GIGO That was the introduction people were given to computers back in the 50s and 60s. Garbage in, garbage out. While the universe of computer technology has expanded, the coverage of political campaigns has become ever more tedious to me. Though I do think it's a great idea to warn the voters about the limitations and defective thinking of potential candidates, it often has about as much attraction to me as a cesspool. Once I see a candidate's pattern of communication as spraying swill, I get the message! I hold my nose and move on to the next, hoping that that one will not turn out to be another stinker. What I observe as a change in political discourse is that has expanded to suck the air out of everything. In fact, I wonder when the EPA will start giving us statistics on the carbon footprint of the hot air expelled by candidates and political parties. While it may be true that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, its corollary may be that money buys boredom and unlimited funds buy unending boredom. The message to me is that those who would control elections must be some of the biggest bores and boors around. Doesn't matter to me, though. I doubt I'll ever meet them. And I can cut them off by turning the page or switching the channel.
This is for Margaret Sullivan and Carolyn Ryan: I see no response from Sullivan to the many mistakes The Times has made in coverage. I see nothing about the dearth of coverage of Bernie Sanders. I searched The Times before coming here to write; I found NO NEWS articles, just the kind of trivia that so many have commented on herein and feature stories on his Brooklyn roots and such.
Bernie drew 5 times the crowd in Kenner, LA, that Gov Jindahl drew when he announced his candidacy for the presidency there.
The Times seems to have lost its great reporters and editors. How else can you explain the inattention given to candidate Sanders?
Bernie drew 5 times the crowd in Kenner, LA, that Gov Jindahl drew when he announced his candidacy for the presidency there.
The Times seems to have lost its great reporters and editors. How else can you explain the inattention given to candidate Sanders?
1
It would be great if the Times were to dissect the labels that get thrown about about candidates, especially by detractors, perhaps in the form of a chart to make comparisons clearer. For example, the label Socialist for Sanders. What does being a socialist actually mean, and in the case of Sanders is it really an accurate label, and if so, or if not, why? In the case of the labels conservative and liberal, what do those labels actually mean in comparison to the connotations given to them by those who want to give a false impression of themselves or falsely denigrate their opponent.
1
With such a thin diet of real campaign news it's no wonder some Times reporters dip into the junk food. Perhaps editors should dial down their expectations for column inches and net pieces until there is more news of substance.
2
Go readers, the Times needs to hear this but has been unable to so far. Ever increasingly the Times offers less and less of interest as it moves ever further toward a Vanity Fair, People Magazine, Huff Post, tabloid entertainment oriented publication. The neo liberal corporatist stance so out of touch and then defensive is ruining the paper. Bill Keller sneering at the occupy demonstrators that he utterly failed to understand is emblematic of the Times problems in editorial that more than trickles down to writers who are so often clueless to the greater context of our current realities from the personal to the global. All that core Times readers want and miss is for the Times to return to the real or imagined serious and critical high quality in depth long form journalism of the past.
3
Oh you have Matt Drudge on board now? I would take that as a sign that it is time for some serious reflection on what you have become.
.
.
I have stated before that I do not appreciate hearing any candidate described as the "front-runner" or "favorite" more than a year before a winner will be known. And I am exceedingly pleased that Ms. Sullivan says: "And like a lot of readers, I could do without the excessive coverage" of Hillary Clinton.
But I disagree with Commenters who gripe about noncoverage of some events featuring candidates besides her. Not every candidate informs the Times of the time/place of events. Not every candidate shows up on time for their own events, if they show up at all. Should reporters be stationed somewhere waiting for a candidate to say something predictable, when instead they could be researching candidates' prior stances on issues?
I'll use the last NYC Mayoral race as an illustration. The Times gave heaviest coverage to Christine Quinn and Anthony Weiner in the battle for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Weiner even got the Magazine cover. Bill de Blasio, William Thompson, and the others got much less coverage. I wrote in to complain.
But it turned out that Ms. Quinn had a very slick campaign operation, which kept press relations running well. Mr. Weiner spoke very substantively, and often remained for a while after events to answer each question. Mr. de Blasio was never on time, and sometimes skipped his events. Other candidates did not routinely inform the press of their events.
The Times endorsed Ms. Quinn.
Mr. De Blasio won the nomination; Mr. Thompson came in second.
.
I have stated before that I do not appreciate hearing any candidate described as the "front-runner" or "favorite" more than a year before a winner will be known. And I am exceedingly pleased that Ms. Sullivan says: "And like a lot of readers, I could do without the excessive coverage" of Hillary Clinton.
But I disagree with Commenters who gripe about noncoverage of some events featuring candidates besides her. Not every candidate informs the Times of the time/place of events. Not every candidate shows up on time for their own events, if they show up at all. Should reporters be stationed somewhere waiting for a candidate to say something predictable, when instead they could be researching candidates' prior stances on issues?
I'll use the last NYC Mayoral race as an illustration. The Times gave heaviest coverage to Christine Quinn and Anthony Weiner in the battle for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Weiner even got the Magazine cover. Bill de Blasio, William Thompson, and the others got much less coverage. I wrote in to complain.
But it turned out that Ms. Quinn had a very slick campaign operation, which kept press relations running well. Mr. Weiner spoke very substantively, and often remained for a while after events to answer each question. Mr. de Blasio was never on time, and sometimes skipped his events. Other candidates did not routinely inform the press of their events.
The Times endorsed Ms. Quinn.
Mr. De Blasio won the nomination; Mr. Thompson came in second.
.
.
I am in the minority in that I want LESS campaign coverage at this early date; but many readers want more, and I respect that.
What disheartens me is that so many Commenters here have sought more coverage of Sen. Bernie Sanders without mentioning undercoverage of other undercovered candidates.
I believe I counted 6 people who mentioned other candidates or groups of candidates, beginning with the earliest Comment (by "NA") ... who was, I believe, the only Commenter to use the name "O'Malley". No one used the names "Chafee" or "Webb". Various people mentioned specific Republican candidates, or the GOP field generally, or the Dem. field generally.
The Public Editor position was created, among other things, so that there would be a monitor of journalistic standards, integrity, accuracy, and transparency. The position was not created to ensure that a group of supporters of one person would get to see their interest in that one person reflected in the Times.
If you wish to advertise the plusses of Sen. Sanders's candidacy without any mention of the possible minuses, please be upfront about it. "I support Bernie Sanders and here's why" would be a nice introduction to your Comment. (I personally have admired his stances since around 1980. I voted for a Green Party ticket in 2012.)
If, however, you believe the Times should cover lesser-known candidates more thoroughly, you might be on firmer ground if you advocated for coverage of more than just Sen. Sanders.
.
I am in the minority in that I want LESS campaign coverage at this early date; but many readers want more, and I respect that.
What disheartens me is that so many Commenters here have sought more coverage of Sen. Bernie Sanders without mentioning undercoverage of other undercovered candidates.
I believe I counted 6 people who mentioned other candidates or groups of candidates, beginning with the earliest Comment (by "NA") ... who was, I believe, the only Commenter to use the name "O'Malley". No one used the names "Chafee" or "Webb". Various people mentioned specific Republican candidates, or the GOP field generally, or the Dem. field generally.
The Public Editor position was created, among other things, so that there would be a monitor of journalistic standards, integrity, accuracy, and transparency. The position was not created to ensure that a group of supporters of one person would get to see their interest in that one person reflected in the Times.
If you wish to advertise the plusses of Sen. Sanders's candidacy without any mention of the possible minuses, please be upfront about it. "I support Bernie Sanders and here's why" would be a nice introduction to your Comment. (I personally have admired his stances since around 1980. I voted for a Green Party ticket in 2012.)
If, however, you believe the Times should cover lesser-known candidates more thoroughly, you might be on firmer ground if you advocated for coverage of more than just Sen. Sanders.
1
.
Forgot to mention Elizabeth Warren.
For a few months in the winter/spring, other news outlets treated her as if she was the anti-Clinton -- and would be running in primaries as such.
Was the Times obligated to cover her? How much, and in what fashion?
Or do most of the dozens of people Commenting about Sen. Sanders think only Sen. Sanders must be covered?
Forgot to mention Elizabeth Warren.
For a few months in the winter/spring, other news outlets treated her as if she was the anti-Clinton -- and would be running in primaries as such.
Was the Times obligated to cover her? How much, and in what fashion?
Or do most of the dozens of people Commenting about Sen. Sanders think only Sen. Sanders must be covered?
@MTF, I hardly think that Sanders should be the only candidate covered. But pretty much every mention of Sanders in the Times comes with a qualifier cum disparagement. Such as calling his policy proposals radical, or his campaign quixotic, or the very fact that, in some Times viewpoints, he can't be taken seriously because he looks and sounds like Larry David.
But one must be mindful of the Times' dismal record covering Presidential politics.
2004: the Times withholds the Risen/Lichtblau warrantless wiretapping story prior to the Bush reelection, at the behest of the Bush Administration.
2008: the Times falls for the meme of the inevitability of Hillary Clinton, and is found to be gobsmacked by the rise of Barack Obama.
2012: the Times decides which entrants in the Republican Clown Car are entitled to coverage, and which aren't. Then political editor (and now editor of the Paris Herald) Richard Stevenson responded with unfortunate candor to Sullivan's predecessor as to why the Times found Ron Paul's campaign unworthy of coverage
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/riding-the-republican-r...
So the Times gave serious coverage to Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but denied it to Ron Paul. Are we proud yet?
And now Carolyn Ryan defends listicles, and then there's the black swan event, a beat reporter, Amy Chozick, for only one putative candidate in private life, HRC. I want the Times to report, not to decide who is worthy of coverage
But one must be mindful of the Times' dismal record covering Presidential politics.
2004: the Times withholds the Risen/Lichtblau warrantless wiretapping story prior to the Bush reelection, at the behest of the Bush Administration.
