increase the opportunity for comments with A.I. vetting seems like a promising solution.
It will be the readers who are watching and who will walk away with their dollars if they don't like it. Self-importance is also one of journalism's perils.
Personally, I think the comments keep the journalists more honest than any single public editor would have time and space to do. Announced plans to increase the opportunity for comments with A.I. vetting seems like a promising solution.
1
I am very disappointed that your position has been eliminated, and I don't understand why. Credible and responsible journalism is more important to our country now than at any time in my life since the Nixon administration, and maybe ever. It seems to me that the organization really needs an independent and authoritative voice that can question its decisions.
I am a longtime NYT subscriber and reader of the Public Editor's opinions and in my view, having a Public Editor has increased the integrity of the publication. While I have not been a big fan of Ms. Spayd as Public Editor, I sincerely hope the NYT will reconsider this decision. It is very disappointing and will not serve the paper well.
2
Points well taken; however, Mother always told me not to air the family's dirty laundry in public. I trust that Times editors get plenty of feedback internally and from the public. Having been a stringer for the Times for a number of years, I couldn't help but wince when the Public Editor brought attention to short-comings which were, after all, his/her distillation of the facts and was probably not news to the editors.
1
I fear you are right. The PE has represented the true mission of the Times even when the editorial board has (often correctly) cried 'foul!' in partisan fashion. Objectivity can appear partisan when the society is skewed so far right (or left). 'Center' doesn't seem so centered any more. Yet good reporting is a necessary balancing act. The PE has been an essential part of that at the Times -- ever reminding us where that center line lies. We'll miss her.
I thought you were better than this
2
Slanted? Yes. LIES? NO. The NYT is an important "document" that will depict the downfall of our Democracy and our civil rights. It's happening right before our eyes.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Farwell and fare thee well, Ms. Spayd. Your efforts, and your ehtics, will not be forgotten.
Bring back Margaret Sullivan! Yes, I know she is now working at the Washington Post...
4
This just in: "Carlos Slim changes name of newspaper to 'The New York Times Today'.
Not surprising how quickly, and effectively, this story is being buried by the NYT. SAD.
This is a bad decision and development. Who do we go to when the next Judith Miller shows up? The slant toward Clinton and bashing of Sanders in the last presidential primary swayed the election in disastrous ways. Readers complained, and the Times responded responsibly, if in a surly manner in some quarters. The news matters, and the Times matters. Our democracy, indeed our civilization, needs news delivered with integrity, and we need someone to communicate our concerns with and we need responsiveness. When you step down your appearance of integrity, no matter how much integrity you think you have yourselves, you reduce trust in an institution vital to civilization. Removing this office has the appearance of increasing corruption. And even if it's not, the appearance and trust in the public sphere are all that matter. We trust you to tell us the truth. If the trust is eroded, then your credibility is eroded, and no matter how much integrity you have, fewer people will be listening. And that opens the door wider for the falsehood peddlers, of which there are many. I don't care what kind of internal pain this office caused you - eliminating it is not worth that consequence. This is a very bad decision.
For shame, New York Times. Instead of increasing accountability, you have killed the PE messenger job because you did not like the message. The public statement justifying that action was laughable and utterly transparent.
Have you found those WMDs yet?
Have you found those WMDs yet?
1
This is where America is failing...and falling.
Instead of reporting on what Americans are doing with each other and to each other...the NYT has opted to take point on the battle against Trump, when he is the duly elected POTUS of our nation.
I don't like him either, but if we're going to start electing kings...I want no part of it.
Doing a global agreement with the other nations in Paris without the support of We The People is the act of a King. All the other nations came with their duly elected representatives already voting to support an initiative in Paris..but one. Obama.
If a media outlet is going to steer adn direct and guide the conversations instead of report the aftermath...you can consider me a former reader. I want nothing to do with it.
NYT Editor is right. Most of the NYT readers can't intellectually handle an opinion different than their own.
Bunch of babies..and now the Guardian of speaking Truth to that Power is canned.
Sad day for the NYT. Sadder day for America.
Instead of reporting on what Americans are doing with each other and to each other...the NYT has opted to take point on the battle against Trump, when he is the duly elected POTUS of our nation.
I don't like him either, but if we're going to start electing kings...I want no part of it.
Doing a global agreement with the other nations in Paris without the support of We The People is the act of a King. All the other nations came with their duly elected representatives already voting to support an initiative in Paris..but one. Obama.
If a media outlet is going to steer adn direct and guide the conversations instead of report the aftermath...you can consider me a former reader. I want nothing to do with it.
NYT Editor is right. Most of the NYT readers can't intellectually handle an opinion different than their own.
Bunch of babies..and now the Guardian of speaking Truth to that Power is canned.
Sad day for the NYT. Sadder day for America.
While other recent Public Editors nibbled at the margins of NYT coverage disputes, Liz Spayd faced squarely the deeper issues of why the NYT is no longer the trusted source of journalism it once was. She spoke clearly and courageously and obviously paid the price by offending the sensibilities of powerful elites. Her eloquent sign-off states it magnificently. With impartiality comes authority. And as she says, it's in short supply right now. I thank Liz Spayd for her work and wish her the best.
It is ironic that the Times eliminates its Public Editor when its point of view has become so one-sided. It's hard not to view this as a step toward slanted news with nobody to question the absence of objectivity.
1
My ability to feel outrage has been exhausted of late. But getting rid of the Public Editor position is a serious mistake. Mr. Sulzberger's memo is a work of dishonesty. Management at the Times is not stupid. They do not genuinely believe that the position of Public Editor can be replaced by social media. They know what they are doing and that their explanation will ring hollow. They don't care. Their action only proves that Spayd's detractors were wrong.
But lets test their theory! Mr. Sulzberger care to comment? Mr. Banquet? Ms. Ingber? Anybody? ...
But lets test their theory! Mr. Sulzberger care to comment? Mr. Banquet? Ms. Ingber? Anybody? ...
2
I believe it a misstep to get rid of the Public Editor. I agree with many others the NYT is leaning to the left a bit too much. I understand the reflex, the rhetoric of the Right is pervasive. But leaning more to the left only causes opposition to move further away. We need honest news that succinctly tell a story. We live in a shaming culture right now, it's horrible.
Shame however is different from criticism. Constructive criticism is essential to growth, to upping your game and being your best. Limiting constructive input serves no one.
Shame however is different from criticism. Constructive criticism is essential to growth, to upping your game and being your best. Limiting constructive input serves no one.
2
Very sorry to see you and the position go. I hope this decision does not indicate that the Times now sees rigorous self-evaluation as worthless, or perhaps worse, inconvenient. In a nation where ethics have been doused with gasoline and set afire by the very elected officials who should most strongly uphold them, it now more than ever falls to America's news organizations to embody objectivity, facts, professionalism and a standard of wise, dispassionate civil discourse. They can't do it without hosting and respecting a process of constant self-scrutiny.
1
My condolences, Ms. Spayd, and I wish you and your family all the best in the future. What I have noticed of late from the NYT is a creeping desperation. Perhaps, and most likely, it's succumbing to the perceived need to be a "force" in the "attention budget" of people who look at the NYT on mobile devices. The use of hyperbolic language, the headlines becoming more sensationalized, the hiring of contributors with blatantly "unenlightened perspectives", and the inclusion of more celebrity stories than in past years, are signs that "management" believes the business is more important than the mission. While business realities are always in the forefront, acceding to "marketing" suggestions that dilute the core strengths of the institution will only result in a less informative, and more unrecognizable identity.
Your position should NOT have been eliminated. It's a clear indication the core values of the NYT are eroding. This should never happen. The Fourth Estate cannot be governed by a few powerful corporations, in fact it should never be restrained in any way whatsoever. We're seeing creeping censorship here, and that should alarm us all.
Your position should NOT have been eliminated. It's a clear indication the core values of the NYT are eroding. This should never happen. The Fourth Estate cannot be governed by a few powerful corporations, in fact it should never be restrained in any way whatsoever. We're seeing creeping censorship here, and that should alarm us all.
1
Liz,
If I knew you personally, I would have already bet you $100 that in less than 3 years you will consider getting booted from NYT a blessing. Since I do not know you, all I can do is recommend that you set your calendar for 6/2/2020 to ask yourself who won the imaginary bet.
Best of Luck
If I knew you personally, I would have already bet you $100 that in less than 3 years you will consider getting booted from NYT a blessing. Since I do not know you, all I can do is recommend that you set your calendar for 6/2/2020 to ask yourself who won the imaginary bet.
Best of Luck
"Having the role was a sign of institutional integrity, and losing it sends an ambiguous signal..."
Yes, this so true. As much as I wish for the media to hold the politician's feet to the fire I also want them to accomplish it without partisanship. An in-house check on excesses or omissions by editors and reporters is, I believe, essential. The Publisher and Editor-in-Chief say that the internet and social media will fill this position more fully. I don't agree and I think that their decision to do away with the Public Editor will come back to haunt them. The NYTimes is less of a believable source without it.
Yes, this so true. As much as I wish for the media to hold the politician's feet to the fire I also want them to accomplish it without partisanship. An in-house check on excesses or omissions by editors and reporters is, I believe, essential. The Publisher and Editor-in-Chief say that the internet and social media will fill this position more fully. I don't agree and I think that their decision to do away with the Public Editor will come back to haunt them. The NYTimes is less of a believable source without it.
Sorry, Ms. Spayd, but the Times should keep the Public Editor position while finding a new editor. It seems that every one of your explanations ended with the explanation that the Times staff did nothing wrong. Sometimes things are not handled correctly by Times staffers and the proper response is an apology to the readers and a suggested plan to avoid that error in the future.
4
i was very disappointed to hear this.
I guessed I missed something - what is the motivation behind eliminating the job? Is it money, performance? The signal is a poor one.
How self righteous of the Times to eliminate the position of its critic. While you daily criticize President Trump what we didn't know until this minute is that you have actually been learning from him.
1
When the Public Editor was introduced -- I was reading the print edition then -- I thought it was a good idea and I looked forward to reading the columns. But the system hasn't been working very well the past couple years. Too much second-guessing for me, I guess.
But I don't really buy the management's justification - at least the part that I read. There is a need for an independent review to gauge how well the newspaper is fairly reporting the news.
But I don't really buy the management's justification - at least the part that I read. There is a need for an independent review to gauge how well the newspaper is fairly reporting the news.
The Times badly needs a public editor. It's top editors are increasingly tone-deaf, and increasingly exemplify a problem: that people in elite positions do not understand and correct the ways they are responsible for the grief so many of us non-elites have to suffer through. That problem is exacerbated by an editorial board who listens to its own members and other elites, while only "listening" to others (who become straw people, in short order).
It is rare that we hear any self-reflection by top editors that show they engage in serious and honest self-criticism. I've not heard any perceptive discussion, for example, of what false equivalence is, or how Times reporting has been a persistent problem in that regard. Nor have I heard a cogent discussion of reporter's responsibilities to challenge statements made by interviewees. Too often a blanket, unthoughtful dismissal occurs, to wit: "That would be taking sides." (Woah is us).
The hiring of Ms. Spayd was itself a sign of decline for the Times, for she was just another member of the elite crowd, who understood her role from an elite's perspective, and so, whose interests were focused more on marketing issues the paper faced (e.g. customer relations) than on journalistic needs and integrity. Her discussions of false equivalence and truth-digging, for example, were quite depressing in how superficial they were.
Margaret Sullivan, who well-perceived the needs of the role, but was too nice by half, is sorely missed.
It is rare that we hear any self-reflection by top editors that show they engage in serious and honest self-criticism. I've not heard any perceptive discussion, for example, of what false equivalence is, or how Times reporting has been a persistent problem in that regard. Nor have I heard a cogent discussion of reporter's responsibilities to challenge statements made by interviewees. Too often a blanket, unthoughtful dismissal occurs, to wit: "That would be taking sides." (Woah is us).
The hiring of Ms. Spayd was itself a sign of decline for the Times, for she was just another member of the elite crowd, who understood her role from an elite's perspective, and so, whose interests were focused more on marketing issues the paper faced (e.g. customer relations) than on journalistic needs and integrity. Her discussions of false equivalence and truth-digging, for example, were quite depressing in how superficial they were.
Margaret Sullivan, who well-perceived the needs of the role, but was too nice by half, is sorely missed.
3
This is the right move. You did a bad job at your job and now it's time for the Times to move ahead.
What is the Times' alternative? The Times has been very forthright in expressing their opinions of Trump and I wholeheartedly agree with nearly all they have written but they must be very careful about not wearing out the public. Trump is only a few months into his destruction of America and as of now, I don't see him being thrown out of office. Even if he were, there is Pence waiting.
The job of the Public Editor therefore is even more important as the country continues to absorb Trump's gigantic mismanagement. We have three plus years to prepare for his defeat. We cannot count on the Republican Party stepping up and saying "enough is enough" so our work is laid out before us.
In all of this, prudence and oversight are extremely important. How will the Times manage it?
The job of the Public Editor therefore is even more important as the country continues to absorb Trump's gigantic mismanagement. We have three plus years to prepare for his defeat. We cannot count on the Republican Party stepping up and saying "enough is enough" so our work is laid out before us.
In all of this, prudence and oversight are extremely important. How will the Times manage it?
2
"But in their effort to hold Trump accountable, will they play their hands wisely and fairly? Or will they make reckless decisions and draw premature conclusions?"
Who do you think you are kidding?
Trump is a mentally unbalanced disturbed personality of low intelligence wrecking untold havoc on our country.
You were not up to the job, and after Margaret Sullivan set such a high bar placing you in this position was a stupid mistake. Public editor and apologist are not the same thing.
Who do you think you are kidding?
Trump is a mentally unbalanced disturbed personality of low intelligence wrecking untold havoc on our country.
You were not up to the job, and after Margaret Sullivan set such a high bar placing you in this position was a stupid mistake. Public editor and apologist are not the same thing.
3
Pretty remarkable how you stopped taking comments on this at 2:41 yesterday and then left it untouched until you added only two more late in the evening, despite many additional comments coming in. Your OTHER columns got their updated comments. It's almost like you don't want people to discuss this.
If you're going to use your vast audience as your new public editor, which is a mistake to begin with, then it's rather cowardly to not even print their comments until the story has run its course. Normally something that looks like an intentional misrepresentation of reader interest might be a good question for the Public Editor, conveniently you've fired her so I guess you don't need to worry about it. I also noticed the Times hasn't selected any picks as good representations of this situation. So, so proud of you guys...
If you're going to use your vast audience as your new public editor, which is a mistake to begin with, then it's rather cowardly to not even print their comments until the story has run its course. Normally something that looks like an intentional misrepresentation of reader interest might be a good question for the Public Editor, conveniently you've fired her so I guess you don't need to worry about it. I also noticed the Times hasn't selected any picks as good representations of this situation. So, so proud of you guys...
2
as a digital subscriber, I say: Oh no.
The Times needs to be aware of readers' responses to the articles it publishes, especially in the descriptions of events that may be distorted or seemingly not focused well on critical items.
The Public Editor was a recent innovation, which I (a reader over the past six decades) welcomed. It served as a kind of ombudsman for us.
The closing of this avenue suggests a sad shift from providing useful facts to profit making activities.
This action warrants a clear explanation from the management, prominently displayed on the front page.
The Public Editor was a recent innovation, which I (a reader over the past six decades) welcomed. It served as a kind of ombudsman for us.
The closing of this avenue suggests a sad shift from providing useful facts to profit making activities.
This action warrants a clear explanation from the management, prominently displayed on the front page.
Thank you, Ms. Spayd. This is an eloquent piece and I share your feeling that society needs news organizations that are broadly respected in order to maintain civil conversation. The New York Times has met that requirement over the years and I hope it will do so in the future.
Best wishes to you for your future adventures!
Best wishes to you for your future adventures!
Liz Spayd has done an excellent job being the conscience of this powerful institution. The elimination of the Public Editor's position should be accompanied by the NYT's leadership announcing measures it will take to fill the gap.
I halted my subscription with the NY Times a few months ago not because the journalism wasn't of the highest quality, but because of a number of things: (1) the economics of newspaper publishing forces it to print vast amounts of sensationalist trivia and (2) The things I care most about -- the nation's priorities in terms of money spent per person per year on program 'X' is consistently hidden beneath so many "millions/billions" over so many years, despite a flood of studies showing that such numbers are incomprehensible to the average person who needs $$/month figure to make sense (3) underselection of non-sensationalist but important news (4) glorification of war by printing so much information about what is essentially a mental illness made catastrophic by the invention and use of horrid weaponry (5) ignorance of responsibility for the creation and sustenance of dystopian mental frames inconsistent with the precepts of all benevolent political and religious thought.
And maybe the last is the most important to me. So the public editor writes -- and keep the kevlar on please -- "the country is calcified into two partisan halves," wherein the real truth of the matter is that media lust for a battle between "conservatives" and "liberals" is what has calcified the partisans. In the end, we are all people on this planet with basic human needs, and the warfare state is not what we need now, and NY Times is an apologist for the warfare state since 9/11 and Judith Miller.
And maybe the last is the most important to me. So the public editor writes -- and keep the kevlar on please -- "the country is calcified into two partisan halves," wherein the real truth of the matter is that media lust for a battle between "conservatives" and "liberals" is what has calcified the partisans. In the end, we are all people on this planet with basic human needs, and the warfare state is not what we need now, and NY Times is an apologist for the warfare state since 9/11 and Judith Miller.
1
the NYT managed for its many many years of existence without a " public editor" . the existence of this position was shear pandering. The Times should employ professionals and not necessarily respond to readers or have a one person inside critic who has his/her own prejudices.
I fear the NYT is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Ms. Spayd was not an effective or "clued in" public editor. She seemed to skirt or even avoid potential areas of criticism. But the position itself is an important one -- keeping the NYT aware and alert to its readers' concerns about how the paper is serving them.
3
I'm finding my NYT's to be more commentary and less "news" .. more group thought and less hard one byline news. I'm hearing more -- I don't read the NYT any more at the same moment readership is up .... clearly it's wanting tp appeal to one side.
Now the end of the PE ..... not good.
Now the end of the PE ..... not good.
1
There's plenty to criticize at The Times, and now who's left inside the institution to do that? An explanation is owed the readership.
1
A real shame - this position is very much needed and will be missed. While the Times employs a cadre of world class journalists, even a die hard liberal like myself could see the dangerous editorializing creep into news reporting throughout the election cycle, where it continues currently. Reporting continues to implicitly dismiss the fact that nearly half of the electorate wanted the leadership we have now (yes, Hillary won, but not with the rules we have)both by omission and in other ways. The Public Editor served to hear what invested, and unhappy readers had to say about this and other issues. No amount of tweeting frustration will demand a response when there is no position to respond to serve the public response. This is the shutting of dialog in an area where the NYT very much needs to have an open line of communication. I've watched the quality of the news reporting trickle towards an overly partisan position (that I agree with) over the past few years. Rarely does the Times challenge my view on society, or cause me to think about the parts of the country I don't know as much about in a way that doesn't already confirm biases. This is the sign of a dangerous position to be in. The Post is filling this void some, but I've not seen a Times I agree with in editorial tone so much in so long, and that makes me sad. I'm not here to have my notions confirmed, I'm here to get insight and understanding about people and places that I don't have.
2
Hello Liz,
I always looked forward to your column. I wish the times could be less left leaning in its coverage, and now it will probably grow more aggressively liberal in its pov, which from time to time approaches irrationality. For me, it will increase the importance of other thoughtful media outlets to help me understand issues and draw conclusions. Too bad I have to search for this rather than rely on the times. Good luck in whatever comes next. I hope you resurface soon.
I always looked forward to your column. I wish the times could be less left leaning in its coverage, and now it will probably grow more aggressively liberal in its pov, which from time to time approaches irrationality. For me, it will increase the importance of other thoughtful media outlets to help me understand issues and draw conclusions. Too bad I have to search for this rather than rely on the times. Good luck in whatever comes next. I hope you resurface soon.
This was probably in the works for some time, but could not be carried out under the previous PE, who was popular with readers. Ms. Spayd was more a media critic than a reader advocate. Never got the feeling she liked us, which makes her a handy figure for this move.
Back when they hired her, the Times probably was betting that, come this day, we wouldn't mind so much, 'cause it's Liz the meanie and not Margaret our champion. Feels cynical and very disappointing.
Back when they hired her, the Times probably was betting that, come this day, we wouldn't mind so much, 'cause it's Liz the meanie and not Margaret our champion. Feels cynical and very disappointing.
2
In order to satisfy the primal hunger of the general populace, the mainstream media has fallen into the trap of maligning than being benign, Attacking rather than being careful, taking us to conclusions rather than suspending judgement and exercising caution, taking sides rather than being impartial, creating disarray instead of laying out facts, and quickly reaching overarching conclusions instead of being patient.
1
Good luck and good riddance.
The idea that both sides of an argument must always be presented is absurd. Some notions and ideas are so toxic that even airing them represents a complete erasure of certain vulnerable groups, and in a systemically racist, sexist, homophobic, Xenophobic, anti-Science, and Islamophobic society giving any space at all to an apologist or a concern troll for the evil ones is a complete abdication of all moral, ethical, and journalistic duty.
Seeing Ms. Spayd removed has restored my faith in this paper, especially in its role as a spearhead and a critical player in the Resistance.
To show my appreciation, I plan on providing at least 5 "donation" subscriptions to students, so that they can be better informed and hear the only side that matters too. All too often, and this is really unfortunate in my opinion, many top ranked business schools provide or encourage their students to get a subscription to the Wall St. Journal. We need to counter this. Just as every future agent of the capitalist hegemony gets their information, we need to ensure that a future generation of social justice activists is getting theirs too.
Without Ms. Spayed throwing sand into the gears of the Resistance, I'll feel much better about making those donation subscriptions (the offer is right on the front page of the online version). Will anyone step up and match me?
The idea that both sides of an argument must always be presented is absurd. Some notions and ideas are so toxic that even airing them represents a complete erasure of certain vulnerable groups, and in a systemically racist, sexist, homophobic, Xenophobic, anti-Science, and Islamophobic society giving any space at all to an apologist or a concern troll for the evil ones is a complete abdication of all moral, ethical, and journalistic duty.
Seeing Ms. Spayd removed has restored my faith in this paper, especially in its role as a spearhead and a critical player in the Resistance.
To show my appreciation, I plan on providing at least 5 "donation" subscriptions to students, so that they can be better informed and hear the only side that matters too. All too often, and this is really unfortunate in my opinion, many top ranked business schools provide or encourage their students to get a subscription to the Wall St. Journal. We need to counter this. Just as every future agent of the capitalist hegemony gets their information, we need to ensure that a future generation of social justice activists is getting theirs too.
