I followed an link, because I was interested in the debate on how newspapers handled spoilers within comics. At that point, I hadn't seen the actual spoiler. I guess I was flirting with it, but I was still surprised that George did it again with his "sad news" first sentence. Why compound the mistake? Clumsy and unnecessary. And then he follows this with a promise to be "incredibly more sensitive to spoilers." Hopeless. "I know I blurted out in another article that Rosebud was his sled, but I'll be super careful not to do it anything like THAT again."
I definitely hope that in future The Times will impose a self-embargo of at least Wednesday evening on *any* comic news, ideally later in the week. Treat it like the various other media reviewers did, and even if a story beat is "big news" from a cultural lens, treat it as a work of art and avoid anything that might disrupt the reading experience until after people have at least had the *opportunity* to read it.
Don't cover how "Batman won't be getting married tomorrow," instead cover "so last week Batman didn't get married, and here's some context and reflection on that concept. . ."
Fandom in general, and individual fandoms in particular, have their own culture. You essentially violated one of the prime tenets of fandom general culture.
I can't believe your writers -- one would hope that as longtime comic readers, they aren't completely divorced from fandom issues and practices, no matter how female it might be portrayed in some circles -- weren't at least tangentially aware of this and if they were, why they didn't attempt to convince their editors to protect readers from spoilers?
I realize fandom culture doesn't rise to the same level as an ethnic culture does. But I would still think sensitivity would be called for. If you knew the ending for Walking Dead or either incarnation of Game of Thrones, would you spoil that for some artificial reason, i.e., "We were going to do that wedding thing"? GoT is particularly relevant, since those of us who had read the novels were well aware of what happened at the Red Wedding but relatively good behavior kept it on the down low for TV viewers such that millions were shocked and surprised when that episode aired.
Spoiler-avoidance is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Again, I'm shocked and sad that your entire publication process disrespected it for no good reason.
2
I am a bit perplexed. Now the Times is asking the readers' opinions on the Batman affair, if this were a controversial matter with delicate underpinnings and unpredictable ramifications. It is not: spoiling was wrong and careless, but certainly not the end of the world; no moral issues of any kind are involved here.
So, on the one hand readers are asked to share their questions and concerns, while, on the other, not one single line written by the journalists clearly states something like "We messed up, we are sorry."
How about apologizing and calling it a day? Am I the only one who finds annoying and ultimately pointless this whole operation that apparently takes the readers' opinions at heart, but that actually does not involve taking any responsibility for the (venial) mistake?
7
Since I feel like a lot of these editor responses are the NYT dodging accountability and making excuses, I just want to bring attention to an important aspect of this issue that has been ignored: the consequences for comic book retailers.
Most comic shops are small businesses barely staying afloat. The booming superhero movie industry has done little to save the medium of print comic books, and the rise of digital media means that fewer people than ever before are buying hard copies.
Comic shops buy the comics from distributors (in this case - DC, Marvel, etc.), expecting to make their money back by selling the comics to readers. Batman 50 was insanely hyped: DC sold close to 50 different covers for the issue, and also produced an $18 "Wedding Album." Store were encouraged to hold parties, and pressured to remain open on a national holiday to serve their customers.
This means that comic shop owners spent thousands of dollars prepared to meet the demand for an event that didn't happen.
The consequences for comic stores really cannot be overstated. Pre-orders were cancelled in huge numbers, leaving small businesses on the hook for what was likely thousands of dollars. These businesses are already struggling!
DC Comics doesn't care, and I'm sure the Times doesn't either. But for those of us who frequent these stores, spoiling this issue and revealing the wedding was a fake out was a very big deal, indeed.
11
Rebel, I had no idea about the repercussions on comics shops, thank you for sharing this piece of information. If it is true, this makes the Times' unwillingness to take full responsibility all the more despicable. Their mistake was no so venial after all.
3
Wow, this is one of the rare instances where I really feel like a corporation or media entity actually listened and cared about what its customers and the public and general felt. Thank you, and the all the staff that contributed, for taking the time and making the effort to address the concerns people had. While I was disappointed the spoilers made it out, I am very thankful that there was some good that came from it (a serious look at how spoilers, even in comics, can ruin stories for readers/viewers). This is a very classy move on the part of the NYT and so much more thoughtful than the cold Twitter/Facebook/Press Release apology.
4