2008: the Times falls for the meme of the inevitability of Hillary Clinton, and is found to be gobsmacked by the rise of Barack Obama.
2012: the Times decides which entrants in the Republican Clown Car are entitled to coverage, and which aren't. Then political editor (and now editor of the Paris Herald) Richard Stevenson responded with unfortunate candor to Sullivan's predecessor as to why the Times found Ron Paul's campaign unworthy of coverage
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/riding-the-republican-r...
So the Times gave serious coverage to Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but denied it to Ron Paul. Are we proud yet?
And now Carolyn Ryan defends listicles, and then there's the black swan event, a beat reporter, Amy Chozick, for only one putative candidate in private life, HRC. I want the Times to report, not to decide who is worthy of coverage
2
Bernie Sanders could very well take more than 30% of the vote in Iowa. The NYT is completely mis-judging his campaign.
7
I have written to Margaret Sullivan decrying the Times's failure to cover the launch of Bernie Sanders' campaign as thoroughly as the launches of other candidates, including Cruz, Paul and Santorum, among others. As I asked Ms. Sullivan: why the unequal treatment?
While the Times's coverage of Bernie Sanders has improved in the last several days, much of it has been through the lens of Hillary Clinton: whether or not Sanders will blunt Clinton's appeal, or how Sanders's run will affect Clinton's campaign strategy. There has been relatively little focus on why Sanders is running and why Sanders has drawn large crowds in Iowa and been successful in raising funds from small donations.
Let's have more focus on a broad range of candidates, including their views and the reactions of the voters, especially in these early days.
While the Times's coverage of Bernie Sanders has improved in the last several days, much of it has been through the lens of Hillary Clinton: whether or not Sanders will blunt Clinton's appeal, or how Sanders's run will affect Clinton's campaign strategy. There has been relatively little focus on why Sanders is running and why Sanders has drawn large crowds in Iowa and been successful in raising funds from small donations.
Let's have more focus on a broad range of candidates, including their views and the reactions of the voters, especially in these early days.
16
Thank you so much for this column -- very thorough and on target! The comments for the most part do a great job reflecting that so many of your readers agree! Ms. Ryan, perhaps you could try listening?
10
"Ms. Ryan told me she thought that the piece was not well understood by readers" Isn't this the definition of failure for an author regardless of what s/he is writing? Or, is Ms. Ryan blaming the readers?
26
Anyone at the NYT who enjoys praise from Buzzfeed, Politico and Drudge needs to have his/her head examined. Is the NYT reporter in need of love from other reporters and scribblers/ Drudge??? Is NYT more worried about the competition and does it devote less time to quality political reporting? One see's the occasional reporter on MSNBC and CNN or a Sunday show: he/she appears to be very keen to be part of the "in- crowd" -those whose condescension has me shaking my head. A solid piece of NYT reporting, and there have been a great deal of that, is the only thing that keeps me paying a sub. But I do not waste time with those chasing Clinton, Rand Paul or someone else looking for a "gotcha".
21
If "a lot of people misread it" then perhaps the piece was 'miswritten'.
38
My biggest objection is the mocking tone articles take on Bernie Sanders, implying his supporters are only those in his age group, etc. You may be surprised when he gets a huge chunk of primary votes, including mine. Show him some respect.
44
I had the same reaction to the dismissive and condescending , not to mention erroneous, article saying, in effect, that Bernie appeals only to citizens old enough to get an Eisenhower reference. I considered it borderline age discrimination. Over the weekend, however, the same reporter published an article pointing out the widespread support Bernie is receiving in Iowa. This doesn't cure the earlier misreporting and opining, but maybe we should judge the overall coverage in addition to each individual article. And then there's Maureen Dowd, with her long-running, unending and vicious vendetta against Hillary Clinton.
15
I agree. A number of years ago - maybe ten - the NYT did
a profile on Bernie Sanders in the magazine section - and
the same mocking tone was used. If one is a liberal or a
progressive, Senator Sanders' issues are the issues which many Americans are troubled by - the vast
distance between the billionaires and millionaires and
those barely making it, and the 6% increase in child
poverty this year. These are not "gadfly" issues - these
are honest and moral issues, and it may surprise the NYT when other than "old people" embrace them.
a profile on Bernie Sanders in the magazine section - and
the same mocking tone was used. If one is a liberal or a
progressive, Senator Sanders' issues are the issues which many Americans are troubled by - the vast
distance between the billionaires and millionaires and
those barely making it, and the 6% increase in child
poverty this year. These are not "gadfly" issues - these
are honest and moral issues, and it may surprise the NYT when other than "old people" embrace them.
10
Please do not ignore Bernie Sanders’ campaign, NY Times. And cover Sanders in a fair way. The American people deserve to hear what he has to say on issues like climate change, Citizens United, income and wealth inequality, health care, the economy, and more.
Sanders in Iowa:
“Enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires, their Super-PACs and their lobbyists.
“Let’s be clear. This campaign is not about Bernie Sanders. It is not about Hillary Clinton. It is not about Jeb Bush or anyone else. This campaign is about the needs of the American people, and the ideas and proposals that effectively address those needs.
“As someone who has never run a negative political ad in his life, my campaign will be driven by issues and serious debate – not political gossip, not reckless personal attacks or character assassination.
“This is what I believe the American people want and deserve. I hope other candidates agree, and I hope the media allows that to happen. Politics in a democratic society should not be treated like a baseball game, a game show or a soap opera. The times are too serious for that.”
Sanders in Iowa:
“Enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires, their Super-PACs and their lobbyists.
“Let’s be clear. This campaign is not about Bernie Sanders. It is not about Hillary Clinton. It is not about Jeb Bush or anyone else. This campaign is about the needs of the American people, and the ideas and proposals that effectively address those needs.
“As someone who has never run a negative political ad in his life, my campaign will be driven by issues and serious debate – not political gossip, not reckless personal attacks or character assassination.
“This is what I believe the American people want and deserve. I hope other candidates agree, and I hope the media allows that to happen. Politics in a democratic society should not be treated like a baseball game, a game show or a soap opera. The times are too serious for that.”
51
"In addition, Michael Schmidt, a Washington reporter, broke the biggest story so far: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private email address while serving as secretary of state."
You jest, right?
The NYT measuring itself by a p. 32 bottom of the last column story?
So what if Hillary Clinton had 10,000 messages on her private email. Technically illegal. But what actually changed in history, or could be imagined to change, because of this?
Maybe some Tea Party Republican in Congress can start drawing up articles of impeachment in advance for this peccadillo from which the Republicans can't even extract the goofy smoking gun they're looking for on Benghazi?
It's not infinitely bigger news that the virtually every Republican candidate has consistently ducked, demagogued, or shown hopeless incompetence on every policy issue imaginable, from immigration reform, to health care, to adopting a sane, and not Netanyahu appeasing, policy in the Middle East?
Or that the Koch Brothers, and other right wing interests, are shredding the concept of democracy by hijacking the First Amendment for the sake of trying to buy the presidency, and every other office down to dog-catcher outside the larger urban areas?
And thank you Public Editor for passing on the vital information that Matt Drudge -- Matt Drudge!!! -- has praised the Times coverage.
Who at the NYT would ever care what Matt Drudge thought about the NYT? Unless she were perhaps more interested in gossip than policy.
You jest, right?
The NYT measuring itself by a p. 32 bottom of the last column story?
So what if Hillary Clinton had 10,000 messages on her private email. Technically illegal. But what actually changed in history, or could be imagined to change, because of this?
Maybe some Tea Party Republican in Congress can start drawing up articles of impeachment in advance for this peccadillo from which the Republicans can't even extract the goofy smoking gun they're looking for on Benghazi?
It's not infinitely bigger news that the virtually every Republican candidate has consistently ducked, demagogued, or shown hopeless incompetence on every policy issue imaginable, from immigration reform, to health care, to adopting a sane, and not Netanyahu appeasing, policy in the Middle East?
Or that the Koch Brothers, and other right wing interests, are shredding the concept of democracy by hijacking the First Amendment for the sake of trying to buy the presidency, and every other office down to dog-catcher outside the larger urban areas?
And thank you Public Editor for passing on the vital information that Matt Drudge -- Matt Drudge!!! -- has praised the Times coverage.
Who at the NYT would ever care what Matt Drudge thought about the NYT? Unless she were perhaps more interested in gossip than policy.
23
It's "SEVENTEEN months before the presidential election," The Public Editor is kind enough to remind us, which also means that it's TWENTY-THREE months since The Times began its groundbreaking "Hillary beat."
Like it or not, we have The Permanent Campaign, at least the Clinton celebrity part of it, but even after all this time, does any reader really know where she stands on the issues that matter most to you and your family? So far, lots of heat but precious little light.
Since Mrs. Clinton's "home state" presumably is New York, at least for appearance's sake, the best thing The Times could do to educate the electorate would be to muster all its new digital wizardry and sponsor a series of candidate forums and debates across all platforms. And if the invitations are refused, we should be told exactly why.
Like it or not, we have The Permanent Campaign, at least the Clinton celebrity part of it, but even after all this time, does any reader really know where she stands on the issues that matter most to you and your family? So far, lots of heat but precious little light.
Since Mrs. Clinton's "home state" presumably is New York, at least for appearance's sake, the best thing The Times could do to educate the electorate would be to muster all its new digital wizardry and sponsor a series of candidate forums and debates across all platforms. And if the invitations are refused, we should be told exactly why.
9
.
Picking up on Dotconnector's first paragraph:
Much of the reader discontent Ms. Sullivan mentions, and many of the real problems afflicting the Times's political coverage, ultimately spring from that decision to put an energetic, enterprising reporter on this invented "Hillary Clinton beat", which extended tendrils into the entire publication including the Magazine.