Without Ms. Spayed throwing sand into the gears of the Resistance, I'll feel much better about making those donation subscriptions (the offer is right on the front page of the online version). Will anyone step up and match me?
1
As a subscriber, I am very disappointed that The NY Times has eliminated the position of Public Editor. I will miss reading your columns, Ms. Spayd. It has has definitely seemed to me that, across the last several months, the paper has been publishing more stories and opinion columns of questionable veracity, in order to "balance" coverage of the most mendacious presidential administration our nation has ever seen, and "balance" coverage of the millions of Americans who are foolish enough to believe that administration's nonstop lies. The role of the Public Editor has never been more essential for this newspaper. I urge the publishers to reconsider.
If the Public Editor position was supposed to lend a measure of balance to the editorial and public sections of the NYT, it was certainly never evident to this reader. Its constant Trump bashing and Hilliary coddling over the last year have shown that the newspaper constantly backs the liberal, elitist makeup of most of its readership. I guess it sells papers.
If the elimination of the position has any effect on this, it will be hard to see, except to say the the NYT now has eliminated any barriers to its already overwhelming bias. The one thing Ms. Spayd was correct in saying is that the NYT pays no attention to comments--like this one.
If the elimination of the position has any effect on this, it will be hard to see, except to say the the NYT now has eliminated any barriers to its already overwhelming bias. The one thing Ms. Spayd was correct in saying is that the NYT pays no attention to comments--like this one.
Whining about "Trump bashing" is a dead give away that the reporting is accurate and warranted. For example, I don't recall Clinton encouraging her supporters to beat up or shot people.
2
An independent and responsible press is now, more than ever, critical to our nation. The New York Times is, indeed, first among equals.
The Times Public Editor plays a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the Times. Management should reconsider its decision to eliminate that position.
The Times Public Editor plays a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the Times. Management should reconsider its decision to eliminate that position.
This is the first I've heard of this unwise move. While I enjoy the fact that the NYTimes writes with a clear point of view, how will it now keep itself from going overboard? We all need checks and balances. This move makes NYTimes a less trusted source of the news for me.
The Public Editor at the Times was a useful column regarding Times reporting and other aspects of running the paper.
However, the criticisms of reporting were usually ignored, excused or rationalized by top management.
The criticisms of the verified comment system described by Margaret Sullivan as drowning out non verified users with lock step efficiency, particularly with regard to Sunday pieces by popular columnists like Dowd, Bruni, and Douthat, have been largely ignored, despite repeated assurances to the contrary in 2014 and 2015 by Bassy Etim, comments editor grand vizier.
The end of the column is therefore entirely predictable and understandable. Saves money and doesn't highlight the paper's foibles.
Very Trumpian.
However, the criticisms of reporting were usually ignored, excused or rationalized by top management.
The criticisms of the verified comment system described by Margaret Sullivan as drowning out non verified users with lock step efficiency, particularly with regard to Sunday pieces by popular columnists like Dowd, Bruni, and Douthat, have been largely ignored, despite repeated assurances to the contrary in 2014 and 2015 by Bassy Etim, comments editor grand vizier.
The end of the column is therefore entirely predictable and understandable. Saves money and doesn't highlight the paper's foibles.
Very Trumpian.
3
The Public Editor position is a recent one—created in 2003—yet this feels like the loss of an important institution. I'm sorry to see it go.
I really fear for the Times and for its readers. The decline is shocking, really. Is this morning's story, "Bill Maher Uses Racial Slur on ‘Real Time’," typical what we can expect from the 'hundreds of journalists' the paper is adding—a front page mountain out of a molehill of tweets?
Or the daily recitation of what the previous evening's "late night comedy" shows had to say about Donald Trump? A feature the Times keeps jamming into every daily "what you should know" briefing, as if it were news that mattered?
Or 'covfefe'? Believe me, when the Times lays off all the copyeditors and deploys its new army of digital journalists to retweet the retweetings of late night hosts, readers can expect to encounter plenty of 'covfefes' issuing forth from the "paper of record"—to the glee of Fox News, Breitbart, and Drudge.
Even your tech reporter, Farhad Manjoo, a self-admitted Twitter addict, has concluded it's making journalism dumber. The empty thrill of obsessing on how many followers you have for your 140-word burps should be obvious to any discerning reader, even if the followers were real (a depressing thought) and not robots, as it turns out most of them are.
Welcome to the Brave New World of the Dumber Digital New York Times—everything Trump and Transgender, and less and less of it worth a damn.
I really fear for the Times and for its readers. The decline is shocking, really. Is this morning's story, "Bill Maher Uses Racial Slur on ‘Real Time’," typical what we can expect from the 'hundreds of journalists' the paper is adding—a front page mountain out of a molehill of tweets?
Or the daily recitation of what the previous evening's "late night comedy" shows had to say about Donald Trump? A feature the Times keeps jamming into every daily "what you should know" briefing, as if it were news that mattered?
Or 'covfefe'? Believe me, when the Times lays off all the copyeditors and deploys its new army of digital journalists to retweet the retweetings of late night hosts, readers can expect to encounter plenty of 'covfefes' issuing forth from the "paper of record"—to the glee of Fox News, Breitbart, and Drudge.
Even your tech reporter, Farhad Manjoo, a self-admitted Twitter addict, has concluded it's making journalism dumber. The empty thrill of obsessing on how many followers you have for your 140-word burps should be obvious to any discerning reader, even if the followers were real (a depressing thought) and not robots, as it turns out most of them are.
Welcome to the Brave New World of the Dumber Digital New York Times—everything Trump and Transgender, and less and less of it worth a damn.
1
Dear NY Times:
Please heed my 6 year old grandson's words. "With great power comes great responsibility."
Please heed my 6 year old grandson's words. "With great power comes great responsibility."
2
The NY Times has been criticized (in this particular case rightly or wrongly, it matters not) for being far too certain of its own journalistic superiority. However, if ever a position reeked of self-certain moral superiority it is that of the Public Editor. Good riddance. Quality journalism will somehow manage to carry on without the ministrations of this irrelevant appendage.
Very, very sad to see the PE position being axed. I always thought that was the single most important job within the NYT, and have frequently highlighted it as a great model for other media outside the US - including in the UK, where I live - to follow. I hope the NYT will reconsider this decision, or else come up with something even better.
For all the weaknesses of the position, and of some of those who held it, there was real value in having a person looking over the Times' journalism from at least a semi-independent vantage point. This is a self-inflicted wound.
2
I hope the NYT tries something different to engage its readers in meaningful discussions. Having a Public Editor was good, but it was essentially a one-way street. The Comments section, i.e., the one I'm writing in right now, has become a partisan echo chamber. Neither is very satisfying.
Ms. Spayd was passed a rather heavy baton. Congratulations are due to her for sincere efforts.
I rarely read the PE column of late, but not because I don't support the function. It just seemed to be getting nothing more than lip service from the editors, and I think that has been true for a long time.
The Times is going down partisan tubes. I still go to it for breaking news and some of its lighter fare, but the only opinion pieces I look forward to are those written by Edsall and Douthat. The latter surprises me, as I am not a conservative, but he consistently backs up his opinions with data, and he acknowledges the arguments of his opposition. He's earned my respect, while others have become increasingly shrill and overly emotive. I want to be challenged intellectually by an opinion column, not have my biases confirmed with cherry-picked events.
I surmise that I am not the sort of reader that NYT wants to cater to any longer. We shall be parting ways. WaPo ascending.
The Times is going down partisan tubes. I still go to it for breaking news and some of its lighter fare, but the only opinion pieces I look forward to are those written by Edsall and Douthat. The latter surprises me, as I am not a conservative, but he consistently backs up his opinions with data, and he acknowledges the arguments of his opposition. He's earned my respect, while others have become increasingly shrill and overly emotive. I want to be challenged intellectually by an opinion column, not have my biases confirmed with cherry-picked events.
I surmise that I am not the sort of reader that NYT wants to cater to any longer. We shall be parting ways. WaPo ascending.
Was Ms. Spayd trying to promote moral authority or something else? She talks about the dangers of derision as if "understanding" ignorance and venality were just clouds in the sky.
I think the danger is confusing opinion and reporting and sometimes the Times falls into that trap. The news media has a bad reputation because so many outlets are even worse. It doesn't help that there's a sophisticated campaign against the news media. Fake news, the news reports that are based on nothing more than someone's politically inspired imagination, makes us suspicious. And that's good. People get fooled when they are unaware.
I think the danger is confusing opinion and reporting and sometimes the Times falls into that trap. The news media has a bad reputation because so many outlets are even worse. It doesn't help that there's a sophisticated campaign against the news media. Fake news, the news reports that are based on nothing more than someone's politically inspired imagination, makes us suspicious. And that's good. People get fooled when they are unaware.
The Times and most of the other major media sources' credibilty was already seriously tarnished years ago when they decided to openly campaign for Barack Obama, attack his opponents, bury his scandals, take no action against the participants of the journolist--a loose group including many prominent journalists who were caught red-handed coordinating their reporting to help the Democrats. This is just a dying whimper of an organization that stopped doing political journalism many years ago.
1
Bye!
I am very disappointed in this decision. With all the fake news and "fake news" and the lies and obfuscations, the Public Editor confirmed the nytimes commitment to clarity and veracity. The level and types of manipulations coming from the power centers is going to continue and will do so in new unprecedented ways. The public editor helped readers feel the nytimes was being accountable to themselves and their craft. It showed integrity and a desire to do their best. Eliminating the position seems arrogant and I am so sick of arrogant. Really disappointed.
"Derision may feel more satisfying, but in the long run stories that are measured in tone are more powerful." Exactly, Ms. Spayd.
When every voice is shrill, readers tune out: I once read newspapers cover to cover, including the times, thirsty for information. Now I see reporters and columnists who can't sort the trivial from the vital, which means the next time the information is vital I am likely to miss it.
When the NYT and WaPo are relentlessly fevered, shrill and unmeasured, the vital content is lost in the trash. Pay attention, NYT. Ms. Spayd is right.
When every voice is shrill, readers tune out: I once read newspapers cover to cover, including the times, thirsty for information. Now I see reporters and columnists who can't sort the trivial from the vital, which means the next time the information is vital I am likely to miss it.
When the NYT and WaPo are relentlessly fevered, shrill and unmeasured, the vital content is lost in the trash. Pay attention, NYT. Ms. Spayd is right.
Good luck to the NYT as they turn to social media to hold themselves accountable. Being accountable to everyone in social media is the same as being accountable to no one. Social media will yield every imaginable opinion on NYT content - the 21st century version of too many cooks.
So sad. I've been reading the Times cover to cover since I was in 4th grade in 1964. News stories used to be news stories, not cloaked editorial content. That ended about ten years ago and the Times has been on a downslide ever since.
Wow, pretending on your way out the door that you were some sort of check on the Times is so amusing. You were a superb apologist and purveyor of moral equivalency. Maybe had you chosen to be a true ombudswoman, they would have kept the position. Fecklessness has received a blow. Your absence will not be noticed.
2
It's a mystery and it's sad that the Times is killing the public editor role. If Liz hurt your feelings, say why and hire someone else. The paper is doing a magnificent and historic job in reporting on this incompetent and emotionally non balanced president. But Liz is so right that it's not the tune it's the tone. Spare facts are more powerful than garnished ones. And the Americans who most need the facts are those who mistrust the Times most, so every news report - not the editorials, the new columns - need to be free of characterization, speculation and attitude. You can set a tone of mature confidence in the plain truth that is distinct from the torrent of adolescent effusions from the frightened administration. Put out the plain truth and let it sit there. There's an elegance in simplicity, too. And for our sake and for your sake, keep a public analyst of your work on your pages. Otherwise, your tone does have a tag of pettiness in it.
The Public Editor position was essentially a public relations move in response to the Jayson Blair plagiarism episode. I don't think the NYT ever took it seriously and as such it was #1 on the chopping block when it came time to reduce costs. They just should have admitted this instead of issuing some obviously disingenuous and flawed excuse about relying on social media as the NYT watchdog.
Blair wasn't a plagiarist. He just made stuff up, including stories "datelined" in Maryland when he never left his Brooklyn apartment.
1
A big loss for all of us. We need someone pushing back and asking the hard questions to those who are supposed to ask the hard questions.
My recent protest subscription is under review
1
Given the Editorials by the Board are rarely allowed to be commented on
and we don't know who wrote them, it seems that the Times
is trying to move beyond being held accountable.
Some of the Columnists who are paid by the Times are far, far, far
less informative than the Public Editor.
Why eliminate such a helpful position for your readers ?
and we don't know who wrote them, it seems that the Times
is trying to move beyond being held accountable.
Some of the Columnists who are paid by the Times are far, far, far
less informative than the Public Editor.
Why eliminate such a helpful position for your readers ?
2
What an incredibly ill-conceived choice NYTimes leadership. Of all times to go this route, not now. We are living with Trump. Both the quality and integrity of your news operation is something we rely upon. Trusting the news is a significant part of what makes it not fake.
1
I really miss Margaret Sullivan. This one, not so much...but as powerless and purely symbolic as this position always was, it mattered a great deal to many readers. OK, maybe it was a cheap gimmick, playing on our naive belief in "checks and balances". Maybe it wasn't always so fascinating (you try writing honest, independent, critical stuff about your colleagues and employer. Then tell me how that goes for you...). Maybe it lagged in clicks. It was certainly easily expendable. Like arts funding. Or meals-on-wheels.
But it was also a unique meta-space and forum for a healthy, eclectic, larger dialogue that does not exist anywhere else in your "media outlet". Poor decision.
But it was also a unique meta-space and forum for a healthy, eclectic, larger dialogue that does not exist anywhere else in your "media outlet". Poor decision.
4
Every once in a while the person holding the public editor position had something useful to say, but over the years there was a large dose of pontificating and nit-picking. I see I have the minority view among these comments, but I won't miss the public editor role in the least.
If the decision to remove the PE and a number of copy editors was based on economic reasons then maybe Trump is right and it is the "failing New York Times." Maureen Dowd and other NYT staff have said that the paper is surging i subscriptions because of the intense interest of the Times' reporting. One would think that more eyeballs would equal more ad revenue and so on. Depending on commenters and social media for fact checking is a joke. Whatever the real reason for the moves is, the NYT publisher should be honest with readers.
1
Sorry to sorry this column will not be missed by me.
I have been a fan of The NY Times for over 30 years but I am devastated by the discontinuation of the Public Editor. The existence of this unique position has girded the NYT against accusations of bias. Now, I guess this newspaper has just become another news rag.
1
Or will they make reckless decisions and draw premature conclusions?
You can read between the lines and know in her heart and mind the answer is a resounding - yes, they are reckless and premature. I mean you open the web page today and the first photo you see is of a coal power plant.
In the minds of The Times and most of their readers, Trump is a traitor (Russia) and is now solely responsible for the earth's destruction.
You can read between the lines and know in her heart and mind the answer is a resounding - yes, they are reckless and premature. I mean you open the web page today and the first photo you see is of a coal power plant.
In the minds of The Times and most of their readers, Trump is a traitor (Russia) and is now solely responsible for the earth's destruction.
I am extremely disappointed in, and strongly opposed to, the decision to eliminate the position of Public Editor. I have been proud that "my" newspaper has had such a position to keep the paper focused on the high standards of journalism that The Times claimed to uphold. I must be honest and say that I will wait and watch, hoping that we will not see the decline that this decision seems to signal; but I am worried that we will.
This is a great disappointment -- I hope that Liz Spayd gets at least a silver if not golden parachute.
It's clear that editors like Baquet did not want to have their judgments questioned, as they frequently gave flimsy explanations for their decisions. It is just as well that "Sulzy Jr." did not try to explain the decision as the explanation would doubtless be unconvincing. I expect he's made the calculation that those readers who support having a public editor have no place else to go, no matter how frustrating they find the decision to be.
It's clear that editors like Baquet did not want to have their judgments questioned, as they frequently gave flimsy explanations for their decisions. It is just as well that "Sulzy Jr." did not try to explain the decision as the explanation would doubtless be unconvincing. I expect he's made the calculation that those readers who support having a public editor have no place else to go, no matter how frustrating they find the decision to be.
1
I have many mixed feelings.
On one hand, despite the admirable efforts of the Public Editors, very little has changed. Anonymous sources proliferate, the journalism has gone more the direction of the second route in your first paragraph, and the comment system is unchanged despite the last two PEs addressing it several times. Those are just a few of the things unchanged.
On the other hand, I think the Times is short-sighted to get rid of the PE. I know there are many buyouts and layoffs, but the Times still sends the theater critic to London a couple of times a year to review shows that don't even play here. Yes, the Times is an international paper, but when cutting back shouldn't that go before cutting news coverage? Of course, the Times does seem to feel the need to print 4,5, or 6 articles that significantly overlap in coverage on big stories. Why?
On one hand, despite the admirable efforts of the Public Editors, very little has changed. Anonymous sources proliferate, the journalism has gone more the direction of the second route in your first paragraph, and the comment system is unchanged despite the last two PEs addressing it several times. Those are just a few of the things unchanged.
On the other hand, I think the Times is short-sighted to get rid of the PE. I know there are many buyouts and layoffs, but the Times still sends the theater critic to London a couple of times a year to review shows that don't even play here. Yes, the Times is an international paper, but when cutting back shouldn't that go before cutting news coverage? Of course, the Times does seem to feel the need to print 4,5, or 6 articles that significantly overlap in coverage on big stories. Why?
5
Penny wise. Pound foolish.
Say it ain't so, Liz
1
I liked the previous "Public editor"… I don't remember the name though
I am disappointed in this decision for the reasons eloquently expressed by other readers and urge the Times to rethink it. While I am not privy to the finances of the Times, I know that it has attracted many new readers and wonder if this particular cut is really dictated by financial considerations.
I know that the Times needs to economize, but this is false economy, so far as I am concerned. The public editor has fulfilled an important mission, and should have been allowed to stay on.
There is no excuse for this decision: it is cynical, short-sighted and panders to the worst penny-pinching, bottom line instincts. The New York Times has moved to the left, not only in its opinion pieces but also in its reporting of the news, in what stories it covers and how it covers them. As one who yearns for the day Donald Trump is locked away in a federal prison, even I am increasingly suspicious of the motives and decision making of Times management. Maybe it is the failing NY Times. Bad decision NYT. Reconsider!
I appreciated the role of the Public Editor. I wish there were some way to bring one back some day.
I'm very sorry to see you and your desk go. A social-media community is in no way comparable to an in-house ombudsman.
I wouldn't say America lacks a political opposition now, but I think I get Mike Morell's idea: that the news media should not get out in front of it polemically, as distinct from aggressive non-partisan investigative journalism. Editorially, the Times can -- and does, I think -- help keep Trump's core in decline by counselling its own core against doctrinaire liberal illiberality. I only worry that the message won't be taken to heart.
Apart from the handling of things Trumpian, I've been dismayed for some time by an apparent redefinition of liberalism that has made the Times above all a gender shop. Far from taking an anti-war stand, it now hails the arrival of women in combat. Instead of campaigning for the long-overdue abolition of boxing, it hails the arrival of women -- and young girls -- in the ring. It attaches such importance to the first female something or the first gay something, one begins to wonder if nothing matters so much as ticking off items on the gender agenda.
That may be consistent with the current state of American liberalism and Democratic politics, but I think the Times could do a great service to both by kidding them about their preoccupation with identity politics and not entering into it.
Anyway, thank you for your own service to us and to the journalist's mission.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp/
I wouldn't say America lacks a political opposition now, but I think I get Mike Morell's idea: that the news media should not get out in front of it polemically, as distinct from aggressive non-partisan investigative journalism. Editorially, the Times can -- and does, I think -- help keep Trump's core in decline by counselling its own core against doctrinaire liberal illiberality. I only worry that the message won't be taken to heart.
Apart from the handling of things Trumpian, I've been dismayed for some time by an apparent redefinition of liberalism that has made the Times above all a gender shop. Far from taking an anti-war stand, it now hails the arrival of women in combat. Instead of campaigning for the long-overdue abolition of boxing, it hails the arrival of women -- and young girls -- in the ring. It attaches such importance to the first female something or the first gay something, one begins to wonder if nothing matters so much as ticking off items on the gender agenda.
That may be consistent with the current state of American liberalism and Democratic politics, but I think the Times could do a great service to both by kidding them about their preoccupation with identity politics and not entering into it.
Anyway, thank you for your own service to us and to the journalist's mission.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp/
Shame on the Times. The termination of the Public Editor is consistent with its general drift into strident headlines and sensationalized coverage of everything relating to Trump. However despicable he may be, he should not provide an excuse for lowering the paper's standards.
1
Hi Public Editor,
I wrote to you about a Times article calling Louisiana State Troopers as "stormtroopers." You responded quickly, and got the article to drop the "stormtroopers" designation.
I think you fulfill an important role in journalism, and I am disappointed that the Times let you go. I feel more comfortable complaining to a journalist than shouting against hoards of angry internet posters.
Best wishes to you.
I wrote to you about a Times article calling Louisiana State Troopers as "stormtroopers." You responded quickly, and got the article to drop the "stormtroopers" designation.
I think you fulfill an important role in journalism, and I am disappointed that the Times let you go. I feel more comfortable complaining to a journalist than shouting against hoards of angry internet posters.
Best wishes to you.
1
My window into the Times is gone. The Ivory Tower has closed the public's ability to understand the internal workings of an institution that some of us have relied on for decades, rather blindly.
Readers have had a series of very smart, independent "friends" who connected us to the mindset behind the paper. That is gone and maybe Donald Trump's secret mindset is the reason. If it works for Trump, why not for the Times? It's not about cost. It is about have a very thin skin, just like Trump. I never thought it would come to this.
One can only assume that fake news is just around the corner, even if it is not Fit to Print. Good intentions are not good enough, as the Public Editors proved time and time again.
Readers have had a series of very smart, independent "friends" who connected us to the mindset behind the paper. That is gone and maybe Donald Trump's secret mindset is the reason. If it works for Trump, why not for the Times? It's not about cost. It is about have a very thin skin, just like Trump. I never thought it would come to this.
One can only assume that fake news is just around the corner, even if it is not Fit to Print. Good intentions are not good enough, as the Public Editors proved time and time again.
The New York Times Editors don't care about public opinion;
Because they believe they create public opinion.
Because they believe they create public opinion.
2
NYT=The Pot
Trump=The Kettle
Now even the pretense of objectivity is gone.
Trump=The Kettle
Now even the pretense of objectivity is gone.
Liz is as sharp an editor as any alive. I mean that in the old fashioned way of newspapers: editors who could smell BS a mile off, and knew how to describe it. You will be missed, Liz.
1
Interesting that there are no NYT "picks" for the comments thus far...
