In Big Media Town, ‘Core’ Beat in Flux

The coverage of such a visible journalist — one whose byline became a "brand" — was not over the top. I personally chose not to read all of it, but what I did read helped add layers to a complex personality.

That said, this column is pushing it into hagiography. I disagreed with some — many, actually — of Carr's column, which, of course, is exactly the way he would have wanted it. For example, his encomium of John Stewart passed over how Stewart's easily ingested & digested sarcasm mimicked the mocking tone of MSNBC & Fox News. Criticizing Academy voters for not giving Selma enough due ignored the fact that, overall, it was just a good movie, hampered by exclusion of King's speeches & a skewed view of events. And he definitely jumped the gun praising the renaissance of the Washington Post under Jeff Bezos, when newsroom layoffs continue to decimate the paper's once-great coverage near and far.

But again, that's the mark of a great columnist: someone with whom you are having a personal conversation. I suspect that, just as Stuart Elliott made people forget Randall Rothenberg, good people will pick up both men's columns and run with them.

I know this editorial is nearly a week old, but today I found this article about the New York Times:
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/02/8563105/emtimesem-sh...

I think it's a fairly objective report. Why didn't I read in the Times first? As I said previously, the Times has a long way to go before it can consider its coverage of media (and itself) to be stellar.

Beg Brian Stelter to return.

I thought that the attention paid to David Carr was just right. Readers cannot always form an attachment to the journalists, but Mr. Carr had such a distinctive voice and thoughtful insight that it was easy to have a connection. So then when he died,totally unexpectedly for most of us, there is loss. The articles in the Times showed how his colleagues were processing his absence just as the readers were. The fact that some saw it as over the top is irrelevant. What matters are the numbers of people who needed to mark his passing, as we also mark those meaningful people who are not as publicly recognized. It may be urbane and hip to keep the emotion spare and brief, but in the real world, sadness takes a while. It seemed more authentic to see that the Times was grieving.

shop talk, that's what this is . . . the Times thinks that their inner workings and problems are of interest to the general public

As I commented on your previous story about the tributes to Mr. Carr, he deserved praise, but the Times thought the matter of his death so important that its home page linked to his obit in six different places: the lede story, Business Day, Arts, Movies, Obituaries and Timesvideo. I'd say yes, that's over the top. Many people of far greater fame and importance die every day and don't get that kind of attention. Some don't get noticed at all.

DAVID CARR'S ADDITION TO THE NYT WAS FORTUITOUS . . .

especially as print media is attempting to transition and survive in this digital economy. In the old days, the Times could survive with James Reston, Tom Wicker, William Safire... For those new readers they did not publish op-eds by non staff members. Sure they were excellent analysts, but...

David Carr brought a certain kind of excitement which was honest, well written and challenged the "old grey lady."

Who would have thought that a star reporter and analyst could become an integral part of the serious broad format? But, he did.

But, I consider the NYT to be a vital part of our attempting to remain a democratic republic. And, now that Rupert Murdoch has expanded the former business focused WSJ, it has become a threat to all national newspapers of substance.

The WSJ is still an important and intelligent voice -- but, it is clear with the edition of a New York supplement and all kinds of cultural reports, their retro editorial pages and somewhat retro decisions vis-a vis news coverage...

They may turn out to eclipse the economically challenged NYT -- even more so than the evolving changes which have affected all publishers.

I miss the printed voice of David Carr very much. I read his book and his was a true success story. I enjoyed reading how he rose from the dredges of an existence to someone who, at his death, had probably the highest profile of any writer at the Times. And he loved the institution of the Times which was, and is, important in carrying the paper forward. He wrote brilliantly, had an uncanny ability to turn a phrase and was, on tv, the face and voice of the Times. I miss his intellect and his ability to explain the tech advances to us non-techies. As someone has already written: "His was a highly individual and insightful voice. There was something truly special about his column."