The assigned beat reporter is very droll, and I imagine she has been doing exactly what she was instructed to do. But the whole thing was a bad idea; it set in motion an irresistible force with some sort of Newtonian momentum (namely, the constant Clinton coverage [and I mean "constant", not "frequent" or "regularly appearing"]).
This necessitated matching coverage of GOP, for sake of fairness. And the entire effect we are currently experiencing was predictable [IMHO] once the Washington Bureau set up the beat and put such an energetic reporter on it.
I even noticed the excellent Jonathan Martin co-bylining on some of her pieces; as if HIS talent wouldn't be useful elsewhere?
Dotconnector mentions the "permanent campaign", but we also have a permanent federal government. The NYT is not obligated to cover the permanent campaign when their reporters are good enough to keep us informed on what goes on in government.
I might have liked to read about the Denny Hastert investigation, for example; or new info on the Bin-Laden killing; with coverage of all the angles.
Picking up on Dotconnector's first paragraph:
Much of the reader discontent Ms. Sullivan mentions, and many of the real problems afflicting the Times's political coverage, ultimately spring from that decision to put an energetic, enterprising reporter on this invented "Hillary Clinton beat", which extended tendrils into the entire publication including the Magazine.
The assigned beat reporter is very droll, and I imagine she has been doing exactly what she was instructed to do. But the whole thing was a bad idea; it set in motion an irresistible force with some sort of Newtonian momentum (namely, the constant Clinton coverage [and I mean "constant", not "frequent" or "regularly appearing"]).
This necessitated matching coverage of GOP, for sake of fairness. And the entire effect we are currently experiencing was predictable [IMHO] once the Washington Bureau set up the beat and put such an energetic reporter on it.
I even noticed the excellent Jonathan Martin co-bylining on some of her pieces; as if HIS talent wouldn't be useful elsewhere?
Dotconnector mentions the "permanent campaign", but we also have a permanent federal government. The NYT is not obligated to cover the permanent campaign when their reporters are good enough to keep us informed on what goes on in government.
I might have liked to read about the Denny Hastert investigation, for example; or new info on the Bin-Laden killing; with coverage of all the angles.
3
"Doconnector". you are so right - it seems as if Mrs. Clinton has been in the race forever, or since she wrote her book, AND we don't know much if anything about her
vision for the country - that is much in need of one. And
yet now she is announcing her candidacy soon in New York. What have we been hearing about for a year ?
vision for the country - that is much in need of one. And
yet now she is announcing her candidacy soon in New York. What have we been hearing about for a year ?
I understand the difference between news and opinion, but the NYT should also reconsider the tone of its opinion page. Andrew Rosenthal, Timothy Egan and Paul Krugman, for example, consistently put out pieces that are so partisan and snarky they seem better suited to Salon or Daily Kos. The NYT, which purports to be the preeminent newspaper in the country should aim higher.
2
If the decision is made to "leave the silly stuff, the opinionated stuff, and the nasty stuff to other outlets" Maureen Dowd will be forced to find another job. Everything she has written in the last 5 years, especially when it comes to politics, has been silly, opinionated, and nasty.
54
Maureen Dowd writes an OPINION column, she is not a news reporter.
1
Which presumably is why she's in the Opinion section, and not the news.
.
The last 5 years? Make it 15.
And for those defending Ms. Dowd on the ground that she writes an opinion column, I'll note a couple of truisms:
1. Many opinion columnists (Dowd, Collins, Sullivan) were once top-flight reporters. Their best columns include original reporting.
2. Ms. Dowd is in a transition phase from Op-Ed writer to Sunday Magazine writer. Count her Op-Ed columns in the past 12 months and compare to her Op-Ed output June 1, 2010-June 1, 2011. Her name is already listed among contributors to the Magazine.
Oh, and even pure Opinion columnizing does not require nastiness. Not for the NYT readership.
The last 5 years? Make it 15.
And for those defending Ms. Dowd on the ground that she writes an opinion column, I'll note a couple of truisms:
1. Many opinion columnists (Dowd, Collins, Sullivan) were once top-flight reporters. Their best columns include original reporting.
2. Ms. Dowd is in a transition phase from Op-Ed writer to Sunday Magazine writer. Count her Op-Ed columns in the past 12 months and compare to her Op-Ed output June 1, 2010-June 1, 2011. Her name is already listed among contributors to the Magazine.
Oh, and even pure Opinion columnizing does not require nastiness. Not for the NYT readership.
4
I find it interesting that one of the main complaints I keep seeing in comments isn't even addressed here: the lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders. The Times seems to be rushing to hold the coronation for Mrs. Clinton, even as they take jabs at her, but is virtually ignoring Sanders. What do you think of that, Ms. Sullivan? Because frankly the one-sided coverage is enough to make me look elsewhere for my political news.
42
Dear P.E.,
If most here are concerned about the Positive slant on coverage towards Ms. Clinton a few of us are concerned about the extremely negative slant of the coverage and comments towards the Republican candidates!
No one expects the newspaper of record for government employees to be "fair and balanced" towards those who don't believe that "government is the answer what is the question?". That said the lack of policing of personal attacks and the amount of name calling allowed in the comments posted are both extremely unprofessional by any standard you may wish to apply.
Perhaps you could address these issues with your management as well as that of the "Puff Pieces" about Ms. Clinton?
If most here are concerned about the Positive slant on coverage towards Ms. Clinton a few of us are concerned about the extremely negative slant of the coverage and comments towards the Republican candidates!
No one expects the newspaper of record for government employees to be "fair and balanced" towards those who don't believe that "government is the answer what is the question?". That said the lack of policing of personal attacks and the amount of name calling allowed in the comments posted are both extremely unprofessional by any standard you may wish to apply.
Perhaps you could address these issues with your management as well as that of the "Puff Pieces" about Ms. Clinton?
2
'She said that Mr. Horowitz “was trying to do something counterintuitive and brave”'
"Counterintuitive" it may have been, but what bravery is required to interject personal views, mind-reading of the candidate and the chatty knowingness which characterizes so much Times political reporting -- when these are the norms at the paper among political reporters?
Judy Miller is apparently not the only current or former Times employee impervious to criticism, even when the question isn't close and the failures enormous.
"Counterintuitive" it may have been, but what bravery is required to interject personal views, mind-reading of the candidate and the chatty knowingness which characterizes so much Times political reporting -- when these are the norms at the paper among political reporters?
Judy Miller is apparently not the only current or former Times employee impervious to criticism, even when the question isn't close and the failures enormous.
18
Perhaps policy is more important than personality and the Times should do what it has always done best. Explore the nuances of policy and their implications on ordinary lives.
And since Citizens United, the necessity for vigilance on the convergence of policy with the monetary interests of billionaire political sponsors is critical.
The most interesting phenomenon of this election cycle is the advent of a candidate of what the rest of the world considers left. (In most democracies, Obama would be considered a moderate conservative.)
I suspect that the public's response to the truths uttered by Bernie Sanders might be the story of the election. The complacency of other politicians to America's lead in child poverty is certainly disturbing and the democratic socialist candidate will surprise a lot of pundits with the resonance of his message.
And since Citizens United, the necessity for vigilance on the convergence of policy with the monetary interests of billionaire political sponsors is critical.
The most interesting phenomenon of this election cycle is the advent of a candidate of what the rest of the world considers left. (In most democracies, Obama would be considered a moderate conservative.)
I suspect that the public's response to the truths uttered by Bernie Sanders might be the story of the election. The complacency of other politicians to America's lead in child poverty is certainly disturbing and the democratic socialist candidate will surprise a lot of pundits with the resonance of his message.
25
" (The article, after describing the Clinton campaign’s carnival atmosphere, also had the startling line: “It is not clear what Mrs. Clinton gains politically from playing the freak.”)
Ms. Ryan told me she thought that the piece was not well understood by readers: “I feel like a lot of people misread it.” She said that Mr. Horowitz “was trying to do something counterintuitive and brave” about Mrs. Clinton’s strategy of ignoring the press."
Well, now it is time for Carolyn Ryan to explain *exactly* what she meant by saying that the offensive phrasing was "not well understood by readers." First rule of thumb, if your meaning is widely misunderstood by readers, and you are a journalist, you have made a HUGE mistake. This is journalism, after all, not "Finnegan's Wake" or "The Sound and the Fury." That Carolyn Ryan is defending calling "the likely Democratic nominee" as someone who engages in "playing the freak," displays an astonishing lack of objectivity.
And isn't Ms. Ryan also the Washington Bureau Chief? Perhaps she can explain how one of her charges, Eric Schmitt, went 50+ articles in a row from January, 2014-June 2014 without ever having one *without* at least one anonymous attribution.
Ms. Ryan told me she thought that the piece was not well understood by readers: “I feel like a lot of people misread it.” She said that Mr. Horowitz “was trying to do something counterintuitive and brave” about Mrs. Clinton’s strategy of ignoring the press."
Well, now it is time for Carolyn Ryan to explain *exactly* what she meant by saying that the offensive phrasing was "not well understood by readers." First rule of thumb, if your meaning is widely misunderstood by readers, and you are a journalist, you have made a HUGE mistake. This is journalism, after all, not "Finnegan's Wake" or "The Sound and the Fury." That Carolyn Ryan is defending calling "the likely Democratic nominee" as someone who engages in "playing the freak," displays an astonishing lack of objectivity.
And isn't Ms. Ryan also the Washington Bureau Chief? Perhaps she can explain how one of her charges, Eric Schmitt, went 50+ articles in a row from January, 2014-June 2014 without ever having one *without* at least one anonymous attribution.
24
Simple question, not quite on topic but perhaps "Ms. Sullivan" could explain to me, Lawrence Lundgren.
Why are all men referred to only by their full names but women x percent of the time as Ms. Ryan, Mrs. Clinton, etc?
Will send this comment submission directly to you "Ms. Sullivan" since maybe the practice is an "Only in America" practice.