The comments for the Public Editors never had TImes Picks. If I[m not mistaken, the PE office moderates its own comments, and they occasionally take weekends of, which is why it takes a while for comments to appear.
1
My guess is that it all boils down to the articles by the Public Editor are not getting the digital clicks that they need in order to justify the position. This has nothing to do with the need for an ombudsmen.
I don't believe that social media critics can replace the public editor role -- the two roles work together. It's an economic move yet the dollars saved are not worth the lost credibility. A mistake, in my opinion. Best of luck, Liz. Very sorry to hear this news.
1
Even in serious disagreement with the NYT, I thought that as long as readers were still posted voicing such disagreement, all was not lost. There was still some decent impulse in the willingness to publish dissent here. I wondered how long the editors would allow it, given the kind of condescension and lack of respect we've seen lately. And now we know.
1
and... scene. That's a wrap!
Well, it was a nice show while it lasted. But that pesky public editor was getting in the way of the real work here. We have narratives to spin and stories to tell.
Places, everyone!
Well, it was a nice show while it lasted. But that pesky public editor was getting in the way of the real work here. We have narratives to spin and stories to tell.
Places, everyone!
1
Championing GWB's Iraq Catastrophe...
Maggie & Co. belittling Bernie when not ignoring him...
And now dismissing the much-needed public editor.
Sometimes it's hard to root for the NYT. The paper does so much important work but the people there can be so very blind. This is another self-inflicted wound that deserves to outrage each and every reader.
So much despicable action coming from DC, and from NYC too.
Maggie & Co. belittling Bernie when not ignoring him...
And now dismissing the much-needed public editor.
Sometimes it's hard to root for the NYT. The paper does so much important work but the people there can be so very blind. This is another self-inflicted wound that deserves to outrage each and every reader.
So much despicable action coming from DC, and from NYC too.
1
What a shortsighted, appalling decision by the New York Times.
2
I left the Times after the election, sick of its false equivalency reporting, sick of its reporters sharing their personal angst after the debates as if readers cared about their personal views or lives or love of wine or whine; sick of the haughtiness that drowns reason in the newsroom.
I came back because it offered half-price subscription and because as much as I find it a gentrified space -- when was it not? Never -- unlike the Bernie bros, good is not the enemy of perfect.
We desperately need solid journalism, even if the messenger is flawed at times. No one's perfect. I also came back for smart commentators like Nick Kristoff, Jack Krugman, Gail Collins and David Brooks, for mature journalists, for its gifted photographers, its movie critics (shout out to Manohla!), its videos, graphic designers (lamentably, the Times no longer has the innovative graphic design from a few years back, when it displayed complex information in visual stunning interactive graphics); its editorial board whose members are among the most eloquent, most solemn thinkers of any time; for its ability to be relevant every single hour of every single day. I once wrote to the public editor, and was surprised to hear back rather quickly. The PE made a difference in how I viewed The Times. The position told the world: I will look into it. The paper has relegated that role to the world of trolls and bots. It's a grave mistake. Maturity matters. Journalism matters. That's even your selling own point.
I came back because it offered half-price subscription and because as much as I find it a gentrified space -- when was it not? Never -- unlike the Bernie bros, good is not the enemy of perfect.
We desperately need solid journalism, even if the messenger is flawed at times. No one's perfect. I also came back for smart commentators like Nick Kristoff, Jack Krugman, Gail Collins and David Brooks, for mature journalists, for its gifted photographers, its movie critics (shout out to Manohla!), its videos, graphic designers (lamentably, the Times no longer has the innovative graphic design from a few years back, when it displayed complex information in visual stunning interactive graphics); its editorial board whose members are among the most eloquent, most solemn thinkers of any time; for its ability to be relevant every single hour of every single day. I once wrote to the public editor, and was surprised to hear back rather quickly. The PE made a difference in how I viewed The Times. The position told the world: I will look into it. The paper has relegated that role to the world of trolls and bots. It's a grave mistake. Maturity matters. Journalism matters. That's even your selling own point.
Social media is your new watchdog? You should have the intelligence to know that your readers see through that, nonetheless it's always interesting to see all of the articles and columns that don't allow comments. It's all clearly coincidental...
One wonders how The Times managed over all these years before you came around to keep everyone honest.
You appear to not like the hit to your reputation when someone questions your judgment. Don't you know that's one of the things that MAKES your reputation?
The Times appears to have the exact same strategy as the White House.
Sad!
The Times appears to have the exact same strategy as the White House.
Sad!
Goodbye!! Don't let the door hit you in the butt on you way out.
You were , by far, the worst Public Editor of all.
Bad writing, puerile thoughts and a very unappealing cluelessness.
Too bad you can't take Dean Baquet with you.
The Times is showing all the signs of a failing hereditary dynasty.
Each Sulzburger is worse than the predecessor.
As a reader since 1954 (age 7!) I fear for the NY Times. This is not the paper I grew up with. That published the Pentagon Papers. This is a paper obsessed with click bait.
Your predecessor Margaret Sullivan was the best PE but even she groveled at DB's knees over the Jill Abramson fiasco......much like the needs to axed Maureen Dowd did initially with The Dumpster.
How much money can the Times be saving. If you were paid what you were worth you were getting minimum wage.
As you will probably have lots of spare time you can watch/listen to this video on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsaTElBljOE
You were , by far, the worst Public Editor of all.
Bad writing, puerile thoughts and a very unappealing cluelessness.
Too bad you can't take Dean Baquet with you.
The Times is showing all the signs of a failing hereditary dynasty.
Each Sulzburger is worse than the predecessor.
As a reader since 1954 (age 7!) I fear for the NY Times. This is not the paper I grew up with. That published the Pentagon Papers. This is a paper obsessed with click bait.
Your predecessor Margaret Sullivan was the best PE but even she groveled at DB's knees over the Jill Abramson fiasco......much like the needs to axed Maureen Dowd did initially with The Dumpster.
How much money can the Times be saving. If you were paid what you were worth you were getting minimum wage.
As you will probably have lots of spare time you can watch/listen to this video on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsaTElBljOE
3
Age 7. I doubt it.
Anyone else notice that comments weren't an option when this column went live?
I am stunned, STUNNED, that The Times has eliminated the Public Editor position. Are you bleeding money that badly (are you REALLY failing?) or do you just no longer care about having your editorial decisions publicly analyzed either internally or by your readership? Do you believe your readers that gullible? Did Ms. Spayd really cost the paper more than the value of its reputation?
If there were a public editor I'd ask her what her how that decision was reached and what her salary was compared to other costs in the newsroom and throughout the organization.
Advance warning, you’re now hanging on by your Shortz. If Will leaves too, then so will I.
I am stunned, STUNNED, that The Times has eliminated the Public Editor position. Are you bleeding money that badly (are you REALLY failing?) or do you just no longer care about having your editorial decisions publicly analyzed either internally or by your readership? Do you believe your readers that gullible? Did Ms. Spayd really cost the paper more than the value of its reputation?
If there were a public editor I'd ask her what her how that decision was reached and what her salary was compared to other costs in the newsroom and throughout the organization.
Advance warning, you’re now hanging on by your Shortz. If Will leaves too, then so will I.
1
I am absolutely opposed to the elimination of the Public Editor position.
The NYT and its readers were well served by this independent perspective, and through this conduit readers have felt more comfortable criticizing the NYT upper management, and over the years, I believe, this has been quite beneficial for all involved.
It seems to me, without further clarifying explanation from the Times, that this is a result of a squabble between the Times and the current Public Editor, and the result is an FU to the position.
Sean Corry.
The NYT and its readers were well served by this independent perspective, and through this conduit readers have felt more comfortable criticizing the NYT upper management, and over the years, I believe, this has been quite beneficial for all involved.
It seems to me, without further clarifying explanation from the Times, that this is a result of a squabble between the Times and the current Public Editor, and the result is an FU to the position.
Sean Corry.
1
I've subscribed to The New York Times (hard copy delivery, I'm old-school) for over twenty years. I am APPALLED at this decision.
Quite apart from the abomination which was the 'reporting' of Judith Miller, the NYT was a cheer leader for the stupid Iraq war, which has destabilized the Middle East and cost the United States much in lives, mentally and physically injured soldiers, and fortune. Can the NYT be trusted to do honest reporting? I think that is still undecided. Canning the public editor position is not a good sign.
1
"With little political opposition to Chávez, the media assumed that role [of opposition] ... and ultimately lost its credibility with the Venezuelan people. The U.S. isn’t Venezuela but the media here shouldn’t fall into the same trap."
The US media already did pre-election and thus we have President Trump. The New York Times is especially complicit in this in the way they so obviously-to-all helped in torpedoing Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate.
You reap what you sow, New York Times. Unfortunately, your actions help 7+ billion others now reap what you helped sow.
The US media already did pre-election and thus we have President Trump. The New York Times is especially complicit in this in the way they so obviously-to-all helped in torpedoing Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate.
You reap what you sow, New York Times. Unfortunately, your actions help 7+ billion others now reap what you helped sow.
Bring back Margaret Sullivan.
3
I don't know if they should have eliminated the position, but under Liz Spayd it certainly went downhill fast. It's possible someone else could have kept it going, but I have to agree that the way things were going, it's not a great loss. It was very clear her heart wasn't in it, or that perhaps she was receiving mixed messages about what her role was supposed to be, or she saw the writing on the wall that she wouldn't last long any way she played it.
Either way, the copyeditors are a more substantive loss.
Either way, the copyeditors are a more substantive loss.
4
Democracy Dies When the Media Lies and When No One Watches the Watchers. Great move, Dean. Now the Inquisition can really get started.
2
Not only think it was a valuable position, but enjoyed reading all the dispatches. Not sure I'll know where to go to understand the thinking behind questionable editorial decisions now.
1
As an investigative journalist in Canada, the source of my role models were from the New York Times and the Washington Post. I recall the persistent insistence of our paper's legal counsel and my managing editor to "getting it right trumps (yes, he actually used that word decades ago) anything else...No matter that YOU might think, let the facts of the story speak for itself. And if we get it wrong, we will apologize."
Somewhere down the line,both those role models lost the plot.
The papers I used to read religiously if only because I knew that getting it right was at their core, today have become wholly predicable... advocates not journalists.
So much so that only the Public Editor became the voice of unpredictability, willing to pick apart the obvious slanted ness and untruths that have discounted the credibility value of the NY Times.
Eliminating the position only further discounts same.
What a shame!
Somewhere down the line,both those role models lost the plot.
The papers I used to read religiously if only because I knew that getting it right was at their core, today have become wholly predicable... advocates not journalists.
So much so that only the Public Editor became the voice of unpredictability, willing to pick apart the obvious slanted ness and untruths that have discounted the credibility value of the NY Times.
Eliminating the position only further discounts same.
What a shame!
1
A short-sighted move. Having a prominent voice from within the institution that can critique the work being done is essential. This subscriber says "Nay" to this move.
This is a disappointing decision by the Times, no matter how the paper tries to defend it. The ombudman's role helps ground editors and reporters by providing an outside perspective on the collective performance of the newsroom -- a perspective not available to commenters and critics from outside.
As for the issue of the Times' purported bias, the real and growing issue currently is media manipulation by public figures, mostly in the political realm. If anything, the Times' coverage of Trump is too gentle. There is much at stake if the news media persists in treating the Trump Administration as somehow normal or, if bizarre, still not outside the mainstream of politics as usual. The constant, flagrant lying, the misstatement of fact, the attack on any and all opponents, all add up to an unprecedented challenge to the fundamental tenets of civil society.
Prestige media like the Times, the Post and others must step up their game to go against propaganda, foreign intrusion (with domestic collusion) and governmental malfeasance and corruption. A strong ombudsman can be an instigator as well as a scorekeeper of how well this critical necessity is being pursued.
As for the issue of the Times' purported bias, the real and growing issue currently is media manipulation by public figures, mostly in the political realm. If anything, the Times' coverage of Trump is too gentle. There is much at stake if the news media persists in treating the Trump Administration as somehow normal or, if bizarre, still not outside the mainstream of politics as usual. The constant, flagrant lying, the misstatement of fact, the attack on any and all opponents, all add up to an unprecedented challenge to the fundamental tenets of civil society.
Prestige media like the Times, the Post and others must step up their game to go against propaganda, foreign intrusion (with domestic collusion) and governmental malfeasance and corruption. A strong ombudsman can be an instigator as well as a scorekeeper of how well this critical necessity is being pursued.
1
I hope your successor has more independence
An unbiased public editor at the NYT is no longer even possible. The NYT's seething hatred of Trump and his supporters has rendered the paper nothing more than a feckless leftist rag. Most of the alledged "hard news" is written with a left wing slant to support the opinion pages.
Years ago the public editor would attempt to mitigate the bias. This is no longer attainable. The Times has sold its soul to an ever diminishing liberal echo chamber. Only the most diehard readers and the left wing elites take the publication serious anymore.
It is a shame. Although I disagreed with many of the NYT's positions, I always enjoyed their thoughful commentaries and hard news. Unfortunately that ship has sailed.
Years ago the public editor would attempt to mitigate the bias. This is no longer attainable. The Times has sold its soul to an ever diminishing liberal echo chamber. Only the most diehard readers and the left wing elites take the publication serious anymore.
It is a shame. Although I disagreed with many of the NYT's positions, I always enjoyed their thoughful commentaries and hard news. Unfortunately that ship has sailed.
The Times has been slipping for a while - less digging for facts and more "he said this, she said that". And questions for news: Will Trump exit the Paris Accord? And if he does...? And if he doesn't...?
The Public Editor would have a juicy target, but the Times isn't ducking. No, they're removing the rotten tomatoes before they can be thrown. Not good for the paper. Won't keep up with the competition.
The Public Editor would have a juicy target, but the Times isn't ducking. No, they're removing the rotten tomatoes before they can be thrown. Not good for the paper. Won't keep up with the competition.
Yeah, the Times ran several front page articles speculating Trump would invoke Executive Privilege to stop Comey from testifying.
How did that work out, NYT?
The number of articles that get it wrong is appalling.
And getting it wrong while offering a source confidentiality is utterly inexcusable. Too bad it is such a regular feature these days.
How did that work out, NYT?
The number of articles that get it wrong is appalling.
And getting it wrong while offering a source confidentiality is utterly inexcusable. Too bad it is such a regular feature these days.
1
Yes, many agree with you, and although Liz was often an apologist for the Times, and did not hold the paper to account often, now is hardly the moment to eliminate the position. Rather, a sterner Public Editor is needed that might, for example, stress more investigative reporting and less quasi-factual tabloid click bait.
2
This may be Liz Spayd's best column. And that is much of the problem! For years I looked forward to Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan's, columns and to the comments, usually the most substantive and perceptive of any set of comments. Meanwhile, I frequently added my own two cents.
When Spayd took over from Sullivan, the column changed dramatically. It became boring and irrelevant to pertinent issues, often sounding like editorial rear covering. Finally I stopped commenting and reading it and, eventually not bothering to read the comments, as I noticed many of the regular, more interesting commenters seemed to have stopped commenting.
There were two alternatives, and to this day I do not know which tells the story. On one hand it is simply possible that Spayd was incapable of understanding and/or executing the job. The other possibility is that the Times leadership dramatically changed the job description, trapping Liz in narrow confines. As a corollary, it seemed that such a new job description might have been the reason Margaret chose to leave.
As a very public figure, Spayd is legitimately open to public criticism in her area of claimed expertise. Nonetheless, I would like to thank her for giving it a good try and wish her well in her next endeavor. More than her role at the Times, her role at the Columbia Journalism Review gives her much credibility.
I would also like to second Spayd's acknowledgement of the capable, positive role played by Evan Gershkovich. Thanks !
When Spayd took over from Sullivan, the column changed dramatically. It became boring and irrelevant to pertinent issues, often sounding like editorial rear covering. Finally I stopped commenting and reading it and, eventually not bothering to read the comments, as I noticed many of the regular, more interesting commenters seemed to have stopped commenting.
There were two alternatives, and to this day I do not know which tells the story. On one hand it is simply possible that Spayd was incapable of understanding and/or executing the job. The other possibility is that the Times leadership dramatically changed the job description, trapping Liz in narrow confines. As a corollary, it seemed that such a new job description might have been the reason Margaret chose to leave.
As a very public figure, Spayd is legitimately open to public criticism in her area of claimed expertise. Nonetheless, I would like to thank her for giving it a good try and wish her well in her next endeavor. More than her role at the Times, her role at the Columbia Journalism Review gives her much credibility.
I would also like to second Spayd's acknowledgement of the capable, positive role played by Evan Gershkovich. Thanks !
1
This is a bad sign.
The Times news reporting is often biased. Any critical reader can see that. I still love the paper because it's so comprehensive and smartly written and the reporting is deep and broad. But I know I'm sometimes reading an opinion piece disguised as news analysis.
Yet quite often you read a truly balanced piece that details the best arguments on both sides and counterarguments. It depends on the reporter and the subject but there certainly is plenty of objective reporting where you come away with a better appreciation of both sides of an issue. Because of course there are always at least two sides to every story.
One particular pet peeve I have that I don't recall you writing about is a trend of the Times reporting on a purported public backlash against someone or something based on cherry picking a few tweets on Twitter. I've often said to myself that is tantamount to reporting on public opinion by asking a few random passerbys on the street. I've noticed a trend with these stories that usually the supposed backlash reflects a liberal/left issue or talking point and smells suspiciously like clickbait. You never see a report of a bunch of gun nuts ranting on Twitter yet I'd venture to guess there are a substantial number at given time--enough to report on if you were so inclined. But this is just an example of how choosing what stories to report on itself is a judgment call potentially infected by normative bias.
The Times news reporting is often biased. Any critical reader can see that. I still love the paper because it's so comprehensive and smartly written and the reporting is deep and broad. But I know I'm sometimes reading an opinion piece disguised as news analysis.
Yet quite often you read a truly balanced piece that details the best arguments on both sides and counterarguments. It depends on the reporter and the subject but there certainly is plenty of objective reporting where you come away with a better appreciation of both sides of an issue. Because of course there are always at least two sides to every story.
One particular pet peeve I have that I don't recall you writing about is a trend of the Times reporting on a purported public backlash against someone or something based on cherry picking a few tweets on Twitter. I've often said to myself that is tantamount to reporting on public opinion by asking a few random passerbys on the street. I've noticed a trend with these stories that usually the supposed backlash reflects a liberal/left issue or talking point and smells suspiciously like clickbait. You never see a report of a bunch of gun nuts ranting on Twitter yet I'd venture to guess there are a substantial number at given time--enough to report on if you were so inclined. But this is just an example of how choosing what stories to report on itself is a judgment call potentially infected by normative bias.
1
Readers who have followed the public editor’s columns and her interviews will not be surprised by the decision of the NYT to eliminate the position of public editor. Does the NYT need a public editor? If so, then all newspapers do.
It seems to me that the Public Editor is saying that in today's culture wars it is essential to have credible media to keep us informed about what is happening. Dispassionate and nonpartisan reporting is essential to that credibility.
Journalists can be correspondents sending out bulletins from the battlefield or they can be combatants. They cannot be both. If they have decided to take up arms, then whom do we trust?
Farewell, Ms Spayd. Most of us have appreciated your efforts.
Journalists can be correspondents sending out bulletins from the battlefield or they can be combatants. They cannot be both. If they have decided to take up arms, then whom do we trust?
Farewell, Ms Spayd. Most of us have appreciated your efforts.
The Curse of Jayson Blair has ended!
Thank you.
"The Trump administration is drowning in scandal,"
Your illusion of your central position, now that your are being replaced by a machnine, continues to confuse you, Spayd.
It is not the Trump admin that is drowning is scandal, it is the Times that is drowning in the scandal of your continuing stories made of lies, obsession, corruption, and fake news. You won't ever admit this because all are so deep in your cult and your mental obsessions that you can't see it. You simply can't tell the truth since the truth will just reveal to you how you have wasted your life for a paycheck. Sad.
Your illusion of your central position, now that your are being replaced by a machnine, continues to confuse you, Spayd.
It is not the Trump admin that is drowning is scandal, it is the Times that is drowning in the scandal of your continuing stories made of lies, obsession, corruption, and fake news. You won't ever admit this because all are so deep in your cult and your mental obsessions that you can't see it. You simply can't tell the truth since the truth will just reveal to you how you have wasted your life for a paycheck. Sad.
1
As the Public Editor departs, let's pause and remember Margaret Sullivan, who showed how the job should be done and set an example that ought to have been followed.
3
Thanks for all you did in a very rough position.
For a while after the election, executives at the Times seemed to recognize they existed in a bubble and missed one of the biggest stories of the decade.
Alas, their decision to eliminate the Public Editor's position has just strengthened the bubble.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
For a while after the election, executives at the Times seemed to recognize they existed in a bubble and missed one of the biggest stories of the decade.
Alas, their decision to eliminate the Public Editor's position has just strengthened the bubble.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
NYT: couldn't you have fired MoDo instead?
4
Having ignored only politically correct criticisms the demise of a public editor is simply the latest proof of "Grey Lady Down" (not the submarine movie)
The Times' justification for eliminating the Public Editor position was Trumpian in its sophistry.
2
To assume the Times doesn't need a gut check while it's consistently dealing with some of the most grueling decisions of its long history (read: Trump) is akin to defending Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA. Before you dismiss my comment as hyperbole, think about your worst mistakes: what if they repeat themselves now, when the future of our country, and the definition of truth, is at stake?
We share a simple belief and passion: the truth matters greatly. And a pattern of truths multiplies into lessons and wisdom for us all. The cost of one false cog in that chain has never been greater.
While your Risk lawyers work overtime, you're expunging someone who can answer to the sole institution more important than courts: Your Readership.
This is Business over Truth.
We share a simple belief and passion: the truth matters greatly. And a pattern of truths multiplies into lessons and wisdom for us all. The cost of one false cog in that chain has never been greater.
While your Risk lawyers work overtime, you're expunging someone who can answer to the sole institution more important than courts: Your Readership.
This is Business over Truth.
1
I see a disconnect between readers and the management of the paper. The endorsement of Hillary before Iowa just about made me cancel. The hiring of another Neocon from the Murdoch Street Journal also reflects tone deafness- the paper is larded with a Conservatives and no true Progressive. Opinion is Center Right at best. Now that Digital Subs are up the powers that be seem to think they are in the clear.
The Public Editor was created after a number of highly embarrassing screw ups by the Times and we still remember. If the ruling family sees the paper as a trust they need to keep the Public Editor.
The WaPo, after a near death experience seems recovered and Mr Bezos has deeper pockets than Carlos Slim and is known to demand performance. The Times needs to not get comfortable and needs to stop laying off journalists.
The Public Editor was created after a number of highly embarrassing screw ups by the Times and we still remember. If the ruling family sees the paper as a trust they need to keep the Public Editor.