All of that being said, the coverage was a tad over the top. Yet I also agree with Ms. Sullivan who wrote that the Times did right by putting his obit above the fold on page A1. He lived to be there, and we are better for him being there. You could always sense his pride in being at the newspaper of record, a true cheerleader and the paper is and was better for it.

Finally, can Jon Stewart write 700 words?

I DON'T think your coverage of David Carr's sudden passing was too much. He was one of your own, someone who, obviously overcame great odds & handicaps to become what he was. I always read David's columns even when I thought HE was "over the top!" Other media, including the Huffington Post raved about him so ego te absolve! When someone is larger than life like David, you cant just hire/promote someone & dub them The New David Carr!
However, I was greatly disappointed by Stuart Elliot's retirement--never did get to ask him about the "follicly-challenged" actor who was long the face of the NY Lottery, ubiquitously announcing, "The New York Lottery jackpot is now...." Stuart was incredibly knowledgeable about advertising & I also never did mused what happened to commercials of old that were clever, entertaining--e.g Let Hertz put you in the driver's seat. Mother please, I'd rather do it myself!" (Bayer aspirin), Tony the Tiger, Kellogg's Frosted Flakes are "grrrreat!" vs. the onslaught of car commercials, screaming at you (is no one buying cars????) and commercials so deafening I cant hit my mute button fast enough. For Mr. Elliott to retire sans replacement in place is unconscionable. No one expected David Carr's passing. But the NYT expected Mr. Elliott's retirement so a new advertising columnist should been in place long before he did.

Comparing David Carr to the Dalai Lama is yet another example of the excessive coverage of Carr's death. While I have no doubt he meant a lot to colleagues and readers, his death was due to illness and not related to work or service to his country. Honestly, I find the coverage of most reporters' deaths over the top, particularly those who die covering conflict or disaster. While I appreciate - and benefit from - the risks a reporter takes to cover a story, we should give much more prominent coverage to the deaths of our military and first responders, and not those who report their work. That is not the case at present.

Your coverage of David's passing was definitely not "over the top" - I would have read a great deal more if it had been there.

I read his column for the last couple of years with interest and enjoyment, but my eyes were really opened to his range and talent when I found his major piece on Neil Young. I will continue to visit the well and hope you never take his page down. Right now I have a Chrome window open with no fewer than 13 tabs of David Carr-related stories.

Of course, I'm a collector of finely-turned language. My preliminary selection of his gems is the most recent Notable Quotable entry on Quotes of the Day:
http://www.qotd.org/quotes/David.Carr

I'll miss him, but far less than if the Times and others didn't provide the opportunity to revisit some stories and discover some that I missed. Good luck trying to replace him, Dean Baquet is right about creating a star.

Van

The NYT coverage of Mr. Carr's death was, indeed, excessive. Many people in many other professions mentor younger people. That is human nature, not the provenance of a journalist.

The obsession with Mr. Carr speaks volumes about the current state of journalism. Egos obsessed with egos.

This "journalism is a higher calling" narrative demeans the gathering of real news.

I never heard of Mr. Carr until he died, never read him, consider the to do about him nonsense. A celebrated journalist is no journalist,he is a public figure, celebrity, a celebration of one. No one is indispensable and certainly no reporter, columnist or commentator. And the stories you cite are not so much about the media as they are about people who the media inserts in the culture.The Brian Williams story is not one about the media, it is one about a liar caught out in his lies. The Times is making way, way, way too much of the late Mr. Carr and of the media as a beat. It is but one and it pales in significance and importance in comparison to international reporting, national news, news of Washington and news of finance, the economy and the like.

Ah, it's s sad that the New York Times has never actually employed a broadcast journalism reporter who had a good understanding of the editorial and craft processes involved in broadcast journalism, which also colors reporting of new media.

Part 2 of 2.
But the main part of Sullivan's editorial is about media coverage. The easy availability of other news outlets makes it clear to me that the staff of The Times lives in a house made of mirrors pointing inward. Many news organizations regularly criticize The Times, or hypothesize how and why stories are written the way they are. The Times apparently holds itself above this. Sometimes it's envy or jealously (like when a Murdoch organization criticizes). But sometimes one can learn more about The Times from reading something like Huffington Post than The Times itself. Why? By all means, celebrate the life of David Carr - but he was one person. The Times needs a staff of at least 5 who regularly cover "the media" (including The Times itself [thank you, Margaret]).