Next step: Look in today's Dagens Nyheter to see how names are handled.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Why are all men referred to only by their full names but women x percent of the time as Ms. Ryan, Mrs. Clinton, etc?
Will send this comment submission directly to you "Ms. Sullivan" since maybe the practice is an "Only in America" practice.
Next step: Look in today's Dagens Nyheter to see how names are handled.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
10
There does seem to be a bias toward the inevitability of the former President's wife as the Democrat's nominee. Makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, even naive to think there is a process followed by an election. Coronation comes to mind.
9
Public editor:
I think your point that "the chattiness of some of the offerings verges on the juvenile" is well taken. Perhaps no better evidence for that is Ms. Ryan's rebuttal to the reactions on the piece on press access to Hilary Clinton:
“I feel like a lot of people misread it.”
Really, she "feel[s] like" it? The increasing popularity of this phrase is a marker of juvenile thinking. I remember hearing it first among adolescents, then more commonly among young adults. When the Times DC editor starts telling us what she "feels like" when trying to defend her work, we know we've sunk to new lows in critical thinking.
Ms. Ryan can feel anyway she prefers, but what's the evidence that people "misread" the column? Count me among those who find the Times political reporting to be vapid and more importantly destructive to the integrity of the democratic system.
I think your point that "the chattiness of some of the offerings verges on the juvenile" is well taken. Perhaps no better evidence for that is Ms. Ryan's rebuttal to the reactions on the piece on press access to Hilary Clinton:
“I feel like a lot of people misread it.”
Really, she "feel[s] like" it? The increasing popularity of this phrase is a marker of juvenile thinking. I remember hearing it first among adolescents, then more commonly among young adults. When the Times DC editor starts telling us what she "feels like" when trying to defend her work, we know we've sunk to new lows in critical thinking.
Ms. Ryan can feel anyway she prefers, but what's the evidence that people "misread" the column? Count me among those who find the Times political reporting to be vapid and more importantly destructive to the integrity of the democratic system.
34
This column leaves out Sanders coverage. We got 1 condescending jokey column by Collins on him. But nothing about policy.
The liberal Nobel op ed columnist hadn’t deigned to cite him once, tho they have views that would align. Krugman doesn’t have to endorse anybody, and can write about whatever he wants. At least he could explain Sanders’ views and compare them. thus help to inform public opinion. Or would that make Obama look too bad? Sanders actually mentions other countries' health care--is that a verboten topic?
Why did the Times not cover last year's Sanders’ senate hearings with witnesses from other countries with universal, lower cost health care, to contrast with our high cost ACA?
Krugman just wrote a column on retirement insecurity for masses of senior citizens, but never cites that Sanders sets the example of taking this problem seriously, and frankly pushes an increase in SS benefits. And he would lift the absurdly low cap on SS taxes, which excludes millions of $$ of the rich. What does Hillary say?
Is Sanders too quixotic, too insignificant? Not a big money fund raiser so lacks prestige? But he’s fund raising pretty well among the non billionaire small donor class---if you care about fund raising as the 1st priority before all else. Is that the Times’s 1st priority?
Do journalists fear being labeled left and out of mainstream if give Sanders some attention? Or O'Malley? Is this an insidious conformity?
The liberal Nobel op ed columnist hadn’t deigned to cite him once, tho they have views that would align. Krugman doesn’t have to endorse anybody, and can write about whatever he wants. At least he could explain Sanders’ views and compare them. thus help to inform public opinion. Or would that make Obama look too bad? Sanders actually mentions other countries' health care--is that a verboten topic?
Why did the Times not cover last year's Sanders’ senate hearings with witnesses from other countries with universal, lower cost health care, to contrast with our high cost ACA?
Krugman just wrote a column on retirement insecurity for masses of senior citizens, but never cites that Sanders sets the example of taking this problem seriously, and frankly pushes an increase in SS benefits. And he would lift the absurdly low cap on SS taxes, which excludes millions of $$ of the rich. What does Hillary say?
Is Sanders too quixotic, too insignificant? Not a big money fund raiser so lacks prestige? But he’s fund raising pretty well among the non billionaire small donor class---if you care about fund raising as the 1st priority before all else. Is that the Times’s 1st priority?
Do journalists fear being labeled left and out of mainstream if give Sanders some attention? Or O'Malley? Is this an insidious conformity?
66
"Ms. Ryan told me she thought that the piece was not well understood by readers: “I feel like a lot of people misread it.” She said that Mr. Horowitz “was trying to do something counterintuitive and brave” about Mrs. Clinton’s strategy of ignoring the press."
It's never a good strategy to patronize readers. And don't make it worse by peddling self-interest as a profile in courage. The Horowitz piece was not only invidious, it was a not-so-veiled threat about what Ms Clinton can expect if she doesn't get in line.
It's never a good strategy to patronize readers. And don't make it worse by peddling self-interest as a profile in courage. The Horowitz piece was not only invidious, it was a not-so-veiled threat about what Ms Clinton can expect if she doesn't get in line.
46
.
Paul Goode makes solid points in his Comment; and I am left wondering why Ms. Ryan made the remarks she made regarding Jason Horowitz's May 23 piece (accessible via Ms. Sullivan's hyperlink).
As Ms. Sullivan notes, Horowitz wrote a “political memo” about a perceived lack of press access to Mrs. Clinton.
The headline of Horowitz's piece says Mrs. Clinton "Avoids Press on Campaign Trail". Seems pretty clear, even if her campaign begins June 13, following her "listening tour".
Horowitz says Mrs. Clinton "ignores" her fellow candidates and the media, which "may not be great for an educated populace or the furtherance of American democracy". Again, very clear: Mr. Horowitz knows what is good for an educated populace and American democracy, while Mrs. Clinton -- who had just chatted with 19 members OF the populace -- does not advance those causes.
Who am I to care that she may have had other plans, or that she did not insist that reporters stand there shouting questions, or that she may very well talk to them from July to January?
Horowitz also says Mrs. Clinton had given "defensive and not entirely convincing answers at a news conference" 10 weeks earlier. Easy to comprehend.
He also discusses her past history with reporters, and notes that she sometimes stops to buy gifts for her grandchild.
"Always the grandchild," writes Horowitz.
THAT, I don't understand. Could Ms. Ryan explain how that 3-word sentence fragment helps us understand Mrs. Clinton's press access?
Paul Goode makes solid points in his Comment; and I am left wondering why Ms. Ryan made the remarks she made regarding Jason Horowitz's May 23 piece (accessible via Ms. Sullivan's hyperlink).
As Ms. Sullivan notes, Horowitz wrote a “political memo” about a perceived lack of press access to Mrs. Clinton.
The headline of Horowitz's piece says Mrs. Clinton "Avoids Press on Campaign Trail". Seems pretty clear, even if her campaign begins June 13, following her "listening tour".
Horowitz says Mrs. Clinton "ignores" her fellow candidates and the media, which "may not be great for an educated populace or the furtherance of American democracy". Again, very clear: Mr. Horowitz knows what is good for an educated populace and American democracy, while Mrs. Clinton -- who had just chatted with 19 members OF the populace -- does not advance those causes.
Who am I to care that she may have had other plans, or that she did not insist that reporters stand there shouting questions, or that she may very well talk to them from July to January?
Horowitz also says Mrs. Clinton had given "defensive and not entirely convincing answers at a news conference" 10 weeks earlier. Easy to comprehend.
He also discusses her past history with reporters, and notes that she sometimes stops to buy gifts for her grandchild.
"Always the grandchild," writes Horowitz.
THAT, I don't understand. Could Ms. Ryan explain how that 3-word sentence fragment helps us understand Mrs. Clinton's press access?
8
The Washington Bureau Chief finds validation of the paper's work in the form of praise from Politico, Matt Drudge and BuzzFeed. I had no idea that the bar had been lowered to that extreme, and would have expected the Public Editor to have to Ms. Ryan that readers of the Times have the right to expect more. I guess we don't. Sad.
17
The Times word-processors have the words "long shot" and "Bernie Sanders" linked… after reading today's article on Sanders in Iowa you might want to de-couple those terms… and you might want to begin reporting on Sanders' message instead of the unanticipated high number of voters coming to hear him speak. They are coming in ever larger numbers because his message is resonating through social media and because they've seen him present his message on TV despite the "analysts" efforts to have him talk about his opponent.
44
I agree with NA - no mention of Bernie Sanders (I also notice that a comment I sent yesterday, which simply stated what NA observed, the lack of mention of Sanders, was not published - was that a mistake or further evidence of the Times' willfully ignoring an important candidate?)
37
Let the Times staffers compile a list of key areas of public policy and then begin to focus more on each candidate's knowledge in each area and ability to display that knowledge.
Since one of my primary areas of interest - and knowledge - is renewable energy I might ask: What does each of the three candidates for the Democratic Party nomination know about renewable energy?
Try that.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Since one of my primary areas of interest - and knowledge - is renewable energy I might ask: What does each of the three candidates for the Democratic Party nomination know about renewable energy?
Try that.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
25
All this time, I thought the Republican candidates were the experts on doubling down when subjected to challege or criticism. But it seems Ms. Ryan does this too.
25
I live in Alabama and have two primary news sources. First is the New York Times and second is MSNBC. I also follow up on all the information with other sources as far as I can. I am sixty four year old and became cognizant of the world at about age 7 when I started reading the Miami Herald(E.B. White hooked me). I read a couple of cartoons then started the news. My father was in the U.S. Air Force and by that age I had lived in three states with seven or eight moves from from Alabama to Florida to Nevada, etc. I remember adults talking about nuclear weapons and by age 5 I saw a movie with Jerry Lewis making a nuclear explosion comedy. I remember something was going on that cause my father to leave Florida and go to Africa. To make a long story short, I have watched a pattern over sixty four years. I know what becomes important and if I think it may I do a little research if possible. Nobody had to tell me what grave danger existed in 1962 when we lived in England. My father was gone, the roar of fighter jets of the USAF and RAF was constant. I went to school knowing that school might be suspended and a plan to move children with or without parents back to the U.S. was practiced. I believed if that happened I would be dead anyway with U.S, military bases dotting most of Europe. That's my background. The NY Times is unmatched in its realm. Bernie Sanders represents today's "silent majority". He was front page yesterday. His ideas should be covered well.