The WaPo, after a near death experience seems recovered and Mr Bezos has deeper pockets than Carlos Slim and is known to demand performance. The Times needs to not get comfortable and needs to stop laying off journalists.
3
I admit, I haven’t read many reports that quote Dean Baquet — maybe a dozen over the campaign-election months and since. That’s not enough to assert I know his perspective on journalism, but at least I can make an observation:
Asked by interviewers if a certain criticism of the Times’ coverage is fair, Baquet has consistently replied ’no.’ Not once has he conceded the Times might have overlooked or misjudged an event or otherwise erred in presenting the daily news. At the same time, he has disparaged critics, commenters, voters and Americans in general; once suggesting they don’t know what they don’t know.
That may be true, although it makes me question whether Baquet will accept the viewpoints of amateur critics among a public he seems to disrespect. i appreciate that he publicly supports Times employees. i only hope he is more honest — and accepting of criticism — in staff meetings than it appears he is in the public sphere. His stated infallibility comes across as a little too Trump-ian for me.
Best of luck to you, Ms Spayd.
Asked by interviewers if a certain criticism of the Times’ coverage is fair, Baquet has consistently replied ’no.’ Not once has he conceded the Times might have overlooked or misjudged an event or otherwise erred in presenting the daily news. At the same time, he has disparaged critics, commenters, voters and Americans in general; once suggesting they don’t know what they don’t know.
That may be true, although it makes me question whether Baquet will accept the viewpoints of amateur critics among a public he seems to disrespect. i appreciate that he publicly supports Times employees. i only hope he is more honest — and accepting of criticism — in staff meetings than it appears he is in the public sphere. His stated infallibility comes across as a little too Trump-ian for me.
Best of luck to you, Ms Spayd.
2
Thank you, Liz. I never missed a column and always looked forward to your keen insights. You were certainly a thorn in management's side. May you have much continued success.
Bad move New York Times.
I didn't think much of Liz Spayd's work as PE (in contrast to Margaret Sullivan, who was great in the job) but for the NYTimes to blithely claim that the role is "no longer needed because... social media" is utter nonsense. The PE was able to pose questions to editors and reporters, and usually was able to get some kind of (mostly defensive) response. No so with "social media" comments. There is no indication that the editors and reporters even READ these comments. They certainly never respond to them.
The New York Times has dropped yet another notch in my regard.
I didn't think much of Liz Spayd's work as PE (in contrast to Margaret Sullivan, who was great in the job) but for the NYTimes to blithely claim that the role is "no longer needed because... social media" is utter nonsense. The PE was able to pose questions to editors and reporters, and usually was able to get some kind of (mostly defensive) response. No so with "social media" comments. There is no indication that the editors and reporters even READ these comments. They certainly never respond to them.
The New York Times has dropped yet another notch in my regard.
2
No public editor, fewer editors in general, more reporters, more content, rapidly published, and don't forget "personalized" content. What's next?Inviting 10,000 bloggers to publish their content, for free, on the site? Or just publishing all new straight to Facebook?
2
I am very, very sorry to see this role, as well as other editorial work, cut from the NYT, for which I have the highest respect (and to which I subscribe) BECAUSE stories go through layers of editing. Good, careful editing inspires trust, and that's something desperately needed by any newspaper/media outlet.
1
I'm very dull disappointed in the NYT. The quality has already started to erode. There have been more errors and sloppy grammar. Worst is eliminating this position. The NYT is profitable, but in the interest of greater profits they have joined so much of the rest of America in a race to the bottom.
The NYT isn't like a pair of jeans; where if a company chooses to make crummy, low quality jeans there is no larger impact to the world. People will buy them or they won't. The NYT is a different kind of product and has a different responsibility to the country, to the world and to history.
The NYT isn't like a pair of jeans; where if a company chooses to make crummy, low quality jeans there is no larger impact to the world. People will buy them or they won't. The NYT is a different kind of product and has a different responsibility to the country, to the world and to history.
I am saddened to see the Public Editor end. Good work. Thank you Liz, Evan, and Eric.
I appreciated your columns that thought outside the typical liberal box, that you engaged in critical thinking and differed from other liberal columnists and did not engage in hyper-partisanship. The NY Times just reinforced its liberal bias by eliminating your position. Good luck to you!
The previous public editor actually pointed to cases where Times writers and editors didn't know their own policies. I thought the Times felt safe after they Spayd the position. Eliminating it entirely plays right into the characterizations of the NYT as opinion masquerading as news.
1
This also may be a turning point in our history. When one of the last reliable sources of truth went missing. PBS also had its moment when republicans decided not to fund anymore. They had to get creative. The New York Times needs to get creative also. Giving editors pink slips will not help. Perhaps volunteering journalism students trolling for truth.
What's next? Firing the research department and farming out the fact checking to "social media"?
We are already much too busy trying to hold our government accountable. We don't have time to do your jobs for you, as well.
We are already much too busy trying to hold our government accountable. We don't have time to do your jobs for you, as well.
So much for claiming that the NYT will listen to feedback from readers on social media since Glenn Thrush blocks everyone on Twitter who disagrees with him. And you select which comments get published on the website, limiting them to your own biases; I know this firsthand because most of my comments aren't ever published.
Except this one?
1
My local newspaper, The Orlando Sentinel, once very robust but now in decline like many other papers, eliminated the position of Public Editor many years ago. The quality of the publication suffered because of it. The New York Times would be well advised to reconsider its decision.
The 'optics' of this are terrible. Attention to quality and responsiveness to reader concerns could be cited as differentiators of the Times from other, nonsubscription news outlets, and the Times's ending of the public editor role undermines any such claim. As shown by some of these comments, the paper's action could be held up as a sign of the Times's decline, confirming Trump's tweets about the "failing New York Times." I can't imagine that a public editor is paid that much that her salary would have any significant effect on the company bottom line
1
>> It’s hardly a coincidence that plagiarism has become a regular occurance
Masha Gessen's June 2 column ("Incompetence Won't Save Us") misspells "occurrence."
Masha Gessen's June 2 column ("Incompetence Won't Save Us") misspells "occurrence."
All the best to Liz Spayd. I hope to see her columns in another paper.
Most of the commenters here fail to recall the The Times existed quite well without a public editor for most of its history. The job was introduced after the scandal created by the plagiarist Jayson Blair, who resigned in 2003 and was accompanied by the dismissals of the executive editor, Howell Raines,and the managing editor, Gerald Boyd. y my lights, in the last dozen or so years, the public editor's role has degenerated to uselessness, most often taking the side of the most aggrieved readers, whose arguments frequently evinced how little they knew about journalism. The comments here are typical - The Times has no integrity, The Times is arrogant, the readers know better than the reporters and editors. This is all baloney. The public editor served a purpose, which has long since run its course. The Times will continue to decide what news should be covered and how. If you don't like the decisions -- and some, for sure will be dubious -- you can still whine about in comments or, if you're foolish enough, stop reading the the paper.
Margaret Sullivan was an executional public editor. This last appointee did not command the same presence, nor was she as invested with the Time's readers and commenters.
The Times is making clear its message : any subscribers who dare to voice opinions which run counter to the liberal agenda advanced by the NYTimes can bloody well drop dead.
The Times is making clear its message : any subscribers who dare to voice opinions which run counter to the liberal agenda advanced by the NYTimes can bloody well drop dead.
1
Oops...darn autocorrect. That should read above : Margaret Sullivan was an *exceptional* public editor.
1
Thanks, Liz. And, thanks to the others who came before you in the job. You all did what you could, sometimes with mixed results, to hold their feet to the fire. The decision by the Times to eliminate the public editor job is a shame and a retreat from the transparency we need today in journalism. As a semi-retired practitioner, I know that none of us really enjoyed the criticism that often came with the job. But those of us who really cared about the calling took time to think about that criticism. It made us better reporters, I think. And, criticism from the inside is even more powerful. Times' readers have been poorly treated with this decision.
I was strictly a follower of Ms. Spayd's predecessor in the role, and continue that journalist's media coverage over at the WP.
With Ms. Spayd's first few columns I saw a lowering of quality.
Maybe that was, in some weird way, dictated "from above".
In any event, throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't what I expected and I fault the NYTimes for a misstep yet again. The paper's attempts throughout 2016 to deep-six Bernie Sanders, as well as being absolute fools in trying to sell Clinton as being ahead of Trump, right into the week of the election, have really done more damage than the 2003 Jayson Blair plagiarizing incident.
I hope both Ms. Spayd and the NYTimes recover successfully.
With Ms. Spayd's first few columns I saw a lowering of quality.
Maybe that was, in some weird way, dictated "from above".
In any event, throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't what I expected and I fault the NYTimes for a misstep yet again. The paper's attempts throughout 2016 to deep-six Bernie Sanders, as well as being absolute fools in trying to sell Clinton as being ahead of Trump, right into the week of the election, have really done more damage than the 2003 Jayson Blair plagiarizing incident.
I hope both Ms. Spayd and the NYTimes recover successfully.
Blair wasn't a plagiarist; rather, he was a fabulist.
Liz Spayd's firing is another sign that the NYT is no longer a paper dedicated to free inquiry and debate. The Op Ed page has no significant difference of opinion. Reporters on other pages voice their opinions as if they were news. Even the Sports pages are filled with PC platitudes. The NYT has become a safe space. The terrible thing is, judging by the comments, that's what most readers want.
1
This is a very disturbing news item.
Is the NYT disturbed by the very sort of objective questioning the seems to have permeated the responses of the White House "explainers?" Is the heat in the
kitchen getting to be a bit much for shapers of this publication's pretty clear
and for most part – I believe – legitimate position on America's present political dilemma.
Ms. Spayd may now know how James Comey feels.
Is the NYT disturbed by the very sort of objective questioning the seems to have permeated the responses of the White House "explainers?" Is the heat in the
kitchen getting to be a bit much for shapers of this publication's pretty clear
and for most part – I believe – legitimate position on America's present political dilemma.
Ms. Spayd may now know how James Comey feels.
This is indeed very disappointing. Readers' comments are never going to be an adequate replacement for a Public Editor focused on pointing out the perhaps unconscious bias and emphasis of individual stories as well as coverage focus. Those of us in the news hinterlands who have depended for years on the NYT for clear, reasonably unbiased coverage in a difficult time are going to be less confident in our national newspaper. I am very sorry the Times has made this cut.
I have no problem with the media - including and perhaps particularly the NY Times and the Washington Post - calling out the administration as it descends into shameless Fascism. There is nothing noble about maintaining an obsequious judiciousness in the face of a relentless attack on our most treasured institutions, including the fifth estate itself. Boldly speaking truth to power is precisely what I expect from a free press. As long as stories are carefully vetted for accuracy, particularly when they are potentially explosive, I say go for it. I am, however, distressed by the serial cutbacks at the Times, and fear that this will inevitably result in diminished quality. I hope I'm wrong. As for the Public Editor, I have mixed feelings. The concept is excellent. Its execution, however, has been less than sterling, especially since Margaret Sullivan left.
The role of a public editor simply cannot be replaced by crowd sourcing editorial oversight. The wisdom of crowds is and must always be dependent upon independent judgements. But such independence can never be achieved through social networks. To pretend otherwise is a fundamental error in understanding network analysis, but also and more importantly an error in governance at the Times. For the decision to be made now at a time when the robustness of our government oversight is being fully tested is cause for deepest concern.
As a public editor, Spayd was a joke. Case in point was her recent column on the Times' decision to run crime scene photos from the Manchester bombings. Editors refused to tell her what, if anything, they discussed before deciding to publish the photos, and she gave them a pass. Not even a note or tsk-tsk that, hey, you owe it to readers to explain your rationale going in, not merely give an after-the-fact absolution from Baquet that was woefully thin and raised as many questions as it answered.
It was the sort of thing that neither Sullivan nor Hoyt would have done, and Spayd had a habit of doing that sort of thing, either picking silly topics or failing to hold the powers that be at the Times accountable, or even asking good and obvious questions. But, while Spayd was a dreadful public editor, the position itself is an important one, as Sullivan, especially, consistently demonstrated. I won't miss Spayd a bit, but I will miss the position. Properly used, it made a big difference, I thought.
It was the sort of thing that neither Sullivan nor Hoyt would have done, and Spayd had a habit of doing that sort of thing, either picking silly topics or failing to hold the powers that be at the Times accountable, or even asking good and obvious questions. But, while Spayd was a dreadful public editor, the position itself is an important one, as Sullivan, especially, consistently demonstrated. I won't miss Spayd a bit, but I will miss the position. Properly used, it made a big difference, I thought.
2
I've always read and enjoyed Public Editor and am very sorry to see it go.
Good riddance. Spayd would serve Breitbart News well.
Bad idea. Not sure what's going on over there at rhe Gray Lady but things are looking shifty lately.
Between hiring a climate change denier and this I may have to cancel my very expensive subscription. Let Timothy Egan, Bruni, Blow and the tech writers know if they spin off into their own web-deal, I'll subscribe.
You mucky mucks up at the top should not chop this position. Bad idea.
Between hiring a climate change denier and this I may have to cancel my very expensive subscription. Let Timothy Egan, Bruni, Blow and the tech writers know if they spin off into their own web-deal, I'll subscribe.
You mucky mucks up at the top should not chop this position. Bad idea.
This is a shame. A collective watchdog is no substitute for experienced and articulate editors who takes responsibility for their words. The last voices I would care to rely on are those of the paper's "followers in social media."
As I recall, one of the columns that most irritated readers was the one defending climate change denier Bret Stephens's first column. Well, congratulations to you and to the NYT--his column was just cited by EPA head Scott Pruitt as justification for Trump pulling us out of the Paris agreement.
This is why people excoriated the Times for hiring him, and you, Ms. Spayd, for arguing that his hiring was merely an attempt to hear from a diversity of voices. Climate change denialism is a denial of fact. The Times purports to be a purveyor of fact. Instead, it has lent its credibility to a reckless, irresponsible act undertaken by a dishonest administration. It is astonishing that you couldn't see how wrong it was to give Stephens' climate change denialism a platform. And then you wonder why readers don't trust you.
This is why people excoriated the Times for hiring him, and you, Ms. Spayd, for arguing that his hiring was merely an attempt to hear from a diversity of voices. Climate change denialism is a denial of fact. The Times purports to be a purveyor of fact. Instead, it has lent its credibility to a reckless, irresponsible act undertaken by a dishonest administration. It is astonishing that you couldn't see how wrong it was to give Stephens' climate change denialism a platform. And then you wonder why readers don't trust you.
2
Why is there a threat that the NYT will act recklessly or draw premature conclusions only when it reports unflattering facts about the Trump administration?
By framing the issue in this way, you're implying that investigative reporting on the Trump administration is inherently more prone to bias than reporting on other subjects. The corollary of this would seem to be that the Trump administration should not be questioned except under extraordinary circumstances.
That is not a call for responsible journalism. It's a call for journalistic surrender.
By framing the issue in this way, you're implying that investigative reporting on the Trump administration is inherently more prone to bias than reporting on other subjects. The corollary of this would seem to be that the Trump administration should not be questioned except under extraordinary circumstances.
That is not a call for responsible journalism. It's a call for journalistic surrender.
1
Is that the shadow of Roger Daltrey circa 1970 on that Marshall stack?
This means The New York Times will never be held accountable for questionable reporting in the future. This paper was irresponsible when it reported that Hillary Clinton was under "criminal investigation" for her E-mails, which turned out to be a lie. If this paper engages in erroneous reporting like that in the future, there will be no one to call this paper out. This is a very dark day for journalism in America.
I often imagined the Times would simply rid itself of a Public Editor owing to their incapacity for taking bearings other than those of the hard left. Like the Huffington Post, the Times grows vexed by divergent opinions and grows quite nasty when when those opinions are voiced by the administration or the Republican party in general.
Santayana: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
In the late 1990s, the Times hired a young reporter named Jayson Blair. He was a favorite of former Executive Editor Howell Raines. Everybody knew it. Eventually, Blair was filing stories datelined from Maryland while never leaving his Brooklyn apartment, and faking expense reports. Other reporters tried to warn Raines that he was protecting a rogue reporter. Raines didn't want to hear it. Once Blair was exposed as a fraud,
Raines paid with his job.
It took time for the Times to examine itself. Its response was to create the Public Editor position. By the time Daniel Omrent was hired and filed his first column, in December of 2003, Judith Miller had already used cover of anonymity to channel Junior Bush administration mendacity in service of flogging the Iraq Invasion. So convincing was Miller, unlike Blair, a veteran reporter, that Miller's "reportage" convinced Tom Friedman, Mo Dowd, and the Times' Editorial Board to support the invasion. It wasn't until Times' war correspondents on the ground, like John F Burns and Dexter Filkins revealed the truth that the Times backtracked, not that Friedman did.
Miller precipitated a "committee on credibility," resulting in Bill Keller writing "Assuring Our Credibility." Keller aspired to anonymous sourcing as rare, now a laughably quaint conceit.
Twitter is NOT a PE. What IS the "Reader Center?" How can we access it?
What blunder will repeat next?
In the late 1990s, the Times hired a young reporter named Jayson Blair. He was a favorite of former Executive Editor Howell Raines. Everybody knew it. Eventually, Blair was filing stories datelined from Maryland while never leaving his Brooklyn apartment, and faking expense reports. Other reporters tried to warn Raines that he was protecting a rogue reporter. Raines didn't want to hear it. Once Blair was exposed as a fraud,
Raines paid with his job.
It took time for the Times to examine itself. Its response was to create the Public Editor position. By the time Daniel Omrent was hired and filed his first column, in December of 2003, Judith Miller had already used cover of anonymity to channel Junior Bush administration mendacity in service of flogging the Iraq Invasion. So convincing was Miller, unlike Blair, a veteran reporter, that Miller's "reportage" convinced Tom Friedman, Mo Dowd, and the Times' Editorial Board to support the invasion. It wasn't until Times' war correspondents on the ground, like John F Burns and Dexter Filkins revealed the truth that the Times backtracked, not that Friedman did.
Miller precipitated a "committee on credibility," resulting in Bill Keller writing "Assuring Our Credibility." Keller aspired to anonymous sourcing as rare, now a laughably quaint conceit.
Twitter is NOT a PE. What IS the "Reader Center?" How can we access it?
What blunder will repeat next?
2
For all those disappointed NYT readers who are contemplating running off to the WaPo: keep in mind that it is not the Katherine Graham WaPo of old. It is now the privately owned and unaccountable toy of Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos.
1
Shameful is the best way, to my way of thinking, that the Times has eliminated its Public Editor.
Airing dirty laundry in public, to paraphrase an chestnut from Justice Brandeis, is the best disinfectant.
I've been a fan of the Public Editors from the position's inception.
And I believe Ms. Spayd raised especially pertinent issues.
I often pondered how those occupying the upper echelons of the newspaper -- all the way up to Mr. Sulzberger -- digested some of the most trenchant critiques.
As the NY Times proceeds through the uncharted waters -- at times even turbulent -- in the proliferating era of electronic communications the role of its Public Editor proved especially pertinent.
The Public Editor exercised an essential role on the current field of play -- often turbulent -- by virtue of having access for face-to-face discussions with reporters, editors, and executives.
Having a readers' forum for airing concerns represents a big step down because what will be missing is the "voice" of the Public Editor.
Finally, readers will be kept further away from the inside story of the internal decision about the Public Editor.
I suspect that we'll learn a good deal more about how and why this happened in a matter of hours or days.
But that insider story line surely will not be found in the New York Times!
Airing dirty laundry in public, to paraphrase an chestnut from Justice Brandeis, is the best disinfectant.
I've been a fan of the Public Editors from the position's inception.
And I believe Ms. Spayd raised especially pertinent issues.
I often pondered how those occupying the upper echelons of the newspaper -- all the way up to Mr. Sulzberger -- digested some of the most trenchant critiques.
As the NY Times proceeds through the uncharted waters -- at times even turbulent -- in the proliferating era of electronic communications the role of its Public Editor proved especially pertinent.
The Public Editor exercised an essential role on the current field of play -- often turbulent -- by virtue of having access for face-to-face discussions with reporters, editors, and executives.
Having a readers' forum for airing concerns represents a big step down because what will be missing is the "voice" of the Public Editor.
Finally, readers will be kept further away from the inside story of the internal decision about the Public Editor.
I suspect that we'll learn a good deal more about how and why this happened in a matter of hours or days.
But that insider story line surely will not be found in the New York Times!
1
I am deeply disappointed in the NY Times for discontiuing the public editor. It disgusts me, as a subscriber, as much as the symbolic signals President Trump has sent the world disrespecting the Paris Climate accords. Nuts!
1
PE: "Thanks to Eric Nagourney, my copy editor, who saved me many times from fumbling over my own words."
Not to pick on anyone in particular, but the spelling of "Morell" is inconsistent:
* "Mike Morell, former acting director of the C.I.A. ..."
* "... the media assumed that role, Morrell said, ..."
2017-06-02 19:39:40 UTC
Not to pick on anyone in particular, but the spelling of "Morell" is inconsistent:
* "Mike Morell, former acting director of the C.I.A. ..."
* "... the media assumed that role, Morrell said, ..."
2017-06-02 19:39:40 UTC
Liz Spayd always seemed to be more an apologist for the Times than a true voice for the readers. I don't think initially she realized that, as a public editor, her job was to give voice to the readers concerns and collect and present them to the Editorial staff for comment, reflection. It was then her job to take those views and present them concisely back to the readership.
This should all be informed by her knowledge of journalism not led by her ideas on journalism. Too often, the concerns of readers did not lead the conversation. Too often it seemed like it was just Ms Spayd thoughts.
More recently, however, I think Ms Spayd had been finding her feet in it.
Public Editor is a pretty thankless job. But even imperfectly enacted it was far better to have one than not. It did at least force some conversation where online comments are too easy to ignore.
Dean Banquet is probably overjoyed. I don't think public accountability is his thing. I however am not.
The position of public editor should have been maintained. It made the Times stronger, less elitist. But then that isn't the Times target audience as stated by Mr Banquet so I shouldn't be surprised.
This should all be informed by her knowledge of journalism not led by her ideas on journalism. Too often, the concerns of readers did not lead the conversation. Too often it seemed like it was just Ms Spayd thoughts.
More recently, however, I think Ms Spayd had been finding her feet in it.
Public Editor is a pretty thankless job. But even imperfectly enacted it was far better to have one than not. It did at least force some conversation where online comments are too easy to ignore.
Dean Banquet is probably overjoyed. I don't think public accountability is his thing. I however am not.
The position of public editor should have been maintained. It made the Times stronger, less elitist. But then that isn't the Times target audience as stated by Mr Banquet so I shouldn't be surprised.