In bygone days, some newspapers used to regularly feature articles that summarized and compared the way different organizations cover a story, either as it was developing as well as a post-mortem. I think it would greatly benefit The Times if they introduced such a column(s) into their paper.

All of which is to say, currently, The Times has a long way to go if it wants to excel in media coverage.

Part 1 of 2.
More than any other public editor, I've loved Margaret Sullivan's columns. This is the first one that I sense is off balance because it doesn't reconcile with what I see in the paper and read about it elsewhere. "Some coverage areas at which The Times excel..." She then lists books and cultural writing. Huh? The Times is often criticized for being on a different planet, and I must agree in these cases.

Books. Non-fiction writers regularly come down on The Times for its minute coverage of non-fiction. Recently the Chronicle of Higher Education had an entire column as to why The Times refuses to review scholarly literature, the comments agreeing that The Times is much too concerned with ephemerality and money. In the Book Review, sometimes the reviewers are inappropriate to the subject but are "names," apparently courting the controversy the Times wants.

Culture writing. This must be a joke! The Times has all but decimated its coverage of non-pop music, and the occasional review of only big exhibits (by Edward Rothstein, whose reviews--even when he was a music critic--I never liked because of his insularity and supposed intellectual supremacy) do not make for cultural coverage. My goodness, this is New York City, and from reading The Times, one would NEVER know that this place is a cultural capital of the world.

"Has The Times’s attention to Mr. Carr’s death been a tad over the top?" Ms. Sullivan asks.

Well, let's see: there are at least five references in this piece to Mr. Carr being a "star," which underscores not only how insular the media business, but the high regard w which they hold themselves. (Really: how many people in this country had even heard of David Carr? And the Times makes him seem like Edward R. Murrow.)

To repeat: in one of Carr's last columns he wrote, "Those of us who worked the Hurricane Katrina coverage rolled our eyes at some of the stories Mr. Williams told of the mayhem there."

Well, if Carr is/was a media columnist, and Williams's lies -- or was it the imagery? -- were so obvious it left Carr and others rolling their eyes -- wouldn't this be the subject of a column? Of a star media columnist?

Guess not.

Passion. That is what is required for a reporter. You don't "replace" David Carr. He was his own genius. You hire someone who has the passion to seek the information and to report in a way that makes us understand its significance. The Times has let go to many good reporters in order to finance other areas. The Times needs to return to investigative reporting--should be some who are dedicated to that, on the national, state, city level, even if it is a free-lancer. For example, the loss of regional reporters at state capitols has reduced our knowledge of what is really happening at that level. Look for passion and you find a media person.

I wonder if Jon Stewart would do a guest column in media?

Like many, Carr's column was a must read to me, but yes, the Times did lionize him with its over-the-top coverage depsite the fact that every column about him provoked tears from this reader. I suppose it is hard not to use the ink and pixels at your disposal to process your grief and heaven knows Carr had a backstory filled with intrigue. But if the TImes examined the word count devoted to Carr and compared it to its coverage of other individuals having even more impact on the world, I imagine it would find its judgment a tad suspect. Discretion and restraint are powerful tools that were used too gingerly in this situation and in some respects establish an awkward standard for future coverage of similar situations.

Are you by chance gunning for his position?

The coverage of David Carr's death was befitting. I haven't felt that way since Elvis died.

I hear Jon Stewart is looking for a new gig. He's always been a singular voice on media criticism, so perhaps he'd be a natural fit. Mr. Baquet should give him a call.

Yes, coverage of Carr's untimely death was over the top, but it was covered by most major media outlets so I suppose he was better than I thought he was.

You could "excel" at fashion writing by having none of it. That would make you the cream of the crop.