28
If the opinions of Matt Drudge and Buzzfeed are the standards by which the New York Times is basing its coverage, then you people are truly lost.
15
"I’d give The Times high grades for much of its campaign coverage so far... Two examples: Questions about Marco Rubio’s relationship with a major donor..."
You'd give this high marks? The donor in question -- Norman Braman; nice of you not to identify him -- is a one-issue donor, that issue of course is Israel, and the Times made almost no mention of it.
What do you give low marks for?
You'd give this high marks? The donor in question -- Norman Braman; nice of you not to identify him -- is a one-issue donor, that issue of course is Israel, and the Times made almost no mention of it.
What do you give low marks for?
13
Sorry Margaret I don't buy it. By my lights the coverage has been atrocious outside of a few hard news articles. It is clear that the Times now sees its self as an entertainment company that every once in a while makes an attempt at maintaining some journalistic credibility. And I have to say I miss the critical eye you once cast on the paper in support of readers concerns. I suppose the management felt you had gone to far and reined you in so that now rather than the readers ombudsmen you are in charge of PR particularly damage control.
"Expert reporting and deep digging that is The Times at its best." Dream on, coverage of the last several presidential races have absolutely been most accurately characterized as horse race food fight coverage and a determined policy to ignore the critical issues. For years now readers have felt insulted by the news media's political coverage, and readers on both sides are largely sick of it. Especially all the inconsequential filler. Basically the Times plays ball with the politicians and runs the score board with a powder puff. The way it looks from here is that until a poll has been stabbed, shot, hung, poisoned and thrown in a wood chipper the paper is pretty much going to handle them with kid gloves. Readers are tired of watching the news media aid and abet politicians efforts to present a phony representation of them selves to the public.
"Expert reporting and deep digging that is The Times at its best." Dream on, coverage of the last several presidential races have absolutely been most accurately characterized as horse race food fight coverage and a determined policy to ignore the critical issues. For years now readers have felt insulted by the news media's political coverage, and readers on both sides are largely sick of it. Especially all the inconsequential filler. Basically the Times plays ball with the politicians and runs the score board with a powder puff. The way it looks from here is that until a poll has been stabbed, shot, hung, poisoned and thrown in a wood chipper the paper is pretty much going to handle them with kid gloves. Readers are tired of watching the news media aid and abet politicians efforts to present a phony representation of them selves to the public.
18
From reading this article I did not get the impression that Ms. Ryan took any of your concerns or those of readers seriously and that she continues to breathe her own exhaust. Seems like she is suffering from the myopia of an inside group with power and privilege. Too bad. Maybe the Times needs stronger review that what you are providing.
22
Right on! Thanks. Do wonder if Editor Ryan reads the coverage of her own reporters. An additional example to those you cite: The reporting by Maggie Haberman and Amy Chozik on Hillary Clinton has seemed particularly snarky. Why's that?
9
And yet again, Bernie Sanders is ignored. I'm really tired of media deciding who's relevant and who isn't. This next election will determine an awful lot about our future as a democracy. I think of how different/better off we might have been had Gov. Howard Dean not been knee-capped by the media. Fair, even and objective reporting should be your purpose, not picking and choosing for us, who's the odds on favorite.
38
I find it so ironic that when the Rolling Stone's terrible UVA Rape article was published, many in the NYT called for it to be retracted because it was devoid of factuality and incredibly bad journalism.
But now, when the DC Editor of the NYT writes and published arguably one of the worst pieces of drivel I (and many others) have ever read, we are just "misreading" or "misinterpreting" what she meant.
By no means am I suggesting that there cannot be any negative criticism of Democratic Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. However, by being so egotistical and ridiculous in making the assertion that the NYT is Hillary's "only real opponent", you are only serving to further what many see as an attitude of "Infallible Journalists/Journalism".
I agree with Arthur Robb, as you and the rest of the NYT have been on a perennial path of seriously damaging your paper's credibility with respect to decent journalism.
Here's an idea for you all. Maybe stop treating the readers of your articles as infants and imbeciles, and take a look at what you wrote for a change. Maybe you'll find that we haven't misunderstood anything. Maybe you'll find out that you just wrote and published a terrible article.
But now, when the DC Editor of the NYT writes and published arguably one of the worst pieces of drivel I (and many others) have ever read, we are just "misreading" or "misinterpreting" what she meant.
By no means am I suggesting that there cannot be any negative criticism of Democratic Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. However, by being so egotistical and ridiculous in making the assertion that the NYT is Hillary's "only real opponent", you are only serving to further what many see as an attitude of "Infallible Journalists/Journalism".
I agree with Arthur Robb, as you and the rest of the NYT have been on a perennial path of seriously damaging your paper's credibility with respect to decent journalism.
Here's an idea for you all. Maybe stop treating the readers of your articles as infants and imbeciles, and take a look at what you wrote for a change. Maybe you'll find that we haven't misunderstood anything. Maybe you'll find out that you just wrote and published a terrible article.
19
Someone needs to tell the NYT editors that "the readers didn't understand" and "we're doing a great job" are contradictory.
40
Regarding the campaign coverage, I wish that the Times reporters would stop referring to Mrs. Clinton as the "presumptive" nominee. The convention is still almost 14 months away. Language can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, most likely by causing your reporters to give short shrift (i.e., minimal coverage) to the other candidates who are running for the Democratic nomination. So PLEASE, let's see vigorous coverage of all of them, not just Mrs. Clinton.
16
“Carolyn Ryan told me she thought that the piece was not well understood by readers: ‘I feel like a lot of people misread it.’” How many times have we heard this lame excuse from Times editors?
I’m a former technical writer; one of the first things a tech writer learns is to write to our audience. We need to know who that audience is, e.g., their level of knowledge, expectations, experience, and preconceptions.
Therefore, it is our responsibility as a writer to write in a manner that is crystal clear to the audience. (This applies to journalists, not just tech writers.) If many in the reading audience “misinterpret” the writing, it is it is the fault of the writer, not the audience.
Therefore, it behooves Times editors to be more receptive to readers' feedback and less defensive about their writing.
I’m a former technical writer; one of the first things a tech writer learns is to write to our audience. We need to know who that audience is, e.g., their level of knowledge, expectations, experience, and preconceptions.
Therefore, it is our responsibility as a writer to write in a manner that is crystal clear to the audience. (This applies to journalists, not just tech writers.) If many in the reading audience “misinterpret” the writing, it is it is the fault of the writer, not the audience.
Therefore, it behooves Times editors to be more receptive to readers' feedback and less defensive about their writing.
17
Thank you for calling the NYTimes out on this. I love the Times but have been disappointed in the recent trend toward chatty and snarky opinion showing up in what is presented as straight news reporting, as if the writer trained at BuzzFeed. I don't expect nor want the Times to strive for some false balance regardless of the creditworthiness of a given side or position in a debate or campaign; reporters are not mere stenographers. But the Times has increasingly crossed the line. Perhaps it is doing so in an effort to attract a younger demopgraphic accustomed to snarky and sarcastic Twitter posts, but it risks losing its reputation in the process.
12
Carolyn Ryan seems to be the problem, and her boss seems to approve of the 'tabloidization' of the NYT. If "look at CNN or at Fox News' is their justification for the sensational and snarky coverage of the campaign, then by such a low standard this coverage looks reasonably well. However, commentary belongs on the op-ed pages, not contained in what is purported to be reportage.
16
On May 28th the NYT ran an article on Bernie Sanders appealing to his own age group by Patrick Healy. It evoked an outpouring of love for Senator Sanders in the Readers' Comments and a hailstorm of criticism for the biased nature of the article. I think the slanted nature of this coverage is as significant than all the articles about the usual suspects such as Clinton and Rubio being funded by wealthy donors in one covert way or another.
Now is the time for you to speak up about this.
Now is the time for you to speak up about this.
41
I would expect that the editors would stand by their editorial decisions, because they obviously thought about how they wanted to cover an election that is so far away my youngest will graduate from high school and enter college before I vote in it.
But, I still see so much coverage that is frothy and seems to be made for reposting. I can only glean that the editors are in fact planning on making sure that there is frothy repostable coverage to be had. The listicles were a good example - NPR has "5 Things You Didn't Know About Lindsay Graham" on their page today. Wouldn't want to miss jumping on the "5 Things" bandwagon.
I will overlook the coverage, even if it borders on fatuous, as long as the editors plan to make sure that they present to us real information: who is donating to campaigns - what are the candidate's potential agendas; how do the candidates' statements check out against fact; who are the candidates' advisors and what is their history; how do the candidates really stand on jobs, health, education, war and military, medicare, social security, taxes and revenue production.
I can get a complete lack of substance on Yahoo. I really need the Times to maintains its standards.
But, I still see so much coverage that is frothy and seems to be made for reposting. I can only glean that the editors are in fact planning on making sure that there is frothy repostable coverage to be had. The listicles were a good example - NPR has "5 Things You Didn't Know About Lindsay Graham" on their page today. Wouldn't want to miss jumping on the "5 Things" bandwagon.
I will overlook the coverage, even if it borders on fatuous, as long as the editors plan to make sure that they present to us real information: who is donating to campaigns - what are the candidate's potential agendas; how do the candidates' statements check out against fact; who are the candidates' advisors and what is their history; how do the candidates really stand on jobs, health, education, war and military, medicare, social security, taxes and revenue production.