2
The onus is now on the Times to show its readers and critics how it will replace the Public Editor position with other tools to keep lines of communications with this audience flowing to and from the editorial staff.
We are watching and waiting.
We are watching and waiting.
1
To Liz: Thank you for you service. While it may be premature to say it, you may have lost your job, in part to AI.
I’m sorry to see this position eliminated. It’s important. In fact it should be expanded into a role I called the Chief Readership Editor in a LinkedIn post. The replacement is the Reader Center which appears to be a cross functional big-data analytics team that will inform both editorial, marketing and the product teams as the times seeks to move forward in its digital transformation initiatives. These initiatives are necessary, but fraught with peril.
If this is done right, the Reader Center could perhaps be even more effective than the small office of the public editor in upholding standards of good journalism, but it must, at the very least, provide the same transparency in its work as the public editor. If it’s not done right and research outcomes are weighted too heavily on AI analysis and/or business results, than the Times runs the risk of losing the hearts and minds of readers and the reporting staff.
I wish Hannah Ingber the best in her role as the leader of Reader Center. Running a start-up within an established business like the Times and with so many interests to juggle will not be easy.
I’m sorry to see this position eliminated. It’s important. In fact it should be expanded into a role I called the Chief Readership Editor in a LinkedIn post. The replacement is the Reader Center which appears to be a cross functional big-data analytics team that will inform both editorial, marketing and the product teams as the times seeks to move forward in its digital transformation initiatives. These initiatives are necessary, but fraught with peril.
If this is done right, the Reader Center could perhaps be even more effective than the small office of the public editor in upholding standards of good journalism, but it must, at the very least, provide the same transparency in its work as the public editor. If it’s not done right and research outcomes are weighted too heavily on AI analysis and/or business results, than the Times runs the risk of losing the hearts and minds of readers and the reporting staff.
I wish Hannah Ingber the best in her role as the leader of Reader Center. Running a start-up within an established business like the Times and with so many interests to juggle will not be easy.
It is a mistake for the Time to eliminate the position of Public Editor. Having such a position and having Public Editors that were willing to raise and explore issues of ethics, propriety and competency, all enhanced the credibility of the Times as an institution.
When the Times calls for government organisations to have an inspector general or for some arm of government to make a special investigation, will the Times accept the excuse that the public interest is being adequately protected by internet blogs and reader comments?
As to reader comments, who makes the decision as to when comments to an article will be enabled and who makes the decision as to when comments will be closed. Also, who makes the decisions as to who the trusted commenters are and that the time posted with a comment is the time it is moderated and not the time the comment is made? Earlier this year, the Times indicated it was going to have a computer make decisions as to comments. Has that come into play? Will you ever post what the standards are to these comment questions? All of this relates to the Times indication that a Public Editor is no longer necessary since readers are now empowered by the internet power to comment.
When the Times calls for government organisations to have an inspector general or for some arm of government to make a special investigation, will the Times accept the excuse that the public interest is being adequately protected by internet blogs and reader comments?
As to reader comments, who makes the decision as to when comments to an article will be enabled and who makes the decision as to when comments will be closed. Also, who makes the decisions as to who the trusted commenters are and that the time posted with a comment is the time it is moderated and not the time the comment is made? Earlier this year, the Times indicated it was going to have a computer make decisions as to comments. Has that come into play? Will you ever post what the standards are to these comment questions? All of this relates to the Times indication that a Public Editor is no longer necessary since readers are now empowered by the internet power to comment.
1
I miss Margaret Sullivan, and I regret that the Times is eliminating the Public Editor's position. Yes, there are many channels in the online world for the Times to receive comments on articles and on its coverage. When done well, though, the public editor allows readers to see a dialogue with other editors and reporters. That will be missed.
2
A fine swan song. You will be missed, Ms. Spayd, and your office will be missed.
President Trump dispensed with Mr. Comey, and the Times closed the office of Public Editor. Two extraordinarily powerful institutions shielding themselves from oversight. Not much difference. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes indeed.
The Times has truly done major harm to its credibility, damage that will likely be long lasting. The paper's liberal base may not be overly upset; many of these folks seem to believe that the Times is first published on divinely sanctioned stone tablets. This is of course not the case; as with all human institutions, the Times makes errors of judgment and of fact, and is - make that was - strengthened by a watchful eye. The Times has clearly not heeded the lessons of the recent election.
Ms. Spayd, I have enjoyed your columns, and think you did a good job. I've read that some others do not agree (including Mr. Baquet); in the eyes of some you committed the high crimes of listening to readers and doing your job. Good luck to you as you pursue the many options that I'm sure will be available to you.
The position of public editor at the Times was created in response to one of the most damning instances of fraudulent reporting in modern journalism. It is not the only one to have occurred at the Times, the Kitty Genovese stories, and more recently the Times' articles on Iraq's WMD come to mind.
The Times, influential and imperfect as it is, needs a public editor.
President Trump dispensed with Mr. Comey, and the Times closed the office of Public Editor. Two extraordinarily powerful institutions shielding themselves from oversight. Not much difference. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes indeed.
The Times has truly done major harm to its credibility, damage that will likely be long lasting. The paper's liberal base may not be overly upset; many of these folks seem to believe that the Times is first published on divinely sanctioned stone tablets. This is of course not the case; as with all human institutions, the Times makes errors of judgment and of fact, and is - make that was - strengthened by a watchful eye. The Times has clearly not heeded the lessons of the recent election.
Ms. Spayd, I have enjoyed your columns, and think you did a good job. I've read that some others do not agree (including Mr. Baquet); in the eyes of some you committed the high crimes of listening to readers and doing your job. Good luck to you as you pursue the many options that I'm sure will be available to you.
The position of public editor at the Times was created in response to one of the most damning instances of fraudulent reporting in modern journalism. It is not the only one to have occurred at the Times, the Kitty Genovese stories, and more recently the Times' articles on Iraq's WMD come to mind.
The Times, influential and imperfect as it is, needs a public editor.
I didn't always agree w/ you, but I felt (& feel) your job is imperative to the integrity & critical analysis of an independent newspaper. I was devastated when I learned the NYTimes as ending this position. I fear, what'll be next?!
Interesting too, during the campaign & since Trump's election, the Times has been my last go-to newspaper of all the major sources. I felt - and still feel - they fall too easily & fast for the conventional narrative, clickbait & are easily drawn into Trump's games. E.g. right now, Bannon is "back." I never thought he went away. In fact, I suspected he was working under the cover of the popular (& important) themes of the Russian involvement, etc. A newspaper needs a Public Editor to keep them on their toes, to make sure they're not falling for just the PR of an administration or congress, and to make sure they're seeing the larger, more complex & intertwined stories (the Judith Miller debacle comes to mind).
Best wishes to you...as for the Times, well, feels like another misguided decision...
Interesting too, during the campaign & since Trump's election, the Times has been my last go-to newspaper of all the major sources. I felt - and still feel - they fall too easily & fast for the conventional narrative, clickbait & are easily drawn into Trump's games. E.g. right now, Bannon is "back." I never thought he went away. In fact, I suspected he was working under the cover of the popular (& important) themes of the Russian involvement, etc. A newspaper needs a Public Editor to keep them on their toes, to make sure they're not falling for just the PR of an administration or congress, and to make sure they're seeing the larger, more complex & intertwined stories (the Judith Miller debacle comes to mind).
Best wishes to you...as for the Times, well, feels like another misguided decision...
1
The elimination of this position is a tragedy.
I had been advocating for NYTimes, giving folks the wherewithal for subscriptions ... I am SHOCKED.
I had been advocating for NYTimes, giving folks the wherewithal for subscriptions ... I am SHOCKED.
1
Ms Spayd, you did such a miserable job as public editor that it's no surprise that The Times dumped you. You were universally criticized, by readers, by reporters, and by the journalism community as a whole. What is so much to be regretted, however, is that your actions were so deeply resented, and your columns so infuriating to so many people, that The Times eliminated the entire position.
No, Ms Spayd, do not wear your actions in this job as a "badge." You did not hold Times management accountable, as you were supposed to. Instead, time after time, you shilled for management, rubber-stamping every editor's explanation, no matter how absurd. And you refused to do your job of representing readers, revealing recently that you didn't even bother to read emails addressed to you, but only deigning to read those few which your assistant put in front of you.
In the end, you make clear that your one objective is to defend Trump and Trump voters, and to dismiss any and all critical reporting on Trump as "partisan."
Though the loss of the public editor position will be rued, Ms Spayd, your departure will not.
Good riddance.
No, Ms Spayd, do not wear your actions in this job as a "badge." You did not hold Times management accountable, as you were supposed to. Instead, time after time, you shilled for management, rubber-stamping every editor's explanation, no matter how absurd. And you refused to do your job of representing readers, revealing recently that you didn't even bother to read emails addressed to you, but only deigning to read those few which your assistant put in front of you.
In the end, you make clear that your one objective is to defend Trump and Trump voters, and to dismiss any and all critical reporting on Trump as "partisan."
Though the loss of the public editor position will be rued, Ms Spayd, your departure will not.
Good riddance.
4
Dear Ms Spayd
I greatly enjoyed reading your columns and I am sure your very existence had a positive effect on the reporting in The NY Times. I am a retired public company auditor and I always believed that my existence prevented many errors because client officials assumed I would find them. I am sure you played a similar role at the Times. That role will be sorely missed.
You have much to be proud of and your readers have appreciated your contributions
I wish you well in your future endeavors
Sincerely
I greatly enjoyed reading your columns and I am sure your very existence had a positive effect on the reporting in The NY Times. I am a retired public company auditor and I always believed that my existence prevented many errors because client officials assumed I would find them. I am sure you played a similar role at the Times. That role will be sorely missed.
You have much to be proud of and your readers have appreciated your contributions
I wish you well in your future endeavors
Sincerely
Who will BE the watchdog.....
1
Relieved to see the PE position eliminated, but not because the PEs haven't done a fantastic job. But because the accompanying comments here have been beating up on the PE, that too with increasing frequency. Disturbing to witness, even more disturbing becoming unwilling accessory just reading them.
My expectation from the PE, as I believe the NYT's was too, was that the PE gave outlet to airing reader frustrations. Not serve as ready punching bag, which is what many readers here converted It to. And in the process destroyed the role.
So thank you Mr. Sulzberger, for killing this thankless tribal ritual of a PE doing her job and getting pummeled from all sides for it. I, for one don't need it. At the end of the day, my subscription is for news and opinion to help form my own. And when that formed opinion is diametrically opposite the paper's, have enough access to sound-off. Which I do, PE or no PE. Occasionally it gets squelched, most other times it breezes through, and ever so rarely it gets highlighted with pick. All in all, the system of public editorializing at NYT works pretty fantastically good.
Goodbye Ms. Spayd, thank you for your work here & best wishes your next position. Rest assured, The Times acted not just in your best interest, but also in the interest of discerning readers at large. Yes, theirs too, the thought of three ex-PEs filing a harassment suit probably kept Arthur awake at night, and for good reason. He better write you a big check.
My expectation from the PE, as I believe the NYT's was too, was that the PE gave outlet to airing reader frustrations. Not serve as ready punching bag, which is what many readers here converted It to. And in the process destroyed the role.
So thank you Mr. Sulzberger, for killing this thankless tribal ritual of a PE doing her job and getting pummeled from all sides for it. I, for one don't need it. At the end of the day, my subscription is for news and opinion to help form my own. And when that formed opinion is diametrically opposite the paper's, have enough access to sound-off. Which I do, PE or no PE. Occasionally it gets squelched, most other times it breezes through, and ever so rarely it gets highlighted with pick. All in all, the system of public editorializing at NYT works pretty fantastically good.
Goodbye Ms. Spayd, thank you for your work here & best wishes your next position. Rest assured, The Times acted not just in your best interest, but also in the interest of discerning readers at large. Yes, theirs too, the thought of three ex-PEs filing a harassment suit probably kept Arthur awake at night, and for good reason. He better write you a big check.
1
Thank you, NYT, for axing the public editor. Stories those in authority tell the public need to be swallowed whole, without reflection and with the least oversight possible. Sad!
1
My beloved Times: Keep editorials off the front page, and your head up, and you'll be fine. And just to be safe, only fire people by eliminating their positions, the way industry does it.
I have been a Times subscriber for 30 years, and I can say unequivocally that the paper made a huge mistake by eliminating the public editor position. At this moment in U.S. history, when an independent press and our First Amendment rights play, perhaps, a more important role than ever before in holding our government accountable, the press needs independent watchdogs. The Times, by eliminating the public editor position, is playing into the hands of its critics. If anything, The Times should have multiple public editors, routinely fact checking and critiquing the paper. That would show critics it is willing to have it own work scrutinized, at the risk of sometimes looking bad. We are all fallible. Acknowledging fallibility would go a long way to showing supporters and critics that you are serious about upholding the highest standards. In this world of crisis and scandal, domestically and internationally, The Times would have been wise to double down on the public editor position, not eliminate it.
1
"In this job, I started to know which columns would land like a grenade, and I’m glad to have stirred things up. I’ll wear it like a badge." Bravo. It cannot have been easy. The New York Times is but another self-interested corporate entity. Letting the Public Editor go is in the predictable tradition of protecting one's own self-interest while criticizing those who protect theirs. Thank you for your efforts as one of the last vestiges of integrity at the Times.
Liz Spayd viewed the NYT, which uniformly excoriates Bernie Sanders and worships Clinton and Obama, as a left-leaning paper.
With that kind of cluelessness, we are better off with no public editor.
With that kind of cluelessness, we are better off with no public editor.
2
One more nail in the NYT coffin
RIP Public Editor
Truth is dead
RIP Public Editor
Truth is dead
1
Fare thee well, Ms. Spayd. I think your work was important. I understand management's argument that reader reaction helps keep the NY Times accurate.
What I think will be missing will be accountability. Having edited a news and opinion website with considerable user input, yes, that happens, along with a lot of drivel and drama that is uncalled for. And no one bears much responsibility for what they write.
As an institution, the public editor's role at the NY Times did send a message of accountability to the readers and various publics it covers and serves that was backed by a real person, not simply bland assurances everyone is doing their best.
Thank you.
What I think will be missing will be accountability. Having edited a news and opinion website with considerable user input, yes, that happens, along with a lot of drivel and drama that is uncalled for. And no one bears much responsibility for what they write.
As an institution, the public editor's role at the NY Times did send a message of accountability to the readers and various publics it covers and serves that was backed by a real person, not simply bland assurances everyone is doing their best.
Thank you.
Ms. Spayd,
Thanks for doing a good job. One of your memorable columns was when you held the Times accountable for their lack of diversity in their higher ranks
I wonder... if there is any link between your holding their feet to the fire and your being let go...
Thanks for doing a good job. One of your memorable columns was when you held the Times accountable for their lack of diversity in their higher ranks
I wonder... if there is any link between your holding their feet to the fire and your being let go...
1
The NYT's has morphed from a national treasure to the lead publication of the Trump resistance and click bait TMZ quality articles.
Trump is, sadly, right that you are the failing NYT's.
Trump is, sadly, right that you are the failing NYT's.
1
Good riddance. Spayd was the worst ever public editor.
2
The removal of the Public Editor is a sad day for the NYT and its readers. They gave balance and conscience to its reporting and editorial choices. The value of the Times will be lowered.
As a 50+ year reader of the NYT no one has to tell me the paper has changed. Sure the industry has undergone fundamental realignment but the NYT has done something else. It has identified itself with one ideology and bends itself into pretzel shapes to accommodate those views, e.g. the filibuster. The public editor at least provided some balance on certain issues. Probably for financial reasons but also ideological the PE had to go. No room here for dissenting views. Too bad. The NYT was a great paper but now it is merely a mouthpiece for the progressive wing of the Democratic party and the monied elites that support it.
79
" The NYT was a great paper but now it is merely a mouthpiece for the progressive wing of the Democratic party and the monied elites that support it."
WHAT??
The progressive wing of the Democratic party ... it has none. None. None.
And the monied interests that support it???
WHAT??
The progressive wing of the Democratic party ... it has none. None. None.
And the monied interests that support it???
4
Bill
It should be noted that if the paper were to be a conservative leaning source of news, your comment would not appear on this article and you would be a happy camper.
And isn't that the way that things are in today's climate? I live in a city in a very conservative state. Fascinating to read comments critical of the DMN as being liberal in its coverage. Then, newer folks move to the state from liberal leaning areas, and blast the paper for conservative bias...
It should be noted that if the paper were to be a conservative leaning source of news, your comment would not appear on this article and you would be a happy camper.
And isn't that the way that things are in today's climate? I live in a city in a very conservative state. Fascinating to read comments critical of the DMN as being liberal in its coverage. Then, newer folks move to the state from liberal leaning areas, and blast the paper for conservative bias...
Oh please. Enough with the thumping and whining. The NYT is not "merely" anything. It is certainly not a "mouthpiece" for progressives or even for the Democratic party overall. If it were, it would have been much more critical, much earlier, of Trump and the gutless Republican politicians who support him. Instead it did what most "lamestream" media did which was to give him a huge amount of free press coverage and to repeatedly give him a pass on his lies, insults and bigotry.
So enough with the whining, please.
So enough with the whining, please.
1
The Times needs a public editor now just as much as when the job was invented. The PE job served two equally important functions.
First it allowed readers to vent, via comments like this. That need not be missed because we can still do so, though there should now be a dedicated site for issues with the paper rather than comments directed to a specific column.
The absence of the second function, as a vehicle for formal complaints, is more bothersome. It seems as if the Times is setting out to be as responsive to legitimate complaints as trump is over his tax returns.
First it allowed readers to vent, via comments like this. That need not be missed because we can still do so, though there should now be a dedicated site for issues with the paper rather than comments directed to a specific column.
The absence of the second function, as a vehicle for formal complaints, is more bothersome. It seems as if the Times is setting out to be as responsive to legitimate complaints as trump is over his tax returns.
53
Time to put the NYT's newsroom's responsibility to the public squarely in the laps of those at the top of the masthead, where it belongs. Ideally that is what this move should do. I don't mean to imply that the leadership has not been trying to do their best all along, just that it has been my experience in business and in local politics that people outside the chain of command don't usually have much power to actually affect the basic workings of an organization.
30
Just say it woman! If the shot callers at NYT don't like people holding their mirror for them then they should quit appeasing the nags by hiring editors to hold up mirrors
Another step, it seems, in the progression away from journalism toward "content creation". Not only is the public editor being eliminated, so are a raft of copy editors. By replacing journalistic inquiry and responsibility for standards with a commenting public, the times showings so many other Internet websites in being a place for opinion making and gossip, however much more polished it may seem.
55
And so it seems.
polished to whom? the answer is to the choir of the Left which predominates the NYT readership.
"Having the role was a sign of institutional integrity, and losing it sends an ambiguous signal: Is the leadership growing weary of such advice or simply searching for a new model? We’ll find out soon enough."
They've never more than barely tolerated such advice, and were eagerly looking forward to the day they could dispense with it entirely. They created that future day, and not by accident, at the very moment they hired their last PE.
This absurd PR blurb from the publisher presages the type of unanswered nonsense that will be sent out whenever the paper's representatives feel pressured to explain themselves in the future:
“Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”
He knows full well that public grousing about a mistake or bad policy isn't the same as holding someone responsible for it, much less having it corrected or having policy changed so it isn't repeated.
Congratulations Messrs. S. & B., The Times is accountable to no one once again.
They've never more than barely tolerated such advice, and were eagerly looking forward to the day they could dispense with it entirely. They created that future day, and not by accident, at the very moment they hired their last PE.
This absurd PR blurb from the publisher presages the type of unanswered nonsense that will be sent out whenever the paper's representatives feel pressured to explain themselves in the future:
“Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”
He knows full well that public grousing about a mistake or bad policy isn't the same as holding someone responsible for it, much less having it corrected or having policy changed so it isn't repeated.
Congratulations Messrs. S. & B., The Times is accountable to no one once again.
249
Yes. The NYT could use a Public Editor in the worst way. Not Liz Spayd, unfortunately, who interpreted this function too narrowly and did not hold the NYT's feet to the fire anywhere near enough, but a more rigorous and penetrating critic. The NYT's apologia for removing the position entirely indicates how contemptuous they are of their readership's acumen, and perhaps makes clearer the attitude leading to the decline in in-depth journalism we see in the NYT today.
1
They statement is an explicit admission that they do not want to p! s off the people to whom they are most indebted for responding to their revenue-generating click bait.
The Washington Post at least allows open and free debate amongst it commenters for 14 days after something is published. The NYT, in contrast, controls very judiciously what comments get published, and then with many that they do not like so much, wait to publish after the comments section is closed - usually within 24 hours of the article publication. A sure sign that they want to thoroughly control what "truths" their readers are exposed to.
The Washington Post at least allows open and free debate amongst it commenters for 14 days after something is published. The NYT, in contrast, controls very judiciously what comments get published, and then with many that they do not like so much, wait to publish after the comments section is closed - usually within 24 hours of the article publication. A sure sign that they want to thoroughly control what "truths" their readers are exposed to.
2
the Times is so partisan it reeks. It takes Carlos Slim money, writes lefty eds and biased reporting. I would say firing the public editor lowers its credibility, but it didn't have any for years.
93
And if the Times started publishing OpEds copied from the WSJournal, Ralphy, you'd be pleased.
Sorry, Ralph, it just depends on whose ox is being gored.
Sorry, Ralph, it just depends on whose ox is being gored.
And would you rather they were funded by the same nuts who fund Fox, etc?
Then why do you read it?
Thanks for a very thoughtful essay. I, too, have been discomfited by the bald partisanship of the New York Times since Trump's nomination. It turned journalism as I knew it on its head. I am as fervent an enemy of Trump's and Bannon's world view as you can find, yet I question the results of our only real national newspaper substituting shrill for measured.
184
If saying something against that cretin in the WH makes you a democrat then there are millions, tens of millions more democrats that are not registered as such. But, repugs have to hate. They only know how to hate democrats. So, everyone who says Voldemort is a cretinmust be a democrat. So, repugs are stupid, knew that. See I have never belonged to any political party. I grew up in a Republicanhome.Dad was proud to be a Republican. But, he told me in late '88, not to ever register in any party, not even if an employer tried to make me (it was required of him,but, he was already a republican). To do my own researchinto candidates, never vote a straightticket. He'd told these things to me back before I voted the first time. That odd year we could votenational, but not state. This timehe was more solemn. I have kept my word. I also call them repugs now. My Dad was a REPUBLICAN. Today's are just repugnant. You can easily be against this regime, & not be a democrat (I normally call demipoots). But, repugs can't see that. To them the country is repugs & demipoots, no one else matters. I'm workinghard to irritate them enough that they will see there are more things out here than they ever imagined. I'm willing to go to war of this. To risk my life. To KILL. Not so hard, I wasthe only hawk (they said) in mydove HS (I'm 66). I was just pro servicemen. Still am. Married Navy 45.5 years ago. I will stand up for mycountry, often I think that is what this paper is doing. Not as a demipoot
I very much agree. Given how hard Trump worked to demonize the press, it's not surprising that the temptation of payback is so great, but I am disappointed that the Times gave into it. It makes it easier for the right to dismiss the reasoned, well-researched parts of the articles it publishes on contemporary American politics.