No, the coverage of David Carr's death wasn't over the top. Thank you for every word. I have been reading the Times daily for about fifty years, and you are family to me. David Carr was one of my favorite writers, and I am happy to see that you agreed with me.

NYTimes helped me learn about Carr after his death. Thanks, a wonderful person, it seems.

The thing is, I haven't taken in all of Mr. Carr's work. I have not read his book yet. I have not seen every Sweet Spot. His media is still in my future. But I am sorry that he is not here now in our present. The Times coverage has not been to much.

"An aside: Has The Times’s attention to Mr. Carr’s death been a tad over the top...."
A TAD? YES. As I wrote earlier, I was sorry about David Carr's death, but he was not a writer whom I admired. I never liked his "Carpetbagger"innocent-hick persona, finding it disingenuous, and this was before I learned of his past. At times could be sexist, once using "pear-shaped" in an article about Hillary Clinton. He thought he was being sly in using that phrase, but it was obvious what he was doing, and offensive.

He wasn't especially brave: He criticized himself for not outing Bill Cosby, but did this only after numerous articles had already exposed Cosby, and he criticized other offending journalists by name. I found the article utterly self-serving, a decade late and a dollar short.

Not at all. He was the best at what he did, period. And he will be very, very missed

Sorry as I was at the loss of David Carr, I genuinely was gratified to learn more about him following his death.

I suppose it's natural for co-workers to be deeply affected by the death of another, but honestly, people die every day. Luminaries in other fields maybe get a little 2x2 e-box on the Times splash page, or if they are a *huge* persona get a story above the fold, but nothing like when a "media friend" goes. (Witness the coverage of Bob Simon on "60 Minutes", "CBS Sunday Morning", "CBS News" and so on.) I suspect most people couldn't pick Carr's (or Simon's) name out of a list of 20 if you paid them to do it.

Not to take anything away from these people, both of whom did fine work, but really, a media reporter and a reporter on TV? Meanwhile civil rights leaders, sport heroes and astrophysicists who changed society and our world get the obligatory 400 words on page 23.

Not to worry. The coverage of David Carr's death by the NYT was NOT at all over the top. This reader misses his work terribly already.
I also enjoyed reading his unusual and very interesting BU course syllabus. I am reading one of the "required" articles from it now.
His was a highly individual and insightful voice.
There was something truly special about his column.

Nice column, Ms. Sullivan. One small observation, media may be wine to Manhattan but the Times serves a few more venues than the island, and thank God for that. One reader's view of Mr. Carr: I didn't look for him to exhaustively cover the media, but only the biggest story of the week. And his information and his understanding of it were equally important. Provide that, Mr. Baquet, and you'll be fine.

Over-the-top indeed. I didn't see an endless chorus of wailing and ink/pixels when James Reston or Harrison Salisbury died.

Sadly, the Times has never employed a broadcast journalism reporter who had the slightest understanding of the editorial and craft processes involved in broadcast journalism, which also colors reporting of new media.

Re: coverage areas The Times needs to own, or keep owning, or get back to owning: New York City.

To say that David Carr wrote a " business column " is like say that Tolstoy wrote a war story. Too not hear David and Tony talking us thru the Oscars why watch.

Ms Sullivan,
Just a comment regarding whether you covered Mr. Carr's passing too much; an emphatic NO. I regularly read his column but had no idea of his depth of character and how he enriched so many that he mentored. I absolutely loved his course syllabus. His writing will be missed. Thank you for giving us this wonderful glimpse "inside the man"

David Carr, in his second life, was every bit the Dalai Lama of his profession, so I don't think The Times's attention to his shocking death was over the top. There is a fantastic opportunity that is available to someone; long-time readers and/or critics of The Times cannot wait to learn just who will take up the baton. And if we don't allow that individual to be herself or himself while covering the beat, we'll deserve some time in the naughty corner.

Maybe I'm really dumb, but why did the Times lay people off if it now has to replenish beyond Mr Carr--which is the impression I get from this piece?