I can get a complete lack of substance on Yahoo. I really need the Times to maintains its standards.
15
With respect to the Presidential [sic!] campaign coverage in The Times and being "beneath The Times's standards", are we going to keep seeing a President Clinton or President Rubio or whoever else being referred to as "the president" instead of "the President"?
This lowercasing nonsense, which apparently started during President Clinton's second term, is surely 'beneath The Times's standards' and seems to represent nothing more than pc-ism.
When we vote next November, we are not voting for a president of a local club but for the "President [of the United States]"! Thus, The Times should seriously consider taking its "conversational tone"-like method out of this, and other, important appellations. Such lowercasing doesn't seem to jibe with other uppercasings in The Times.
Just who is responsible for something like "president of the United States" in The Times anyway? We longtime readers were not given A Reason for this, which I assume would be nothing more than something pc-related.
Please show me, and other readers, that I am in error by my brief denunciation here. We shouldn't have to read "the president" "under a microscope" to know it really is a reference to "the President", who was chosen by the largest national club there is, namely the majority of 100M-plus persons who chose to vote in the Presidential Election [sic!!].
This lowercasing nonsense, which apparently started during President Clinton's second term, is surely 'beneath The Times's standards' and seems to represent nothing more than pc-ism.
When we vote next November, we are not voting for a president of a local club but for the "President [of the United States]"! Thus, The Times should seriously consider taking its "conversational tone"-like method out of this, and other, important appellations. Such lowercasing doesn't seem to jibe with other uppercasings in The Times.
Just who is responsible for something like "president of the United States" in The Times anyway? We longtime readers were not given A Reason for this, which I assume would be nothing more than something pc-related.
Please show me, and other readers, that I am in error by my brief denunciation here. We shouldn't have to read "the president" "under a microscope" to know it really is a reference to "the President", who was chosen by the largest national club there is, namely the majority of 100M-plus persons who chose to vote in the Presidential Election [sic!!].
5
The Times is "dominating"? Odd choice of words. Have we been watching too many Transformers cartoons? I would think the goal should not be to crush the media competition but simply to report fairly, deeply, and accurately. It is not about market share. If many news sources are good, so much the better for all. But if the editor's boss says domination is "fabulous," who am I to say nay?
I was intrigued by how she does want "opinions," but she wants "insights." The real distinction is this: When someone we disagree with strays from the world of facts to the world of speculation, it is an opinion. But when the straying is done by someone with whom we agree, it is insight.
I was intrigued by how she does want "opinions," but she wants "insights." The real distinction is this: When someone we disagree with strays from the world of facts to the world of speculation, it is an opinion. But when the straying is done by someone with whom we agree, it is insight.
11
Putting Bernie Sanders' announcement that he was running on page A21 certainly was a sign that The Times is biased against anyone running on the Left.
40
Has Ms. Ryan considered that the readers don't actually care whether or not the Times coverage is dominating? This isn't a football game. Then again, the media treats the campaign like a football game, so I guess it is their worldview. Problem is, when politics is treated as a game, people lose sight of the fact that lives are at stake.
Domination may be good for Ms. Ryan's career and annual bonus, but readers prefer good coverage.
Domination may be good for Ms. Ryan's career and annual bonus, but readers prefer good coverage.
22
I hope you emailed a copy of this piece to Maureen Dowd.
7
It's telling to read how Carolyn Ryan is so smugly satisfied with the election coverage that she can't acknowledge that readers' perceptions may have some validity. She seems quick to tell us readers that we are simply misunderstanding or misinterpreting what's been written. It's all our fault!
50
One of the huge problems with journalism is its daily-ness, the necessity of producing something all the time. Plus, reporters want to let their editors know they are on the job, justifying some of that expense account money that is constantly flying out the window.
As one who worked about half of my adult life in daily journalism, my suggestion in covering the campaigns would be to write less and say more. The AP does the "candidate went here and there" kinds of stories and it would be useful for those who delve deeper to show the results of that delving, rather than producing "sidebar" stories of dubious value.
PLUS, and this is a big one, when stories from the campaign (on the road/in the air) dominate, we miss a huge amount of what is actually happening. The actual buzzing around the country with the candidate making essentially the same speech is important for campaign workers, volunteers and those who want to turn out, but it is the tip of the iceberg. Reporters know this, so coverage should reflect this truth. As with the Wizard of Oz, the important events can be what is happening behind the curtain, not in front.
Republicans essentially fixed the 2008 presidential campaign for G.W. Bush by getting gay marriage on the ballot in eight states, most importantly in Ohio. The importance of this was missed by everyone. This happens again and again and again...
Rule: there is an inverse relationship between the amount of coverage something gets versus its actual impact.
As one who worked about half of my adult life in daily journalism, my suggestion in covering the campaigns would be to write less and say more. The AP does the "candidate went here and there" kinds of stories and it would be useful for those who delve deeper to show the results of that delving, rather than producing "sidebar" stories of dubious value.
PLUS, and this is a big one, when stories from the campaign (on the road/in the air) dominate, we miss a huge amount of what is actually happening. The actual buzzing around the country with the candidate making essentially the same speech is important for campaign workers, volunteers and those who want to turn out, but it is the tip of the iceberg. Reporters know this, so coverage should reflect this truth. As with the Wizard of Oz, the important events can be what is happening behind the curtain, not in front.
Republicans essentially fixed the 2008 presidential campaign for G.W. Bush by getting gay marriage on the ballot in eight states, most importantly in Ohio. The importance of this was missed by everyone. This happens again and again and again...
Rule: there is an inverse relationship between the amount of coverage something gets versus its actual impact.
7
I hope that the NYTimes reporters can think about history (say 60 years back) as well as the past 20. A lot changed in the USA with Reagan -- and anyone who thinks that we more "progressive" than we were in the 50's and 60's needs to think on. (OK, one can now be openly gay -- and get married and divorced -- while right to choose or right to medical abortion goes bye-bye.) There really was no left left until Sanders entered the race. And may I point out that if Mrs. Clinton wins -- she will be 72 at the end of her first term. (So is Sanders still too old?)
A lack of knowledge has more to do with shaping politics than money or anything else... and the great thing about the comments columns is that at times, indeed, the gaps get filled in. (Ask the man on the street who's the current V-P and see what percentage answer correctly. Ditto ask them to name two Republican candidates (out of 11/12?) and see what the answer is.
BTW should one pat oneself on the back for doing one's job? To me that's pretty puerile?
In any case I do wish more people would read the NYTimes.
A lack of knowledge has more to do with shaping politics than money or anything else... and the great thing about the comments columns is that at times, indeed, the gaps get filled in. (Ask the man on the street who's the current V-P and see what percentage answer correctly. Ditto ask them to name two Republican candidates (out of 11/12?) and see what the answer is.
BTW should one pat oneself on the back for doing one's job? To me that's pretty puerile?
In any case I do wish more people would read the NYTimes.
7
Apparently Times’ editors can’t see the forest for the trees. Sometimes coverage of the coming election has been dismal in air-head articles. Carol Ryan says that in the news media world “it’s been broadly recognized that we are dominating” and then boasts that Matt Drudge, Politico, and Buzzfeed have said nice things about the coverage. Matt Drudge? Buzzfeed? Politico? My heart sinks when I see that the Times now takes such pride in getting complimented by the clowns of the internet. Dean Baquet says that coverage has been “pretty fabulous” and I think that phrase right there shows us the problem starts at the top.
A good example beyond the “listicles” and “paleo-diet” type writing is Thursday’s front-page with a frivolous, zero content article about Hilary Clinton while Bernie Sanders kick-off rally in Vermont was buried in the back pages. The Times has an obvious and strong bias toward Hilary Clinton. Even in this article by the Public Editor, Hilary Clinton has been mentioned twelve times.
A good example beyond the “listicles” and “paleo-diet” type writing is Thursday’s front-page with a frivolous, zero content article about Hilary Clinton while Bernie Sanders kick-off rally in Vermont was buried in the back pages. The Times has an obvious and strong bias toward Hilary Clinton. Even in this article by the Public Editor, Hilary Clinton has been mentioned twelve times.
21
Really, nobody wrote in to complain of the Times' frivolous treatment of Bernie Sanders?
In fact, the comments sections on the Op-Ed pages have been filled with such complaints.
The fact that Ms. Sullivan fails to mention this seems just more evidence of the Time's poor coverage of Senator Sanders.
In fact, the comments sections on the Op-Ed pages have been filled with such complaints.
The fact that Ms. Sullivan fails to mention this seems just more evidence of the Time's poor coverage of Senator Sanders.
27
I agree. For what it's worth, I e-mailed the Public Editor on this subject on May 27, citing specific complaints about the Times's coverage, as well as the May 21 article in the Columbia Journalism Review ( http://www.cjr.org/analysis/bernie_sanders_underdog.php ), which found the Times's coverage of the Sanders campaign lacking.
So how do you manage to ignore the poor coverage your team has given Bernie Sanders? He is clinton's only declared primary opponent, he just had the biggest kickoff rally of the entire campaign thus far (which the Times ignored), he is raising money outside the rich-donor system, he has actual positions on real issues. But he does not merit, in the Times coverage, as much respect or ink as the looniest Republican. When he is covered it is as a crazy uncle, not to be taken seriously, a socialist after all. I think the Times, in its headlong rush to anoint Clinton, has dropped the ball. And so have you, Public Editor.
30
I'm just a little puzzled about the difference between "opinion" and "insight", explained by Ms. Ryan?
9
Of course, we have The Times to thank for a historic first -- assigning a reporter to the unprecedented "Hillary beat" almost two full years ago and more than three years before Election Day -- to ensure that readers get force-fed a steady diet of Clinton saturation coverage that even the Kardashians would envy.
Quite a head start over any other potential presidential candidate, that's for sure. But what fun is it if you can't preordain a nominee?