I find myself wondering if part of its partisan turn is also chagrin and even guilt at the part the press played in getting Trump elected by appearing to give him legitimacy through extensive coverage of his early campaign. If the Times and the other major mainstream media had largely ignored him as the irrelevancy he should have been, he might not be president today.
Trump deeply antagonized 2 major modern institutions: the press and the intelligence service. Whether he didn't realize they have the power to retaliate or thought he could overpower them is irrelevant, but now it appears that neither will rest until they have taken him down. Mistake me not, this is, in itself, a laudable goal, but if the final cost is public lost of trust in both institutions, he will have won after all.
I find myself wondering if part of its partisan turn is also chagrin and even guilt at the part the press played in getting Trump elected by appearing to give him legitimacy through extensive coverage of his early campaign. If the Times and the other major mainstream media had largely ignored him as the irrelevancy he should have been, he might not be president today.
Trump deeply antagonized 2 major modern institutions: the press and the intelligence service. Whether he didn't realize they have the power to retaliate or thought he could overpower them is irrelevant, but now it appears that neither will rest until they have taken him down. Mistake me not, this is, in itself, a laudable goal, but if the final cost is public lost of trust in both institutions, he will have won after all.
1
Very curious what you would consider "measured". And also wondering just how "measured" one should be in the face of a clear and present danger.
1
Your work, insight, and remarkable talent will be sorely missed. Best wishes for continued career success.
133
No it won't.
Must say I haven't read the Public Editor much since Art Brisbane left.
An important role, yes. One that is followed and read with any regularity, not so much. Difficult to find on the Opinion page too.
Thanks for trying it out and putting forward issues that you deemed worthwhile.
All best to your future job prospects. There is a world beyond the NYT.
An important role, yes. One that is followed and read with any regularity, not so much. Difficult to find on the Opinion page too.
Thanks for trying it out and putting forward issues that you deemed worthwhile.
All best to your future job prospects. There is a world beyond the NYT.
43
Liz Spayd never stuck me as an advocate for subscribers.
Maybe someone can help me out and explain what she's accomplished in the way of making the paper more responsive to its readers.
If the Times truly cared about the opinions of its readers, they need to look no further than the Comments Sections.
Maybe someone can help me out and explain what she's accomplished in the way of making the paper more responsive to its readers.
If the Times truly cared about the opinions of its readers, they need to look no further than the Comments Sections.
66
I guess they might even publish a few more.
People wrote to her with complaints. She tried to find answers to them, if not solutions. She wasn't there for 'subscribers', just for anyone who wrote her. She wasn't supposed to find problems herself, & try to get them fixed. Nope, just those who took the time to write her. A salary for that can begin to seem out of place in tight economic times. Her job was more wasn't than was. Which is very hard to do. No paper has to bow down to it's readership. No good paper ever has. I grew up with 3 daily papers coming into the house during the week & 2 on Sundays. Different views, when I asked my father, he said every paper was supposed to have it's own view. That it was what the Founding Fathers wanted. England's papers at the time only had one view, the King's. In fact the country was supposed to have only one view, the King's & he was nuts. So, independent papers, the only 'mass' media of the day, were important. Then came radio, then TV, then 'oh sh*t cable. Rules said radio & TV had to be 'fair', take all sides. Mainly because everyone thought the everyday folks couldn't understand the 'sides', fights, & arguments, they just needed news. Cable decided, everyone needed to be told what to do. Faux news did it best, so is still around. TV tries still to be everything for everyone. Papers are still supposed to be independent of parties, & follow their own reasoning. Don't like it, switch papers. Or do like Dad did. Read them all. So did I. Sorry position isn't needed. Good luck Liz
The comments section is nothing but a college bull session among narcissists who have a need to see their pseudonyms in the NYT and to count the number of "recommend"s.
With over two million subscribers, a few hundred oh-so-intellectual commentors--statistically--are of no import.
Boo-hoo...the ship has sailed and left you behind.
With over two million subscribers, a few hundred oh-so-intellectual commentors--statistically--are of no import.
Boo-hoo...the ship has sailed and left you behind.
C'mon. It's a naked lie that the position of Public Editor is being eliminated for economy. Sometimes the Times makes it difficult for its readers to defend it.
205
Good riddance. Your worship of false equivalency, your pandering to the slow coup taking place in our institutions and your self-serving comments here, more than justifies your departure, regardless of the Times' true motivations in cutting your position.
90
Really? Are ad hominem attacks necessary or helpful?
I couldn't disagree more, but then I suspect you don't cotton to disagreements.
Thank you, Liz, for a job well-done. Your parting column leaves a lot between the lines, but it's message is still clear. This "newspaper" has gone off the deep end in its partisan crusade, and there doesn't seem to be any likelihood of it abating. In the end, their cutting you loose doesn't really matter as far as its impact on NYT content. Don't take this the wrong way, but as wise as your observations often were, they didn't do anything to change the rabid dogma of the reporters and editors. Ultimately, the position of Public Editor never amounted to much more than a thorn in the content producers' sides – an embarrassment, really. Which is why the decision-makers decided the position is no longer needed. Of course, those of us who read this newspaper from a different viewpoint found immense satisfaction in your columns when you chose to call-out the hyper-partisanship. And to be honest, you could have gone a whole lot farther than you did. But that's all we got – satisfaction. The trivial bit of transparency you provided did not curb the aggression. In fact, it's only gotten worse. This newspaper has committed itself to destroying the elected President. What a shock it will be when they come to realize their impact is the opposite of what they intended. Or not. More likely they won't realize anything, deny any responsibility, blame someone else, and then intensify their partisan assault. Oh, well. It's not like you didn't try to warn them. Best of luck to you.
71
"... those of us who read this newspaper from a different viewpoint found immense satisfaction in your columns when you chose to call-out the hyper-partisanship." Frankly, I'd read the Public Editor's column for sheer relief - and a breath of fresh air - from the unrelenting elitism on the Times's embedded staff bias.
Not partisan. Just not your beliefs. So, you must hate it, your lord & master says so.
It has a view. As it is supposed to. It has columnists who don't tow the demipoot line, or the repug either. Gee, that makes you so wrong, you need to go jump off Trump Tower, just like your ancestors did on Black Friday when them market crashed. Don't worry about the jump, it is fine. It's the sudden stop at the bottom that hurts. But, you won't notice, you'll be reading the headlines on some rag in the trash barrel.
It has a view. As it is supposed to. It has columnists who don't tow the demipoot line, or the repug either. Gee, that makes you so wrong, you need to go jump off Trump Tower, just like your ancestors did on Black Friday when them market crashed. Don't worry about the jump, it is fine. It's the sudden stop at the bottom that hurts. But, you won't notice, you'll be reading the headlines on some rag in the trash barrel.
All the verbiage, and you think she even is going to get paid to read your nice statement whatever it said?
1
As a longtime conservative NYT subscriber, this reeks of hypocrisy.
The Times has forever lamented that the NYPD can't be trusted to police themselves, so they insisted that an independent source monitor the NYPD.
But when it comes to having a NYT monitor, "who needs that?"
Do as I say, not as I do.
The Times has forever lamented that the NYPD can't be trusted to police themselves, so they insisted that an independent source monitor the NYPD.
But when it comes to having a NYT monitor, "who needs that?"
Do as I say, not as I do.
170
More likely, your statement reeks of hypocrisy
As long as they paid her, she wasn't independent. As long as your boss pays you, you must do as he says. It's life. If NYPD needed independent eyes on them, it shouldn't be some cop from Toledo hired to be their eyes & ears, that they paid.
I find your reasoning a little strange. As an employee of the NYT, isn't the Public Editor, in effect, a form of "self-policing"? In what way is the PE an "independent source"? Actually, those commenting on social media and elsewhere on the internet are far more independent than is someone whose pay comes directly from the NYT.
Getting rid of the PE position may not be a good idea, but it's not because the paper is losing an "independent source" of review.
Getting rid of the PE position may not be a good idea, but it's not because the paper is losing an "independent source" of review.
The turnover in the PE position had been dizzying already. It seems the Times wanted to enjoy the credibility of having the a PE or ombudsman office without the attendant criticism or pushback that would inevitably emanate therefrom.
This reader laments this decision.
This reader laments this decision.
90
Six PEs in 13 1/2 years does not seem outrageous. It would have been six in about 15 years had the Times honored Spayd's employment contract.
As Spayd's quick descent into Times PR flackery showed, the position is a difficult one. The longer one is in it, the more likely that the PE will become absorbed, like the Borg Collective, on Star Trek, The Next Generation.
As Spayd's quick descent into Times PR flackery showed, the position is a difficult one. The longer one is in it, the more likely that the PE will become absorbed, like the Borg Collective, on Star Trek, The Next Generation.
1
The "turnover" was on purpose; the job was term limited.
1
Very disappointed that the NYT is removing the Public Editor role. In this political climate, media accountability is critical. The removal of this role also sends a (negative) message to readers and the public generally about the NYT's commitment to quality, unbiased journalism, particularly as it coincides with the announcement that they are reducing their editorial resources.
176
Unbiased does not preclude the truth, even if you don't like it. Go to a repug rag & read it, are they unbiased (telling the truth no matter which side gets the rotten tomato in the face?) or is it straight repug?
NYT tells it like it sees it. Takes the necessary time for real investigation (not 2 days then write what will make *45 happy). Doesn't look the other way when the demipoots step in it either. That is what a Newspaper should be. I know it's much easier on the blood pressure to read a paper that always agrees with what you think. Cause then you don't have to do much thinking. But, I get mad at the NYT at least once a day for something I don't agree with. Also for not having enough comment columns. Authors don't like them, tough. We, all of us, no matter what we each believe, are the PUBLIC EDITOR. Not as much back & forth as in smaller city TV or papers. Miss that. One man, his name was curiously mytoocents, who told me to research fascists. That they could be either far right OR far left. I got so mad at him I did. He was right. I learned a lot. Sometimes over my own dead body. My mind isn't shut, but, it doesn't allow others to expect me to be polite when they try to rip me or someone else a new one. But hey I started in Boston.
NYT tells it like it sees it. Takes the necessary time for real investigation (not 2 days then write what will make *45 happy). Doesn't look the other way when the demipoots step in it either. That is what a Newspaper should be. I know it's much easier on the blood pressure to read a paper that always agrees with what you think. Cause then you don't have to do much thinking. But, I get mad at the NYT at least once a day for something I don't agree with. Also for not having enough comment columns. Authors don't like them, tough. We, all of us, no matter what we each believe, are the PUBLIC EDITOR. Not as much back & forth as in smaller city TV or papers. Miss that. One man, his name was curiously mytoocents, who told me to research fascists. That they could be either far right OR far left. I got so mad at him I did. He was right. I learned a lot. Sometimes over my own dead body. My mind isn't shut, but, it doesn't allow others to expect me to be polite when they try to rip me or someone else a new one. But hey I started in Boston.
NYT has almost NEVER been committed to unbiased journalism - for decades that have been solidly on the side of whatever the Democrat Party has told them to be on, with only an occasional foray "off the plantation" as a means to say "See? We are not biased!"
And so the Times joins Trump in declaring itself beyond reproach and review.
180
No, at least not until it gets rid of all comment columns. Like this.
It's our job to read, think, & comment. I just hope they don't start relying on us to be proof readers. For that I want to be paid.
It's our job to read, think, & comment. I just hope they don't start relying on us to be proof readers. For that I want to be paid.
Your very comment argues against your claim.
Newspapers have always been within the reproach and review of their readers. Go ahead: stop reading.
- BVB
Newspapers have always been within the reproach and review of their readers. Go ahead: stop reading.
- BVB
I wish people like editors, actors, entrepreneurs and the like would quit thinking of themselves as "rock stars" as evidenced by the Marshall stack and shadow photo accompanying this article.
Musicians are cool not because of this photo, but because we are tuned in and tapped into other realms mere mortals will never know.
You guys want to be us so badly that you invented "Guitar Hero" so people who can't play can at least fantasize that they're standing in front of a stack of Marshalls.
To quote the Orange One, "Sad."
Musicians are cool not because of this photo, but because we are tuned in and tapped into other realms mere mortals will never know.
You guys want to be us so badly that you invented "Guitar Hero" so people who can't play can at least fantasize that they're standing in front of a stack of Marshalls.
To quote the Orange One, "Sad."
19
CF: 'I wish people ... would quit thinking of themselves as "rock stars" as evidenced by the Marshall stack and shadow photo accompanying this article.'
The photo shows the shadow of English singer Paul Rodgers, who started a band called "Bad Company".
That suggests a far more subversive interpretation than yours.
Hint: Google "Michael Putland marshall".
2017-06-02 22:35:39 UTC
The photo shows the shadow of English singer Paul Rodgers, who started a band called "Bad Company".
That suggests a far more subversive interpretation than yours.
Hint: Google "Michael Putland marshall".
2017-06-02 22:35:39 UTC
I can assure you that people who do real editorial do not think of themselves as rock stars.
Agreed. What a poor choice of photos from Getty Images.
The Washington Post keeps hiring and the Times continues to shrink its news-gathering apparatus; I'm just wondering when The Newspaper of Record will move to area code 202
40
Alan, to be fair - WaPo is owned by the second richest man in America (soon, perhaps, to be the first), who bought it just a few years ago for a mere 200mil. They are not hampered by the loss of advertisers and rising costs. Our NYTimes rallies on, hopefully for many years to come.
8
Maybe the NYT Company should contact Mike Bloomberg and see if he might be interested in investing if money is an issue. Bloomberg is very profitable, does great work and has a much larger staff.
You cannot fire your way to growth. If the leadership of the NYT thinks giving content away on Facebook is the path forward they should prepare to be disappointed.
You cannot fire your way to growth. If the leadership of the NYT thinks giving content away on Facebook is the path forward they should prepare to be disappointed.
1
Fare well, Ms. Spayd.
Heed well, Mother Times.
Heed well, Mother Times.
20
In a statement, Mr. Sulzberger said:
“Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be,” he wrote. “Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”
Sorry, total horse hockey. As if there's one editor at the Times who is reading the comments sections, much less Dean Baquet. Comment sections are a marketing tool to add clicks to the website, that's it.
On the other hand, the only thing worse than the NYT not listening to readers would be the NYT setting standrads and policy based on the opinions of the mob. That would be stupendously stupid.
“Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be,” he wrote. “Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”
Sorry, total horse hockey. As if there's one editor at the Times who is reading the comments sections, much less Dean Baquet. Comment sections are a marketing tool to add clicks to the website, that's it.
On the other hand, the only thing worse than the NYT not listening to readers would be the NYT setting standrads and policy based on the opinions of the mob. That would be stupendously stupid.
137
“Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be." What planet does this man live on?
'Comment sections are a marketing tool to add clicks to the website, that's it.'
Yup, I've been saying that since before forever. And yet, here you are, here I am, screaming into the void yet again. Perhaps because we hope other commenters read them, sometimes.
However, the NYT solons do at least skim the comments - the Picks, anyway - for cheerleaders echoing their position, which they then post on the NYT opinion FB page. So both are true; the commenting function is a marketing tool, but they do look at it, as it is also a source of generating free content, to which they own the copyright.
Yup, I've been saying that since before forever. And yet, here you are, here I am, screaming into the void yet again. Perhaps because we hope other commenters read them, sometimes.
However, the NYT solons do at least skim the comments - the Picks, anyway - for cheerleaders echoing their position, which they then post on the NYT opinion FB page. So both are true; the commenting function is a marketing tool, but they do look at it, as it is also a source of generating free content, to which they own the copyright.
"On the other hand, the only thing worse than the NYT not listening to readers would be the NYT setting standrads and policy based on the opinions of the mob. That would be stupendously stupid."
If you followed Liz at all over the last year you'd know that that's exactly what she did.
If you followed Liz at all over the last year you'd know that that's exactly what she did.
"I leave this job plenty aware that I have opinions"..... you had opinions ???!!! Plural ? Well I guess we never saw them. You made a significant position pointless. Bravo. With this, I bid adieu to my subscription. NYT is no longer even pretending to have any integrity.
55
At least not yours. First her opinions were not of any concern to the people who wrote her with suggestions, complaints, orders. It was her job to dig through everyone on the paper to attempt to find someone with authority over that subject & heckle them until they said something she could put in her column.
What we who write in the comment columns were also none of her concern. Only the ones who took time to write to her. They didn't even have to be subscribers. Maybe that needed to be better explained. If you wanted to yell at her, you should have yelled AT HER. Not here. Long ago.
As far as your subscription, since all you seem to care about is others opinions, maybe now without this subscription, you can form your own. That is what what these comments columns are for.
Bye, don't let the door hit you on your backside on the way out.
What we who write in the comment columns were also none of her concern. Only the ones who took time to write to her. They didn't even have to be subscribers. Maybe that needed to be better explained. If you wanted to yell at her, you should have yelled AT HER. Not here. Long ago.
As far as your subscription, since all you seem to care about is others opinions, maybe now without this subscription, you can form your own. That is what what these comments columns are for.
Bye, don't let the door hit you on your backside on the way out.
What she meant to say is that in leaving this job she is fully aware she was never able to share those opinions with the paper's editors/owners.
I was just debating with myself about stopping my print subscription of over 30 years and decided to give a little more time for the Times to regain some class. I had already subscribed to the Washington Post and now will look into the Guardian.
You folks have just about lost me with this move.
You folks have just about lost me with this move.
64
Yes, the Washington Post and the Guardian remain the keepers of journalistic credibility, something that gets harder and harder to find.
Brian, I'm in the same boat as you. I find the Washington Post a much better newspaper than the NY Times, as I do The Guardian. I subscribe to both. I also subscribe to The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Talking Points Memo and other non mainstream press. My 27 year allegiance to the NY Times is most likely now reaching the end.
I've tried WaPo twice. If you really enjoy commenting, it will drive you nuts. It never says when comments are closed, it just tells you there is an error. Try again later. The number of comment columns are crashing. Sometimes they close comments after 10, other times, for less interesting articles after 3k. But, not telling you they are. They close them with few comments between the time you click submit, till it says it can't.
They kept telling me my only problem was the fact I had an IPad, with a special customer email to write to, wanting me to figure out the problem, supply all pertinent data, & multiple screenshots. I told them I would for $1000. But, that I wouldn't do their work for free. No answer that time, guess they didn't think I was funny, or afraid the boss would take me up on it. I dunno.
I don't buy print, waste of paper. Only reason I still get Time & NatGeo is that it is the only way to get the digital version & hubby still prefers the magazine version. I like reading articles that if taken one on one are all over the place. Makes me think. If you don't like to, I suggest you will save lots on Blood Pressure medicine by not reading ANY paper. Just watch the news on a local station, most are still the 'just the facts ma'am'. No thinking needed.
They kept telling me my only problem was the fact I had an IPad, with a special customer email to write to, wanting me to figure out the problem, supply all pertinent data, & multiple screenshots. I told them I would for $1000. But, that I wouldn't do their work for free. No answer that time, guess they didn't think I was funny, or afraid the boss would take me up on it. I dunno.
I don't buy print, waste of paper. Only reason I still get Time & NatGeo is that it is the only way to get the digital version & hubby still prefers the magazine version. I like reading articles that if taken one on one are all over the place. Makes me think. If you don't like to, I suggest you will save lots on Blood Pressure medicine by not reading ANY paper. Just watch the news on a local station, most are still the 'just the facts ma'am'. No thinking needed.
Horrible!
And at the same time, the NYT continues its corruption of our little Comments Corner, Readers Picks, with its corrupting Gold Thumb.
Giving multiplied exposure to comments the NYT picks, so what is presented as most recommended by readers will actually be those advanced by the cursed NYT Gold Thumb.
And at the same time, the NYT continues its corruption of our little Comments Corner, Readers Picks, with its corrupting Gold Thumb.
Giving multiplied exposure to comments the NYT picks, so what is presented as most recommended by readers will actually be those advanced by the cursed NYT Gold Thumb.
54
I thought that was a gold ribbon not a thumb. Those approved comments just save time for getting your thoughts in the proper alignment.
"Gold thumb" I thought it was something that I said though!
I agree with Mr. Purcell. Eliminate the NYT pics; we readers can and should choose for ourselves.
Management says that readers on social media will perform this function. But they can't go to editors,writers etc. and have in-person conversations about specific articles or general issues, and they don't have a professional perspective that lets them recognize quickly when something that looks small represents an important change. And their comments and conclusions don't appear in the paper itself, other than in the letters section, which has in general quite a different function, or in the online comments where insightful views can get lost amid all the high-temperature, low-information rhetoric. It's hard not to see this move as the reaction of people who don't like to be criticized. And it feels consistent with the way that legitimate controversies regarding The Times tend not to be covered in The Times (another reason to keep an eye on the Washington Post, for example, and not to get all of one's information from even this one good source).
107
Well put, Stephen Merritt in Gainesville.
I appreciate your input, and maybe what a previous comment mentioned; that it's not going well for the current public ed. and it's just a change of public editor ship e.g. we're not firing you were just letting you go, by saying we are illuminating the position
This is a big disappointment. It is so hard for institutions to stick to their core values in times of upheaval. Having an independent voice with the gravitas and the forum to provide input can help institutions avoid letting small missteps turn into larger shifts in culture and accountability. The public editor gave the Times this voice and as a loyal reader, I am sad to see this great institution become a little more fragile today.
It would take courage for the Times' leadership to reconsider their decision and course correct. I hope that happens.
It would take courage for the Times' leadership to reconsider their decision and course correct. I hope that happens.
63
The Times is wonderful in its light-features and service-features departments. The reviews of movies, restaurants, books (daily except for Sunday), albums, etc., are wonderful. The Business section is good. As for hard news, however, The Times is difficult to take seriously anymore. And the Opinionists? They shriek instead of reason. A number of them seem to have lost their heads completely. Why not sell a discounted online subscription to all of the non-hard-news content? Oh, and it was great to have a public editor, though the outgoing one only occasionally rose to the level "just okay."
59
I'm gonna try the Wash Poe like the previous comment mentioned: it's just I don't have time to read read, And I wonder if Wash Poe will come in a digital format… Maybe a stupid question, but I'm old & stupid so no problem!
Honestly, having read Public Editor columns for years the simple answer is that Ms. Spyd just wasn't very good at it. Following Clark Hoyt and Margaret Sullivan isn't easy and she simply wasn't up to the task. Indeed they were as or more critical of Times coverage than she has been. She was just routinely off point and too slow to respond to news. I don't think this buyout had a thing to do with her criticism. I think the Times realized it had made a mistake and instead of an unattractive firing it went with the "we've eliminated the job" tactic. My husband and I stopped reading her months ago.
122
I think she did the best she could, but face it, she came in knowing, from the history of her predecessors, that she was window dressing. It's rather dispiriting to persevere in that situation.
Yeah, right, you quit reading months ago, and yet here you are. What horse hockey!
Hear, hear, she was a not even close to the standard set by Sullivan. And that is being kind about it.
You and the position will be much missed!
17
I don't know exactly how Spayd's involvement influences the content the NYTimes produced during her brief tenure, but the NYTimes has been woefully inconsistent in its coverage since she came on board. Hyperbolic headlines that were later quietly edited, stories that did a poor job objectively reporting facts, and a willingness to dive headfirst into stories with little or no consideration for the merits of said stories has been a hallmark of the Times since Spayd came on board. The coverage of Wikileaks' DNC email releases and the absurdly over-the-top coverage given the Comey letter in October were indicative of a NYTimes' less concerned with journalistic rigor and far more concerned with simply being "first." Add to that the bewildering lack of investigative coverage of Trump leading up to the election made the Times' reporting lop-sided and politically questionable.
If Spayd's supposed actions while Public Editor were actually reflected in the NYTimes' reporting, then this comment wouldn't be necessary and I'd be lamenting her leaving. But in reality she's done a horrible job and I applaud the NYTimes for finally getting rid of her. Her influence on the paper and has severely tarnished the Gray Lady and forced me to move onto to other outlets such as the Washington Post.
I'm glad to see the likes of Liz Spayd leave the NYTimes. She talks a good game out of one side of her mouth but her actions don't match her empty rhetoric.
If Spayd's supposed actions while Public Editor were actually reflected in the NYTimes' reporting, then this comment wouldn't be necessary and I'd be lamenting her leaving. But in reality she's done a horrible job and I applaud the NYTimes for finally getting rid of her. Her influence on the paper and has severely tarnished the Gray Lady and forced me to move onto to other outlets such as the Washington Post.
I'm glad to see the likes of Liz Spayd leave the NYTimes. She talks a good game out of one side of her mouth but her actions don't match her empty rhetoric.
42
Eliminating the position to remove Spayd from it is almost the definition of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
1
With the occasional exception of Margaret Sullivan, Times Public Editors have been advocates of Times' management, fully indoctrinated in the biases of the Washington consensus which drives so much reporting at this newspaper, WaPO and corporate media generally.
How many columns on Times' skewed coverage of foreign affairs? Or the shameless treatment accorded Bernie Sanders and currently dished out to Bill de Blasio? Or the sorts of failures which led to de facto Times promotion of the invasion of Iraq? Or on the shocking ignorance, or willful dishonesty, of much economic reporting, most recently on Social Security?
That even slight and occasional criticism is unendurable at the Times doesn't speak well of the profession.
Better than nothing doesn't mean "good".
How many columns on Times' skewed coverage of foreign affairs? Or the shameless treatment accorded Bernie Sanders and currently dished out to Bill de Blasio? Or the sorts of failures which led to de facto Times promotion of the invasion of Iraq? Or on the shocking ignorance, or willful dishonesty, of much economic reporting, most recently on Social Security?
That even slight and occasional criticism is unendurable at the Times doesn't speak well of the profession.
Better than nothing doesn't mean "good".
31
Ms. Sullivan, most of the time, blindly followed her fellow journalists. Remember the Tesla matter, in which she was far more angry that the reporter had been monitored while driving the car than about the reporter's deceit in his article? Remember how she was blindly behind the times in the James Risen matter, where she wanted a press shield extended to a book-writer?
Thanks for your work and that of the other public editors. It is certainly tone deaf for the Times to have eliminated the Public Editor position when independent journalism is under such partisan attack.
28
I am shocked the Times is eliminating this position. Now more than ever this position is so important. I implore the Times to reconsider this move.
45
One can only imagine to area of the Times towards which these resources will now be directed --
(Waiting to see an increase in coverage in the "Fashion & Style" section) -
Although I had my issues with Ms. Spayd's approach - the Public Editor is the only channel by which serious readers can directly challenge the editorial content of the Times - save for sitting down, writing a letter, and snail-mailing it --
Basically, as the Times moves more and more towards a digital business model - especially during a period when The President of the United States delights in using Twitter to express himself on short-attention-span bursts - one hopes that the Millennial audience on which the Times is placing all its chips, will come through with a return on the gamble -- because that's what it is...
Thanks and good luck to you Ms. Spayd -
I look forward to reading your voice elsewhere - hopefully sometime in the near future...
(Waiting to see an increase in coverage in the "Fashion & Style" section) -
Although I had my issues with Ms. Spayd's approach - the Public Editor is the only channel by which serious readers can directly challenge the editorial content of the Times - save for sitting down, writing a letter, and snail-mailing it --
Basically, as the Times moves more and more towards a digital business model - especially during a period when The President of the United States delights in using Twitter to express himself on short-attention-span bursts - one hopes that the Millennial audience on which the Times is placing all its chips, will come through with a return on the gamble -- because that's what it is...
Thanks and good luck to you Ms. Spayd -
I look forward to reading your voice elsewhere - hopefully sometime in the near future...
19
A public editor's effectiveness depends on the support of the top newsroom editor. Since the position was created, there has been a tension between the public editor and the staff members he or she might criticize. If the top editor does not make it clear to everyone farther down the chain that the public editor has the right to discuss stories with people responsible for writing and editing them and to potentially criticize the decisions made, the position cannot be successful. It has become increasingly clear that that top-level support was being withheld. It's a loss for the Times.
What is also unfortunate is the reduction in editing staff. This will not improve the quality of the journalism, and anyone who would argue it will is dreaming.
What is also unfortunate is the reduction in editing staff. This will not improve the quality of the journalism, and anyone who would argue it will is dreaming.
42
Jill Abramson seemed to listen to Margaret Sullivan. As Managing Editor, Dean Baquet at least responded to questioning.
Once Baquet's palace coup supplanted Abramson, Baquet was less responsive. That in May he declined to answer Spayd's questions, and Spayd gave a dishonest boilerplate answer about what normally happens showed the writing on the wall. Baquet is abysmal, and will brook no truth about that fact.
Once Baquet's palace coup supplanted Abramson, Baquet was less responsive. That in May he declined to answer Spayd's questions, and Spayd gave a dishonest boilerplate answer about what normally happens showed the writing on the wall. Baquet is abysmal, and will brook no truth about that fact.
1
The slashing of the editorial staff is the larger story, much more important than the dismissal of one individual who was much more prominent but largely ineffectual in her role.
1
This was Ms. Spayd's best column, and one of the Times's worst decisions. You cannot foist the public editor function on the twitter-verse or whatever. Clarion, insider perspectives are vital to keeping traditional (read: accountable) news outlets from descending into the internet's garbage-void. What happens if the Times's anonymous, headline-generating sources have been lying to the Times?! What happens if a journalist has been fabricating his or her anonymous sources?! Who represents the public when it comes to journalistic integrity at a beloved news outlet? Because if we think that Twitter, Reddit, CNN, the White House, members of congress, Buzzfeed, or Fox News are adequate surrogates for the public in the debate about the Times's integrity, we are severely, sorely mistaken.
39
This is a very sad and mistaken decision. It's a throwing in of the towel, no doubt about that.
29
Sorry to hear this. Seems like they are reopening the door to the next Judy Miller being hooked into leading us off to DJT's next war, that we know he is hunting for.
16
Time to give my subscription money to the Washington Post. Kind of tired to read about multi million dollar brownstones, dream weddings of people with substantial resources, or whatever the latest fluff piece happens to be. If I am going to be paying for journalism it might as well be fluff-free or at least fluff-light.
38
GroovyGeek, Oh, so true. Especially the week-end edition ot the NY Times. I throw most of it away knowing there's very little worth wasting my time on.
The Washington Post is worse. Ridiculously provincial. Poorly edited.
Save your money.
For all its many obvious failings, NYT is a much superior rag.
Save your money.
For all its many obvious failings, NYT is a much superior rag.
I am shocked to learn of the elimination of this post, but I understand why. The New York Times has decided to drop all pretense of following any kind of recognizable journalistic standard based on intellectual honesty and checks and balances. The Times cannot resist the temptation to deliver non stop excoriation of Trump to its reflexively hyperventilating liberal reader base. There is too much money to be made feeding this appetite to spend time and money pretending to have a channel for the public to engage the Times on editorial and approach issues. Sad and really disappointing for some of us old timers who remember the dignity this newspaper once had.
Ms. Spayd for what it's worth, as an independent minded political thinker, I think you did a much better job than your predecessor by maintaining higher standards of independence and open mindedness on volatile issues. Cheers to you, and good luck to us all now.
Ms. Spayd for what it's worth, as an independent minded political thinker, I think you did a much better job than your predecessor by maintaining higher standards of independence and open mindedness on volatile issues. Cheers to you, and good luck to us all now.
38
I would not have subscribed had I known that this position would be eliminated. This is a dreadful decision by the Times!
24
This is a truly pure example of, "What could they possibly have been thinking?"
In addition to being an open testament to the NYT arrogance and not wanting to hear bad news - it's utterly tone deaf. Is media credibility suddenly at an all-time high? Are charges of bias, selective reporting, and "fake news" suddenly at an all-time low?
Have the likes of Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke, Jack Kelley, Brian Williams, etc. been exterminated from journalism forever more?
So why do this?
Pride precedeth a fall. In a future time this will will have been seen as a very foolish and foolhardy mistake.
Godspeed Liz Spayd.
In addition to being an open testament to the NYT arrogance and not wanting to hear bad news - it's utterly tone deaf. Is media credibility suddenly at an all-time high? Are charges of bias, selective reporting, and "fake news" suddenly at an all-time low?
Have the likes of Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke, Jack Kelley, Brian Williams, etc. been exterminated from journalism forever more?
So why do this?
Pride precedeth a fall. In a future time this will will have been seen as a very foolish and foolhardy mistake.
Godspeed Liz Spayd.
58
I would like to thank you and your predecessors in this job. I think your biggest value was helping readers see behind the curtain and understand the processes of a major paper. But you also helped keep them to stay honest and not get lost in their own echo chamber. Eliminating the position is very shorted sighted and I wonder whether the next scandal or the one after that will bring the position back. The position was created after the Jayson Blair scandal and the publisher at the time seemed to understand that trust is easier to lose that get back. Looking back this will be one more tone deaf move by the paper on it's road to either oblivion or irrelevance.
25
You quote former CIA acting director, Mike Morrell, in warning of the damage to media credibility that takes place when reputable newspapers and television stations act as the official opposition to administrations they disfavor (or as supporters of administrations they favor) instead of as impartial purveyors of the facts. I'm glad you tried to bring this warning to the attention of the NYT and sorry that you will no longer be doing so. It is dispiriting enough to read editorials that never fail to go overboard but at least in those cases you know which columnists to ignore. When news and backgrounder reports start to become slanted, however, you're forced to discount much of what they say and to read between the lines to get at the truth. This may not be an entirely bad approach to reading the newspaper or watching the news but, as Morrell points out, it leads to polarization and cynicism. Luckily, the NYT is above reproach in this regard and can dispense with superfluous reminders of its contract with the reader.
11
"It is dispiriting enough to read editorials that never fail to go overboard..." The editorials are so biased and pre-programmed to fit the Times's longstanding agenda, that I never read them. I consider them a waste of time.
This is yet another of the rather peculiar downsizing decisions that the powers that be at the New York Times continue to make. The Public Editor is a critical function for this newspaper and cutting this position is rather foolish. The New York Times does not include a means to readily contact the journalists - see the the Boston Globe, Washington Post, and the Maine Sunday Telegram to name a few newspapers which have the email addresses for the journalists. And I often write to complement them on a well done article. The Public Editor is an important way for the Times editors and staff to get some sense of what their readership and larger nation's population think about various topics. Please reconsider this rather shortsighted move. Thank you.
34
The Times is behaving exactly like the Trump administration: eliminate the internal critics, and make it more difficult for the external ones to have a voice.
45
Coming on the same day as the announcement that copy editing ranks were being reduced, the elimination of the Public Editor position does not bode well for quality control efforts at NYT.
This position serves a vital function, and it will be sorely missed.
Perhaps it should be replaced with a new slogan: "We regret the errors."
This position serves a vital function, and it will be sorely missed.
Perhaps it should be replaced with a new slogan: "We regret the errors."
40
If the Times is really on a "mission" to tell the Truth, it ought to be keeping the Public Editor--unless the truth it's interested in is only about others.
The Times is making a serious mistake, and it doesn't make the NYT look good.
Thank you and all who came before you.
The Times is making a serious mistake, and it doesn't make the NYT look good.
Thank you and all who came before you.
40
I have appreciated the work of all of the Public Editors; it is a difficult position to do well.
The NYT has made an unfortunate though highly symbolic decision to eliminate the position of Public Editor during a time of significant turmoil in journalism. I assume most users of the column include the NYT as a part of their reading and compare its offering to the many other sources available. While the public editor seem to have very little actual access to those who made decisions, the responses to reader inquiries were useful in many ways that other sources made difficult to examine.
At some point, I expect a new version of "public editor" will fill the gap between readers and producers of content; in the meantime, other sources of information may well build on their advantages to be the source of the "first look".
Good luck to Ms. Spayd with the hope that her term as public editor did not diminish her value as an employee.
The NYT has made an unfortunate though highly symbolic decision to eliminate the position of Public Editor during a time of significant turmoil in journalism. I assume most users of the column include the NYT as a part of their reading and compare its offering to the many other sources available. While the public editor seem to have very little actual access to those who made decisions, the responses to reader inquiries were useful in many ways that other sources made difficult to examine.
At some point, I expect a new version of "public editor" will fill the gap between readers and producers of content; in the meantime, other sources of information may well build on their advantages to be the source of the "first look".
Good luck to Ms. Spayd with the hope that her term as public editor did not diminish her value as an employee.
17
It has been less than 6 weeks since I reinstated my paid subscription, following the reasoning that fiction is cheap and truth is expensive. Through the public editor, the Times demonstrated that it was willing to hold itself accountable, and that is one of the reasons I decided that it was worthwhile to pay for the paper instead of reading it at the library. But instead of objective reporting and intelligently considered opinion, I am now seeing the same sort of "all opinions are valid and entitled to equal weight" nonsense that drives the tabloids. I am rather disappointed.
23
If your choice was between subscribing and reading the Times at the library, you're not in the demographic they're interested in.
The NYT continues its decent into the grave of Journalism.
With this latest purge, its face - at first just ghostly - has turned a whiter shade of pale.
With this latest purge, its face - at first just ghostly - has turned a whiter shade of pale.
32
Maybe it's just me but perhaps the CEO of the NYT could have foregone a small fraction of his five million dollar annual compensation package to safeguard this important role.
53
Maybe they didn't need to incinerate $30 million on opinion websites, The Wirecutter and The Sweet Home. As a chef, I can tell you that the Sweet Home is 100% useless. It would have been cheaper and more effective to simply start an "Ask Melissa Clark" feature.
And let us not consider the $400 million loss the Times took in buying then selling the Boston Globe...
And let us not consider the $400 million loss the Times took in buying then selling the Boston Globe...
1
Sometimes the truth is partisan, Liz. I don't want flat earth "journalism" from the NYT. This country is being destroyed by right wing and corporate media monopolies. People hunger for the truth. So goodbye and good riddance to you.
The NYT needs a good Public Editor like Margaret Sullivan. She understood her role. It saddens me that they have decided to do without one.
The NYT needs a good Public Editor like Margaret Sullivan. She understood her role. It saddens me that they have decided to do without one.
39
This comment most closely expresses my opinion. Margaret Sullivan was an excellent Public Editor. After her departure, I read articles written by the present Public Editor from time to time but not with the same devotion. Eventually I decided to subscribe to the Washington Post just to read Margaret Sullivan's articles, but found myself responding to that paper in ways that I have spent decades being devoted, as a New Yorker, to the New York Times. Yes, I subscribe to this paper but more for local issues rather than serious journalism which I have sought elsewhere. Even so, I still think the NYT should reconsider this decision.
1
I disagreed with you often, but I'm sorry to see your position close and you no longer be here watching over things. All the best to you.
13
I am very disappointed to hear that the Public Editor position is being eliminated, and have written to the Executive Editor expressing so. The idea that this position is "outdated" is ludicrous and an insult to NYT readers and subscribers (I'm both). I think Mr. Sulzberger's forced attempt to justify the elimination of the position was rhetorical hogwash. I will be keeping this in mind as I evaluate which journalistic organizations that I choose to support through subscription. Reading the Public Editor column (yours and your predecessors) was always illuminating and helpful in understanding how the news room operates and makes decisions. Even when I didn't agree with the decisions being made, I very much appreciated the explanation and understanding of the behind the scenes process. Very very sorry to see you go. All the best to you in the future.
24
Ironically, it was only in the last several months that I began to pay attention to the Public Editor columns, and I found them reassuring. They spoke to the integrity of the Times and the seriousness of its mission. The elimination of this position has significantly shaken my confidence in the Times and moved them (in my mind) into the category of institutions that no longer give a fig for the guy without money or influence. It's a sad day.
21
Sorry to see you go, but NYT needs the money to pay a hefty salary to Bret Stephens so he can tell us how Annexation of Golan should be permitted, but Annexation of Crimea should face sanctions, not to mention his predictable future rant for a war with Iran.
25
Wonder how management feels about this hire this week after the less than intellectual reasoning put forth in our nation's Rose Garden?
1
This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
How convenient for the NYT to fire the much-criticized Liz Spayd and get rid of her position at the same time, so as to make them seem like good guys who only want the news-consuming experience to be more rewarding for for readers in this brave new world of postmodern digital content.
What an utterly lame way to announce that the NYT will no longer be strapped by any meaningful internal review process. What a clever way to tell the reading public to Drop Dead. The paper actually one-upped Trump by pulling out of its tacit agreement with its readership jjust days before the US pulled out of the climate pact.
Unaccountability has become the name of the game, no matter the agency or the corporate entity.
But rejoice! As a consolation prize for no more human public editor, the Times will be opening up most articles to reader comments, so that reporters can more easily "interact" with the thousands upon thousands of atomized beings wafting on their screens! It'll be interesting to see how that works out, vis a vis journalism in the public interest.
It's telling that Ms. Spayd sees the divide in this country as partisan rather than as class-based. It's also telling that she quotes a former CIA spook as some sort of expert on media ethics. In too many columns, she's acted more as a PR flack and establishment mouthpiece than as a public representative.
So good job, Ms. Spayd. You passed your exit interview with flying colors.
How convenient for the NYT to fire the much-criticized Liz Spayd and get rid of her position at the same time, so as to make them seem like good guys who only want the news-consuming experience to be more rewarding for for readers in this brave new world of postmodern digital content.
What an utterly lame way to announce that the NYT will no longer be strapped by any meaningful internal review process. What a clever way to tell the reading public to Drop Dead. The paper actually one-upped Trump by pulling out of its tacit agreement with its readership jjust days before the US pulled out of the climate pact.
Unaccountability has become the name of the game, no matter the agency or the corporate entity.
But rejoice! As a consolation prize for no more human public editor, the Times will be opening up most articles to reader comments, so that reporters can more easily "interact" with the thousands upon thousands of atomized beings wafting on their screens! It'll be interesting to see how that works out, vis a vis journalism in the public interest.
It's telling that Ms. Spayd sees the divide in this country as partisan rather than as class-based. It's also telling that she quotes a former CIA spook as some sort of expert on media ethics. In too many columns, she's acted more as a PR flack and establishment mouthpiece than as a public representative.
So good job, Ms. Spayd. You passed your exit interview with flying colors.
53
She just wasn't very good.
30
Lady, it's very easy for you to shout "No!" and "Keep them!" when the Times and most other newspapers have been hemorrhaging money for the last 10-15 years as the net smashes ad revenue that kept these once-giant media companies alive.
Start a GoFundMe, raise the money it would take to keep Liz Spayd and send it to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr, if you want her to stay, I say.
Start a GoFundMe, raise the money it would take to keep Liz Spayd and send it to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr, if you want her to stay, I say.
4
Well Charles, last week I got myself a Washington Post subscription. NYT is hemorrhaging money because it 'reports' with a neoconservative bias.
It doesn't seem an appropriate time to be cutting this essential function. Had we known, we could have done a GoFundMe for your salary and benefits. Sad.
42
It's not an issue of money. It's an issue of reporters and editors who don't like seeing their hyper-partisanship exposed for what it is.
25
...very interesting concept da!...what if liz could be funded to become an Independent Public Editor???
Thanks to the Public Editors, they helped get our opinions heard and kept the NY Times crew aware.
Time for the Times to print a full page of Letters To The Editor, every day - and not simply because my one and only in print letter was 15 years ago...
There will always be some issue that comes off tone deaf on the pages of the Times. There will be columns of news and opinion written with a touch of the oblivious. Attention must be paid.
Thanks for reading
Time for the Times to print a full page of Letters To The Editor, every day - and not simply because my one and only in print letter was 15 years ago...
There will always be some issue that comes off tone deaf on the pages of the Times. There will be columns of news and opinion written with a touch of the oblivious. Attention must be paid.
Thanks for reading
16
Cutting this role seems to be a strangely tone-deaf choice. Readers of the Times want to be engaged in dialogue, not simple online trolling, and this position promised that some dialogic give and take was at least theoretically possible. Someone is listening--that was the message. One single editor serving in this capacity is therefore more valuable than several other faceless folks toiling behind the scenes. If this move is to save money, it surely represents poor budgeting. False economy like this might cost dearly for readers like me.
165
So an increasingly tone deaf NYT doubles down by eliminating the Public Editor. This should go well..
88
As someone who is responsible for maintaining news standards and best practices at my organization (Voice of America), I've followed all of the Time' public editors since the position was created. I believe that a public editor/ombudsman is still vital for any news outlet, and I'm sorry that the Times has eliminated the position. Wishing you best of luck in your next endeavor.
134
Thank you Liz for the past year's efforts. I have looked forward to your regular updates of issues that came before you and was impressed at how you followed through and got definitive responses on the hows and whys of what went into reporting the news. I learned a lot. I'll miss your columns.