So any time a supposedly evenhanded news organization professes that it tries to stay above horse race journalism, or that it doesn't play favorites, be sure to watch for the wink and listen for the chuckle.
Quite a head start over any other potential presidential candidate, that's for sure. But what fun is it if you can't preordain a nominee?
So any time a supposedly evenhanded news organization professes that it tries to stay above horse race journalism, or that it doesn't play favorites, be sure to watch for the wink and listen for the chuckle.
11
No analysis of the Time's campaign coverage is complete without mention of Miss Dowd's obsessive and disturbed interest in Mrs. Clinton.
15
.
Bartolo's point deserves elaboration; hope you don't mind, Bartolo!
Ms. Ryan has her "dream team", including Maggie Haberman, a fantastic 2015 addition to the political coverage. And, Ms. Ryan and Mr. Baquet discuss what they've covered, which to them seems like proper and excellent coverage.
Yet readers complain. Where is the disconnect?
One thing that shouldn't be ignored is that, for those of us on the receiving end of NYT coverage, once campaign-related info is in our heads it's hard to separate the info entering our brains from the Editorial section and the info entering our brains from the "dream team". If Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal (and/or the Sunday Review editor) would run fewer pieces related to the UPCOMING campaign, then Carolyn Ryan's output might not seem so overwhelming.
But when you put together all the editorials, letters, columns and blog posts under Editorial page (or Sunday Review) bailiwick with news reporting under Ms. Ryan's bailiwick, it's an AWFUL lot about campaigns/elections, at the expense of other things going on (or which have already gone on).
And specifically to Bartolo's point, Maureen Dowd is a prime offender. She can write very movingly about stroke patients. She has written effectively about Executive-Branch overreach. But too often, she writes about candidates. If Ms. Ryan's people are going to give us analysis and commentary and "counterintuitive coverage" (does that mean snark?), we don't need it from Ms. Dowd too.
Bartolo's point deserves elaboration; hope you don't mind, Bartolo!
Ms. Ryan has her "dream team", including Maggie Haberman, a fantastic 2015 addition to the political coverage. And, Ms. Ryan and Mr. Baquet discuss what they've covered, which to them seems like proper and excellent coverage.
Yet readers complain. Where is the disconnect?
One thing that shouldn't be ignored is that, for those of us on the receiving end of NYT coverage, once campaign-related info is in our heads it's hard to separate the info entering our brains from the Editorial section and the info entering our brains from the "dream team". If Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal (and/or the Sunday Review editor) would run fewer pieces related to the UPCOMING campaign, then Carolyn Ryan's output might not seem so overwhelming.
But when you put together all the editorials, letters, columns and blog posts under Editorial page (or Sunday Review) bailiwick with news reporting under Ms. Ryan's bailiwick, it's an AWFUL lot about campaigns/elections, at the expense of other things going on (or which have already gone on).
And specifically to Bartolo's point, Maureen Dowd is a prime offender. She can write very movingly about stroke patients. She has written effectively about Executive-Branch overreach. But too often, she writes about candidates. If Ms. Ryan's people are going to give us analysis and commentary and "counterintuitive coverage" (does that mean snark?), we don't need it from Ms. Dowd too.
2
How about something novel: like reporting on past performance and analyzing the issues and where the candidates stand?
Reporting on the "horserace" aspects of the election campaign makes little positive contribution.
Reporting on the "horserace" aspects of the election campaign makes little positive contribution.
17
It seems most of your complaints are regarding Hilary Clinton, either being too soft or too hard on her (depending on your own bias). But what about your coverage of other candidates? Specifically of Bernie Sanders. I see very little coverage of Sanders (hard or soft) and he seems to be the only candidate that is willing to discuss the issues.
27
Ms. Ryan sounds like an overly defensive editor, one who might benefit from spending a bit more time thinking about the feedback readers have given regarding the tone of the political coverage, particularly the supposedly "misunderstood" piece from Jason Horowtiz. If a piece is misunderstood by many readers that says more about the author and his writing than it does about the receivers of the message.
16
I want to hear about issues problems and solutions.
I want to see reporting that asks w jest ions and gets answers.
I don't care what Jeb or Hillary eat.
Our country is foundering . our country is in thrall to the powerful.
The press is our only hope and they a re failing to inform and educate.
I want to see reporting that asks w jest ions and gets answers.
I don't care what Jeb or Hillary eat.
Our country is foundering . our country is in thrall to the powerful.
The press is our only hope and they a re failing to inform and educate.
11
Following the lead of Mr. Baquet it seems that all Times' editors respond to any complaint or concern with some version of "We have the best news team blah blah blah and the best coverage blah blah blah..." none of which addresses any of the concerns expressed by readers or the PE. Frankly, it's infuriating. Are we supposed to just accept how great the editors tell us the Times is and keep our complaints to ourselves?
Readers deserve a more respectable response from editors than we'd get from your average high school football coach.
Readers deserve a more respectable response from editors than we'd get from your average high school football coach.
13
Well I already can sense that the NYT has crowned it's princess, Mrs. Clinton, as the heir apparent for the President. The day that Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy for President was strangely lacking any substantive Bernie Sanders story.
On a number of important issues for the country like surveillance, trade, actions for the average citizen and fixes for the illegal immigration, the NYT doesn't seem to want to explore those issues directly to weigh the options that might be available for the country. But the coverage on surveillance was better than other media. And the NYT seems to be all over themselves to insist, through the Editorial Board and their writers, to promote amnesty for illegal aliens, and discuss nothing less, and doesn't seem to want to talk to the candidates directly to get them on record.
I hope the coverage of issues improves, but if past is any guide, I'll still be reading about everything else to fill the page and my time.
On a number of important issues for the country like surveillance, trade, actions for the average citizen and fixes for the illegal immigration, the NYT doesn't seem to want to explore those issues directly to weigh the options that might be available for the country. But the coverage on surveillance was better than other media. And the NYT seems to be all over themselves to insist, through the Editorial Board and their writers, to promote amnesty for illegal aliens, and discuss nothing less, and doesn't seem to want to talk to the candidates directly to get them on record.
I hope the coverage of issues improves, but if past is any guide, I'll still be reading about everything else to fill the page and my time.
11
Why was there no coverage of Bernie Sanders' formal announcement? It was live on TV. The Times ignored it.
32
More than one of the left's organs are charging that the Times is ignoring the candidacy of Bernie Sanders (MoveOn, CommonDreams). One of the themes is that the Times has covered every Republican race debut on the front page, and Hillary too (obviously), but not Sanders. The meme is "he can't win, so don't bother."
Since we get the paper only on Sunday, I have to read it electronically the rest of the week and cannot testify to the accuracy of the (front page) charge, but it does seem that there is a lot more overall coverage of Rick Santorum or Carly Fiorina or Ted Cruz than of Bernie Sanders. True? Not true?
Since we get the paper only on Sunday, I have to read it electronically the rest of the week and cannot testify to the accuracy of the (front page) charge, but it does seem that there is a lot more overall coverage of Rick Santorum or Carly Fiorina or Ted Cruz than of Bernie Sanders. True? Not true?
19
I have been disappointed by many of the articles about the presidential candidates. There is too much coverage of Mrs. Clinton's personality, appearance and money sources. There is too much coverage of Mrs. Clinton, period. The articles about the Republican candidates are not as lame as those for Mrs. Clinton. I resent the references to Bernie Sanders as a socialist. To most people, socialist equals communist. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist; Mrs. Clinton is a centrist; Jeb Bush is a conservative but not an ultraconservative. What are the issues that should be brought to the attention of the public? I would like to see less tongue in cheek coverage of Mrs. Clinton and more honest coverage of each candidate's positions on education, federal versus state's rights, the social safety net, the climate, science, separation of church and state, health care, military spending for weapons, military spending for personnel, spending for veterans. I would also like to see a list of lobbying groups that support each candidate or influence his/her positions.
13
But, there is mention even here about the minimal coverage Bernie Sanders has received? It's unforgivable that the NYT, who I have read for over 40 years has yet to acknowledge Mr. Sanders and whose articles continue to make the assumption that Hillary has pretty much won the nomination already.
24
Thanks for this column. I appreciate the NYT's efforts to present "real" news to its readers. This column's description of internal debates contributes to the bigger picture.
1
Significant issues have now taken a back-seat to political pandering; this means for American readers that the NYT has failed to best inform that readership. My take is that consequential topics, concerns, and problems affecting our country have intentionally been swept under the rug of Presidential politics - which denigrates both the readers and the NYT.
I could be wrong. However, the evidence is convincing (to me) that the Powers-That-Be have devised a strategy of inundating the pages of the NYT with presidential politics more than a year before the event; by the time of the actual 2016 election, the readership and most of the public will be so sick and tired of the 'coverage' their interest and participation in actually voting will wane.
For the NYT to promote and fill its pages with much ado about nothing of consequence, ignoring questions and challenges such as a Turnip Congress not capable of bipartisan leadership, or the petty political bickering that fills its pages, is shameful. Nor is it newsworthy. Or informative.
I could be wrong. However, the evidence is convincing (to me) that the Powers-That-Be have devised a strategy of inundating the pages of the NYT with presidential politics more than a year before the event; by the time of the actual 2016 election, the readership and most of the public will be so sick and tired of the 'coverage' their interest and participation in actually voting will wane.
For the NYT to promote and fill its pages with much ado about nothing of consequence, ignoring questions and challenges such as a Turnip Congress not capable of bipartisan leadership, or the petty political bickering that fills its pages, is shameful. Nor is it newsworthy. Or informative.
6
I cannot be the only person who has complained about the dearth of coverage on Bernie Sanders. Please address this in your column.
34
I e-mailed the Public Editor on this very subject on May 27. No response and no mention in this column. Very disappointing.