21
Deleting this position is a mistake. It was created as a responsible way to address the Jason Blair debacle back in the early 2000s. Margaret Sullivan set a standard of responsibility that exceeded that of any other publication -- and provided readers with an insightful understanding of how editorial decisions are made. That insight made us better readers -- and more appreciative and respectful of the lengths to which the NYT held its position among other newspapers. During Ms. Sullivan's tenure, I read it faithfully. It has not been as keen in recent months, but it is still a worthy feature and it will be missed.
149
I was so sad to hear that "public editor" was no longer needed. huh? I have written a couple times when I perceived a kind of 'group think' happening in reporting. I always thought the public editor was a person the reader could give a 'heads up'. As much as owners/publishers, etc. keep saying "don't worry, quality won't be sacrificed", I don't believe it for one second. Sorry to see you go...
45
I used to gush to my friends that The New York Times was such a robust organization, such a learning organization, it hired someone just to watch-over it's journalism and, if necessary, critique their journalistic operations. Not any longer. By canning its Public Editor, The Times has sold-out to mediocrity just as CBS News did in dismissing Scott Pelley. I'm sure Trump smiled with early morning Twitter delight to see the news. Without the public editor position journalistic hubris and good old egotistical bloat will surely get The Times in trouble. Such a shame, too.
56
Elimination of this position is a mistake that I think the Times will regret. The question, to my mind, is who will watch the watchdog? The Public Editor fulfilled a sort of checks-and-balances role within the Times that I think is more necessary now than ever before. I imagine that trying to stand above the fray and provide reasoned responses was no easy task, but it was (and will continue to be) a task worth doing. I hope the Times will reconsider this decision and reinstate the role, if only to continue to be able to say that the paper takes every possible step to ensure its mission of reporting the facts in a calm and unbiased manner.
57
Geoff, you are right in all but one aspect. The Times is so wrongheadedly sure of itself that it will not regret it.
In fact, it is the Edith Piaf of journalism: "Rien, je ne regrette rien..."
In fact, it is the Edith Piaf of journalism: "Rien, je ne regrette rien..."
11
I thought Ms. Spayd was a terrible pubic editor, her appearance on the Tucker Carlson show was particularly disgraceful, but the Times needs a Public Editor and removing the position entirely is more disgraceful than anything the current public editor has done. Shame on the paper for disregarding those readers who think the position is an important one.
162
The recent interview with The Atlantic might even have been worse. "The job of the Public Editor is to collect and absorb reader e-mail. So that's the job."
Astonishingly, she exactly described the job of her estimable assistant, Evan Gershkovich.
Margaret Sullvan had a really useful home page that Spayd quickly dismantled upon arrival. Sullivan's page featured links to the writings of every previous Public Editor, and links to the Times' standards, such as "Assuring Our Credibility."
Spayd's home page deleted the two most important parts of her job description, that the PE is "the readers' representative," and is "concerned with issues of journalistic integrity." After a number of interchanges with Mr. Gershkovich, the "journalistic integrity" bit returned, but "readers' representative" never did make it back, and that was abundantly obvious in everything Spayd wrote. She had no use for us readers.
Astonishingly, she exactly described the job of her estimable assistant, Evan Gershkovich.
Margaret Sullvan had a really useful home page that Spayd quickly dismantled upon arrival. Sullivan's page featured links to the writings of every previous Public Editor, and links to the Times' standards, such as "Assuring Our Credibility."
Spayd's home page deleted the two most important parts of her job description, that the PE is "the readers' representative," and is "concerned with issues of journalistic integrity." After a number of interchanges with Mr. Gershkovich, the "journalistic integrity" bit returned, but "readers' representative" never did make it back, and that was abundantly obvious in everything Spayd wrote. She had no use for us readers.
2
Michael Morell on Cipher Brief: "... in order to be effective, journalists cannot take sides or even appear to take sides."
And that is why Times employees should not be blathering about their personal opinions on social media. When they do that, they do indeed "appear to take sides".
Unfortunately, with the elimination of the Public Editor's position, there will no longer be a public forum at the Times for readers to criticize the Times for taking sides.
‘Leave the Editorializing to Our Colleagues on the Opinion Side’
by Liz Spayd
THE PUBLIC EDITOR
SEPT. 7, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/public-editor/liz-spayd-new-york-time...
And that is why Times employees should not be blathering about their personal opinions on social media. When they do that, they do indeed "appear to take sides".
Unfortunately, with the elimination of the Public Editor's position, there will no longer be a public forum at the Times for readers to criticize the Times for taking sides.
‘Leave the Editorializing to Our Colleagues on the Opinion Side’
by Liz Spayd
THE PUBLIC EDITOR
SEPT. 7, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/public-editor/liz-spayd-new-york-time...
20
It seems that fewer and fewer NYT news stories and other pieces allow comments.
They simply don't care what readers think.
They simply don't care what readers think.
Oh, please!
Your columns have rarely impressed me, and, although I'm sorry you need to move on, a little more class in this final one would have put you in better stead with your readers.
Your columns have rarely impressed me, and, although I'm sorry you need to move on, a little more class in this final one would have put you in better stead with your readers.
32
No. Your readers are just fine, except that they will no longer have you to read.
3
No to both. We readers will no longer have a place to register complaints about journalistic integrity, not that that issue interested Spayd much.
1
However the Times decides to conserve resources/save money, I don't think they should scrimp on whatever supports the integrity of their coverage. Doing away with the public editor (and reducing the number of copy editors) cannot help but impair the scrupulousness that we've come to expect.
63
I will miss the Public Editor column and find it one more example of how far the NYT's has stumbled. Honestly, is having someone on staff who write articles about the latest downfall of Tiger Woods more important then having this important column.
I do agree with what Mike Morell said. Since Trump became President, you can feel the almost hatred your publication and much of the main stream media has for him. Sadly, it now feels like you are a more intelligent version of Fox News. Trump will be gone in less then four years, but the damage the media has inflicted on itself will last a very long time.
I do agree with what Mike Morell said. Since Trump became President, you can feel the almost hatred your publication and much of the main stream media has for him. Sadly, it now feels like you are a more intelligent version of Fox News. Trump will be gone in less then four years, but the damage the media has inflicted on itself will last a very long time.
52
And the damage that Trump has already inflicted and will continue to inflict on this country and indeed the world will quite possibly last even longer. "Less than four years" is far too long. Just why is it, do you think, that it so looks like the mainstream media hates Trump? Do you think perhaps, just perhaps, they see clearly given their resources and their investigations just what a horror has managed to find its way into the White House? I'm sorry, you don't have to read or listen to anything in the mainstream media to recognize how awful, how dangerous, the situation has become. Simply listen to Trump himself. Read his tweets. Read books that were written about him years ago by people who knew him. Personally, I would be pretty outraged if our mainstream media were not going after him with everything they've got.
Climate change? His posturing pull-out from the Paris Climate Accord yesterday will do immense damage to this country economically and to both the U.S. and the world as we under this totally incompetent mess in the White House give up any effort to provide leadership in tackling a global problem. Years and years of work put into a treaty that brought together all the world's countries (with two exceptions) and all Trump can do is WHINE about how unfair it is to the second biggest emitter (and largest on a per capita basis) of green house gases in the world.
What's not to hate? Stop making excuses for him.
Climate change? His posturing pull-out from the Paris Climate Accord yesterday will do immense damage to this country economically and to both the U.S. and the world as we under this totally incompetent mess in the White House give up any effort to provide leadership in tackling a global problem. Years and years of work put into a treaty that brought together all the world's countries (with two exceptions) and all Trump can do is WHINE about how unfair it is to the second biggest emitter (and largest on a per capita basis) of green house gases in the world.
What's not to hate? Stop making excuses for him.
1
Anyway you look at it, elimination of the Public Editor is diminishing.
117
The Times under the "new" Editor-in-Chief has made several missteps and this is one of them. Another was the rather transparent way in which they went after Bernie Sanders. Also, even though I am appalled in every possible way by Trump, I worry about the coverage of his many failings, which sometimes seems indiscriminate - therefore confusing readers about what the really big stories are, and what qualifies as gossip.
I hope this is a decision that the Times will reconsider. The argument that the Times will listen to its readers for feedback is a weak one, and not worthy of the institution. It panders to its readership's sense of importance, but does not respect their intelligence is smelling the whiff of BS it contains...
I hope this is a decision that the Times will reconsider. The argument that the Times will listen to its readers for feedback is a weak one, and not worthy of the institution. It panders to its readership's sense of importance, but does not respect their intelligence is smelling the whiff of BS it contains...
68
Just wanted to note complete disagreement with the constant harping by disappointed Bernie supporters that the NYT "went after" him.
Can we start a Go Fund Me page to purchase some Kevlar and flashlights for Liz - Evan - Eric so they are not out in the street buck naked and stumbling around in the dark?
We in Langley encourage Liz to come to Langley and be a NOC for a stealth Company and do a Wiki-Leaks like news organization on Putin and all his associates in Russia as well as in the US. Did a Putin associate invest in the NYT and get you fired?
We in Langley encourage Liz to come to Langley and be a NOC for a stealth Company and do a Wiki-Leaks like news organization on Putin and all his associates in Russia as well as in the US. Did a Putin associate invest in the NYT and get you fired?
10
Zbig has passed and nobody replaces his skill or knowledge on the topic of how to hold a shot caller's mirror tke he could.
I have recently subscribed to the Washington Post -- in addition to my online NYT subscription that I have had forever. I did this because the Post's coverage of the Trump administration is much more thorough and timely. The announced cutbacks seem to partly answer why this is so. But, to cut this particular position seems to be the most counterproductive cut possible. If readers like me are already feeling disaffected for one reason or another, a thinner, top-down approach is not going to appease us. I fear for the Times as an institution that has done so much good in the world.
82
I have a WaPo subscription, too. I got it partly because I think Liz Spayd was a terrible Public Editor who confused the truth with partisanship. I was very fond of Margaret Sullivan, the previous Public Editor. Spayd, in my view was a way of spaying the NYT readership.
But I want the NYT to have a Public Editor who understands the job.
But I want the NYT to have a Public Editor who understands the job.
34
One of the things I don't think anyone will find at WaPo is a comments section that even comes close to this one. Gems are few and far between at the WaPo, where commenting usually quickly devolves into one- or two-sentence comebacks, frequently quite nasty. I never learn anything there; here I frequently do.
3
"Sad." - to put this in modern Trumpian vernacular.
I don't know what the NYT is turning into, but it is losing that high-quality veneer that I used to sense when I first fell in love with this paper years ago. As a mid-30s age conservative I have often disagreed with 90 percent of the content of this paper, but that hasn't stooped me from loving it out of the sheer literary and intellectual quality. That aura is slipping. Some devilish, penny-saving, top-down, "cutting-edge" algorithm seems to be dragging this paper into the pop-up ad, cheapo swamp of modern online journalism; valuing shiny click-bait multi-media, and poll-tested, echo-chamber-friendly, OBVIOUS content, over brave, individualistic, ORIGINAL, human brilliance. The purging of the public-editor is just another brick in the wall.
I don't know what the NYT is turning into, but it is losing that high-quality veneer that I used to sense when I first fell in love with this paper years ago. As a mid-30s age conservative I have often disagreed with 90 percent of the content of this paper, but that hasn't stooped me from loving it out of the sheer literary and intellectual quality. That aura is slipping. Some devilish, penny-saving, top-down, "cutting-edge" algorithm seems to be dragging this paper into the pop-up ad, cheapo swamp of modern online journalism; valuing shiny click-bait multi-media, and poll-tested, echo-chamber-friendly, OBVIOUS content, over brave, individualistic, ORIGINAL, human brilliance. The purging of the public-editor is just another brick in the wall.
233
You mention the "literary" quality of the Times. I've seen its writing standards go down in the last few years. Recently I've seen stories where "its" is spelled "it's," "than" is spelled "that," the subjunctive isn't used ("was" instead of "were"), "myself" is used when "me” is correct, with the comparative “than,” an object is used rather than a subject (“he’s taller than me,” rather than “he’s taller than I (am),” and so on.
When Times writers don’t know how to write grammatically correct sentences, my respect for the publication goes down. Call me a grammar nut? I wear that label proudly.
When Times writers don’t know how to write grammatically correct sentences, my respect for the publication goes down. Call me a grammar nut? I wear that label proudly.
5
I didn't always agree with the way the Public Editor addressed issues, but I definitely think the Times loses bigly by erasing the position. It's in line with a lot that's changed in the past year or two, but a mistake.
93
I have been a print subscriber for decades. I feel disappointment and concern about the decision to eliminate the public editor position. I think the current incumbent has done well, and played a valuable role.
With the Trump administration casting off norms and structures that represent accountability, it is not good to see the Times doing something of the same. To the management I say, please rethink this, and bring back this important channel of independent reflection on your performance. I find it hard to believe that the Times cannot afford the costs of this position. I wonder if, in pursuit of the Times's mission, this loss of a balancing voice is affordable.
With the Trump administration casting off norms and structures that represent accountability, it is not good to see the Times doing something of the same. To the management I say, please rethink this, and bring back this important channel of independent reflection on your performance. I find it hard to believe that the Times cannot afford the costs of this position. I wonder if, in pursuit of the Times's mission, this loss of a balancing voice is affordable.
127
They aren't going to listen to us; that's their whole message.
1
It is shameful and disgusting that the NYT is eliminating this vital position. I would expect such a move from the likes of Trump, but never from the Times.
93
You are now woke!
1
I hope that the Times will reconsider this unfortunate decision.
236
As a subscriber since 1987, I am deeply disappointed by the decision to eliminate the public editor's role. This is a tragedy for good journalism, and frankly, as loyal as I have been to The Times, is making it exceedingly difficult for me to maintain my subscription status. There's a newspaper in DC that appears to be doing some excellent work. . . .
106
It is rather ironic that the article about reducing the number of editors has a correction filed.
37
I am sad to see the Public Editor position go, and am very disappointed in the NYTs. The stated reasoning for eliminating the position is weak and suspect.
84
Maybe if the current occupant had been effective or respected by either the readers or the editors, they would have recognized the value of keeping the position.
45
You were a fantastic public editor, and the NY Times is making a tremendous mistake by letting you go.
48
"Having the role was a sign of institutional integrity, and losing it sends an ambiguous signal: Is the leadership growing weary of such advice...?"
I know I'll be interested too.
I know I'll be interested too.
51
Pretty unambiguous signal that yes, they don't want any kind of self regulation.
Liz- You did your job well and the paper's response was to fire you by eliminating the public editor position. Today's journalists conflate outrage and hysteria with careful research and checking of sources. Print is not and never should be synonymous with cable or social media. The latter thrive on brief, colorful sound bites. The former is best when time is taken before stories are published. Woodward and Bernstein succeeded because they invested time in developing stories under the guidance of experienced editors. That is why we know who they are today. I doubt that today's journalists including those at the Times will be known to future generations. Good luck and thank you.
45
Well said. Totally agree.
8
Oh, Grey Lady.
You are making me seriously consider what I never thought I would - cancelling my subscription to the NYT. If I recall, the Public Editor position was created as a solution to an series of egregious ethical concerns - have those concerns completely vanished? or is this just another budgetary move that is profoundly short-sighted?
We need strong, ethical, thoughtful, reflective and professional journalism in this era where much of the government is not characterized by those adjectives. Why be journalists if you aren't willing to make the commitment to do it right?
You are breaking my heart, NYT. That's said without a note of hyperbole.
You are making me seriously consider what I never thought I would - cancelling my subscription to the NYT. If I recall, the Public Editor position was created as a solution to an series of egregious ethical concerns - have those concerns completely vanished? or is this just another budgetary move that is profoundly short-sighted?
We need strong, ethical, thoughtful, reflective and professional journalism in this era where much of the government is not characterized by those adjectives. Why be journalists if you aren't willing to make the commitment to do it right?
You are breaking my heart, NYT. That's said without a note of hyperbole.
25
" If I recall, the Public Editor position was created as a solution to an series of egregious ethical concerns..."
You recall wrong. It was pr from the word go, as its elimination confirms.
You recall wrong. It was pr from the word go, as its elimination confirms.
I am very unhappy about this and suspicious about why it is happening. I was proud of the New York Times for having a public editor and I believe it has increased the both the quality of reporting and the reputation of the newspaper. Now I am ashamed.
196
So, no more Public Editor. Apres Spayd, le deluge.
I wish I could say I didn't see this coming, but when the NYT dragged its feet on appointing a successor to Margaret Sullivan, I queried repeatedly on the NYT's Opinion FB page whether the powers that be were hoping to let the position die quietly, and in time everyone would forget there ever was, for one brief shining moment, such a spot.
I know we commenters have been harsh on you, but you did your best in the epitome of a thankless job, as telling people things they don't want to hear always is (ask Socrates). I hope at least they paid you well.
The paper's giving evidence to its critics that it's dogmatic, arrogant, and authoritarian, and does not take kindly to challenges to its telling us what to think. Its staff can go back to compiling listicles of how we can practice 'smarter living', asking us to take on faith the authority or even existence of battalions of 'anonymous' sources, and patting themselves on the back. They tasted accountability, didn't like it, and spat it out.
Sigh.
I wish I could say I didn't see this coming, but when the NYT dragged its feet on appointing a successor to Margaret Sullivan, I queried repeatedly on the NYT's Opinion FB page whether the powers that be were hoping to let the position die quietly, and in time everyone would forget there ever was, for one brief shining moment, such a spot.
I know we commenters have been harsh on you, but you did your best in the epitome of a thankless job, as telling people things they don't want to hear always is (ask Socrates). I hope at least they paid you well.
The paper's giving evidence to its critics that it's dogmatic, arrogant, and authoritarian, and does not take kindly to challenges to its telling us what to think. Its staff can go back to compiling listicles of how we can practice 'smarter living', asking us to take on faith the authority or even existence of battalions of 'anonymous' sources, and patting themselves on the back. They tasted accountability, didn't like it, and spat it out.
Sigh.
151
I think you're right about wanting the position to die quietly.
I think of Spayd as Terry Malloy in "On the Waterfront," and Arthur Sulzburger as Johnny Friendly, ordering her to take a dive.
First clue, the two month absence of a Public Editor, just as the political campaigns approached the convention stages.
Second clue: the "redesign" of the Public Editor Home Page. Gone were all of the links to the writings of all prior PEs. Gone was the job description parts stating the PE is "the readers' representative," and, until multiple complaints were lodged, even that the position is concerned "with issues of journalistic integrity." "Readers' representative" never returned until, laughably, Junior Sulzburger's memo of discontinuance of the position.
Third clue: Elimination of the Public Editor from "Latest from the Opinion Blogs."
Fourth clue: Sometimes complete absence of links to columns or posts, other than by clicking on "Public Editor" on the Opinion Page.
Fifth clue: Spayd's seeming inability to understand the difference between an objective, internal critic, and a member of the Times' PR staff.
Sixth clue: The appalling interview Spayd gave to The Atlantic. "The job of
Public Editor is to collect and absorb reader email. So that's the job," she said, accurately describing the job of her assistant.
From Brando to Spayd: "I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it."
I think of Spayd as Terry Malloy in "On the Waterfront," and Arthur Sulzburger as Johnny Friendly, ordering her to take a dive.
First clue, the two month absence of a Public Editor, just as the political campaigns approached the convention stages.
Second clue: the "redesign" of the Public Editor Home Page. Gone were all of the links to the writings of all prior PEs. Gone was the job description parts stating the PE is "the readers' representative," and, until multiple complaints were lodged, even that the position is concerned "with issues of journalistic integrity." "Readers' representative" never returned until, laughably, Junior Sulzburger's memo of discontinuance of the position.
Third clue: Elimination of the Public Editor from "Latest from the Opinion Blogs."
Fourth clue: Sometimes complete absence of links to columns or posts, other than by clicking on "Public Editor" on the Opinion Page.
Fifth clue: Spayd's seeming inability to understand the difference between an objective, internal critic, and a member of the Times' PR staff.
Sixth clue: The appalling interview Spayd gave to The Atlantic. "The job of
Public Editor is to collect and absorb reader email. So that's the job," she said, accurately describing the job of her assistant.
From Brando to Spayd: "I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it."
1
Perhaps the NYT is "dogmatic and authoritarian", which is off-putting, but what's worse is that it is more and more rare to find a fact-digging in-depth reporting, and more and more common to find reporting of the superficial "he said this, she said that" variety.
1
"The paper's giving evidence to its critics that it's dogmatic, arrogant, and authoritarian, and does not take kindly to challenges to its telling us what to think."
In other words, typically liberal behavior.
In other words, typically liberal behavior.
The job elimination is shameful but not surprising.
It happens to coincide with my own decision to stop my subscription. I am looking for balanced reporting.
Good luck!
It happens to coincide with my own decision to stop my subscription. I am looking for balanced reporting.
Good luck!
37
One can only imagine that of all the places that the NY Times could economize, this is the one job category that would be untouchable. What a disappointment. Not a surprise though. It is sad for all of us.
317
Ms. Spayd, when an institution such as NYTimes has suffered an enormous error/flaw, such as the 2016 election -- that is the time for "hard questions" to be asked.
The Times has been actually visiting Middle America, absent the hateful wailing from the permanent-political NYC/WashDC corridor and Democrats -- much more needs to be done.
Example: who is "Mike Morell?" What does he think of politicians, diverting years of taxpayer-funded data to their home computers?
Ms. Spayd, you did what had to be done, good job. IMHO, life is about meaning. If y'all are going to try to hold others to account, if y'all are going to "dish it out" -- you better be prepared "to take it." Anything less shows hypocrisy.
Best wishes, going forward.
The Times has been actually visiting Middle America, absent the hateful wailing from the permanent-political NYC/WashDC corridor and Democrats -- much more needs to be done.
Example: who is "Mike Morell?" What does he think of politicians, diverting years of taxpayer-funded data to their home computers?
Ms. Spayd, you did what had to be done, good job. IMHO, life is about meaning. If y'all are going to try to hold others to account, if y'all are going to "dish it out" -- you better be prepared "to take it." Anything less shows hypocrisy.
Best wishes, going forward.
So we lose the public editor after having 'gained' a right wing columnist. Do I see a trend here?????
1
As a retired Houston Chronicle reporter and NYT subscriber, I'm disappointed, to say the least, at the elimination of the Public Editor's job.
115
The creation of this position, and the NYT responses to whatever appeared in these columns has always appeared to me as a soft public relations exercise. It is clear that print media as we know it is under enormous challenges. It is not clear to me how best to contribute to maintaining the important independent media voice, whose presence takes on even more importance in the current political climate. I value enormously much of what I find every day in the NYT, I don't think that whether or not this position exists greatly influences any outcomes or missions.
5
I am sorry to see that the Times is eliminating its Public Editor, which helped keep the newspaper conscious of its responsibility and, occasionally, of its missteps.
259
I feel as angry as I did when the Times axed the environmental desk and claimed that other sections of the paper would offer the same coverage.