Although some of the articles relating to perceived scandal on the part of participants in the campaigns seem repetitious and almost desperate, I largely agree with the Public Editor's conclusions. I was more stricken with the comments of Editor Carolyn Ryan. Her level of self-congratulation and hyperbole (world-beating coverage?) rivals that of most of the politicians her newspaper is covering. Although endemic qualities of politicians and, perhaps, understated characteristics of successful journalists, I am not sure we pedestrian readers find such self-congratulation representative of credible reporting or analysis.
15
The political reporters should take a lead from Ms. Nir, who wrote the excellent reports on the nail salon industry, and by doing so, has caused the reforms now taking place in that industry. Serious, especially, investigative, journalism is what the Times does best. Stop with the comments about how the candidates look, what they eat and where they eat. Leave that to the internet gossip columns and the NY Post. Dig into the candidate's views on issues and press them for answers when they are being evasive. Follow the money trail and expose evils therein. That's what is worthy of the Times.
12
It seems misleading to have articles in the NYT refer to Mrs. Clinton as the
"front runner"! Up until very recently she has been the ONLY runner on the Dem side.
"front runner"! Up until very recently she has been the ONLY runner on the Dem side.
11
Mrs. Clinton has been with us for more than 25 years on the national stage. We know her and those of us who will vote for her, count me one of them, know why. There is little we don't know that we need to know about her, what makes her tick -- her overweening ambition to be president. But no one without that ambition would run for it, much less have a chance to win.
What we know virtually nothing about are certain Republicans like Walker and Rubio and yes also Jeb Bush. Hardly a thing. The Times and others need to dig deep into the mine shafts of their lives. So far coverage of these men has been like sifting sand, superficial and topical.
Yes there are about 15 people involved now in seeking the Republican nomination but it is crystal clear the nominee, at least from the present field, is going to be one of three men: Walker, Rubio or Bush.
The others have no chance, none, and should be largely ignored. Reporters need to tear up and tear into the lives and views of those three and my guess is, if they do, the very known and knowable Mrs. Clinton will stand in good stead to the risk of any of those three men winning the White House.
That is what some of the 11 reporters assigned to the campaign should be doing now. They and their editors know better than anyone that the Republican nominee, as it stands now, will be Walker, Rubio or Bush so that's who they ought to be investigating and reporting about.
What we know virtually nothing about are certain Republicans like Walker and Rubio and yes also Jeb Bush. Hardly a thing. The Times and others need to dig deep into the mine shafts of their lives. So far coverage of these men has been like sifting sand, superficial and topical.
Yes there are about 15 people involved now in seeking the Republican nomination but it is crystal clear the nominee, at least from the present field, is going to be one of three men: Walker, Rubio or Bush.
The others have no chance, none, and should be largely ignored. Reporters need to tear up and tear into the lives and views of those three and my guess is, if they do, the very known and knowable Mrs. Clinton will stand in good stead to the risk of any of those three men winning the White House.
That is what some of the 11 reporters assigned to the campaign should be doing now. They and their editors know better than anyone that the Republican nominee, as it stands now, will be Walker, Rubio or Bush so that's who they ought to be investigating and reporting about.
5
Ms. Ryan is incorrect that we misread the Horowitz piece that referred to SOS Clinton as a wax figure, a queen, and a freak. We read it quite clearly. We *get* the piece, that is not the issue. It's so ingrained over there that even the editors don't see it. It was a sexist, derisive, disrespectful piece, and that the NYT would give it the go ahead says exactly how far this paper has fallen.
17
If readers misread, then the writers and editors might want to take in that feedback. The point of the writing is to communicate, and how a message is received counts. It isn't just about the writer's intent.
50
.
Agreed that "how a message is received counts". Once saw something in a column I disagreed with. Wrote to the columnist about it. Columnist said if I was interpreting it that way, it must have been unclear. Columnist clarified things in a blog post. Columnist already had my utmost respect for integrity and etc.; otherwise, that action would have earned said respect.
Diana Moses last 2 sentences are also relevant to the Constitutions of the US and its component States, but won't bore you all w/that now.
Agreed that "how a message is received counts". Once saw something in a column I disagreed with. Wrote to the columnist about it. Columnist said if I was interpreting it that way, it must have been unclear. Columnist clarified things in a blog post. Columnist already had my utmost respect for integrity and etc.; otherwise, that action would have earned said respect.
Diana Moses last 2 sentences are also relevant to the Constitutions of the US and its component States, but won't bore you all w/that now.
1
"...Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee."
This phrase speaks volumes. It explains why the Public Editor doesn't mention the criticism I see most often in readers' comments: the relative lack of coverage of any other Democratic candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders. Sen. Sanders (and now Martin O'Malley) may be relative long shots, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. These candidates have serious policy ideas. Let's read about how those proposals stack up against those of "the likely Democratic nominee."
This phrase speaks volumes. It explains why the Public Editor doesn't mention the criticism I see most often in readers' comments: the relative lack of coverage of any other Democratic candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders. Sen. Sanders (and now Martin O'Malley) may be relative long shots, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. These candidates have serious policy ideas. Let's read about how those proposals stack up against those of "the likely Democratic nominee."
85
.
@ NA:
I disagree with your last sentence mainly because I want to see LESS campaign coverage until there is something to cover. (For example, reporters know the rules and deadlines to get on Primary/Caucus ballots. If candidates aren't going about the business of getting on ballots in time, or if they lack the infrastructure to win substantial numbers of primaries, I don't need their "ideas".)
I also disagree because what candidates SAY they "would do" as President is fairly meaningless. I have spent 6+ years reading in the NYT and other publications that then-Sen. Obama promised to get U.S. out of Iraq with alacrity, that he promised "the most transparent Administration ...", and whatever else he promised. I don't know what he promised, as I didn't pay attention. In the primary, he was not my candidate because of lack of experience in DC. But my point remains, what people say they will do is often overemphasized in coverage. I'd prefer analysis of what they have done, what their team members have done, and what they can credibly achieve.
HOWEVER, I heartily agree that the phrase " ... Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee" has NO place in news coverage in a serious newspaper this early in the process, and NO place in a column analyzing appropriateness of campaign coverage.
Who was the "likely" Dem. nominee on June 1, 1967? On Feb. 1, 1968? On June 1, 1968?
If Nate Silver wants to place bets and give odds, fine. But I don't look to him for my news.
@ NA:
I disagree with your last sentence mainly because I want to see LESS campaign coverage until there is something to cover. (For example, reporters know the rules and deadlines to get on Primary/Caucus ballots. If candidates aren't going about the business of getting on ballots in time, or if they lack the infrastructure to win substantial numbers of primaries, I don't need their "ideas".)
I also disagree because what candidates SAY they "would do" as President is fairly meaningless. I have spent 6+ years reading in the NYT and other publications that then-Sen. Obama promised to get U.S. out of Iraq with alacrity, that he promised "the most transparent Administration ...", and whatever else he promised. I don't know what he promised, as I didn't pay attention. In the primary, he was not my candidate because of lack of experience in DC. But my point remains, what people say they will do is often overemphasized in coverage. I'd prefer analysis of what they have done, what their team members have done, and what they can credibly achieve.
HOWEVER, I heartily agree that the phrase " ... Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee" has NO place in news coverage in a serious newspaper this early in the process, and NO place in a column analyzing appropriateness of campaign coverage.
Who was the "likely" Dem. nominee on June 1, 1967? On Feb. 1, 1968? On June 1, 1968?
If Nate Silver wants to place bets and give odds, fine. But I don't look to him for my news.
2
Well said, @NA.
The New York Times is no stranger to forcing the shape of political coverage. In 2012, a reader queried Sullivan's predecessor about the absence of coverage of the Ron Paul campaign: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/riding-the-republican-r...
Then Political Editor Richard Stevenson indulged in some unfortunate candor:
“Not all candidates are created equal,” he said. “We do not feel compelled to treat every candidate with the same intensity or seriousness as we do others.”
Should Mr. Paul surprise with a very strong showing in Iowa, Mr. Stevenson may have to rethink. For now The Times has made judgment calls about who gets what. Mitt Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Cain all have a beat reporter assigned to their campaigns, while the rest of the field gets what Mr. Stevenson calls “zone coverage.”
The Times was stuck taking, in turns, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, all the while managing to ignore Ron Paul, the only candidate in 2012 with the potential to draw young voters. This year, the Times doubled down and assigned a dedicated beat reporter, Amy Chozick, to Hillary Clinton as she LEFT public service. And how many other potential candidates received such coverage? Yes, it's ZERO. And just today, an article in the Times shows that it is shocked and astonished that Bernie Sanders is attracting large, excited crowds in Iowa. Times political coverage is utterly lame same as it ever was.
The New York Times is no stranger to forcing the shape of political coverage. In 2012, a reader queried Sullivan's predecessor about the absence of coverage of the Ron Paul campaign: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/riding-the-republican-r...
Then Political Editor Richard Stevenson indulged in some unfortunate candor:
“Not all candidates are created equal,” he said. “We do not feel compelled to treat every candidate with the same intensity or seriousness as we do others.”
Should Mr. Paul surprise with a very strong showing in Iowa, Mr. Stevenson may have to rethink. For now The Times has made judgment calls about who gets what. Mitt Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Cain all have a beat reporter assigned to their campaigns, while the rest of the field gets what Mr. Stevenson calls “zone coverage.”
The Times was stuck taking, in turns, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, all the while managing to ignore Ron Paul, the only candidate in 2012 with the potential to draw young voters. This year, the Times doubled down and assigned a dedicated beat reporter, Amy Chozick, to Hillary Clinton as she LEFT public service. And how many other potential candidates received such coverage? Yes, it's ZERO. And just today, an article in the Times shows that it is shocked and astonished that Bernie Sanders is attracting large, excited crowds in Iowa. Times political coverage is utterly lame same as it ever was.
5