A more relentlessly thankless job, perhaps, is that of the reporter who has to tell the news that no one wants to read. That reporter doesn't get to write a this-is-so-difficult-and-everybody-hates-me column (and I'm not criticizing you for doing that; you have a different job). The reporter, even after a mistake, must wade back into the actual, not virtual, world, among people who don't know or respect what reporters do -- but are confident they know what reporters ought to do and how easy it would be.
None of this is to say that reporters always get it right or that you don't do a good job. No one hates a mistake more than the reporter who made it.
The lucky among us choose our chains: Reporters don't have to be reporters, and newspaper ombudswomen don't have to do that job, either. Thank you for doing it -- and thank you, reporters, for sticking with it so that she has a job defending (or excoriating) you.
(Just in case one wonders: I have not ever been affiliated with the New York Times or any of its employees, though I've been a small-town journalist in a past life -- and I do send a Christmas card to the NYT delivery guy each year.)
None of this is to say that reporters always get it right or that you don't do a good job. No one hates a mistake more than the reporter who made it.
The lucky among us choose our chains: Reporters don't have to be reporters, and newspaper ombudswomen don't have to do that job, either. Thank you for doing it -- and thank you, reporters, for sticking with it so that she has a job defending (or excoriating) you.
(Just in case one wonders: I have not ever been affiliated with the New York Times or any of its employees, though I've been a small-town journalist in a past life -- and I do send a Christmas card to the NYT delivery guy each year.)
The New York Times, including Margaret Sullivan, has yet to realize that everything it publishes is far more easily checkable via the Internet than ever before. And trust me, as someone who's read this publication every day for more than 35 years, you are failing the factuality test with ever increasing regularity.
1
The piece was designed to elicit a spate of tributes in the comments. It succeeded.
Put me down on the opposite side of the ledger. I have seen assertions by the Public Editor that to me were clearly incorrect and have said as much. There was, for example, the Public Editor’s absurd negative take on the Times excellent two sides of the Ferguson shooting article, for which the Public Editor later gave a mea culpa when the evidence showed “Hands up, don’t shoot” was a lie.
Or the column on print versus digital at the Times where the Public Editor gratuitously inserted the race and gender breakdown at an editors’ meeting. The column came soon after Jill Abramson left the Times, which led me to inquire, in all innocence, as to the relevance of the breakdown to the print/digital discussion. I received no answer. In fact, because there was no relevance.
Critiquing the Public Editor has apparently put me in the “automated reply only” category, which means no response ever to my inquiries. Inquiries such as how did a blatantly anti-Semitic comment get to be posted. Or what journalistic standard accounted for the Times article on stress on college students leading to suicide which focused exclusively on females, never once mentioning the same problems for males. As a letter to the editor from a psychiatrist the next day, pointed out.
This comment will make me the skunk at the Public Editor’s party. Not for the first time. Undoubtedly not for the last.
Put me down on the opposite side of the ledger. I have seen assertions by the Public Editor that to me were clearly incorrect and have said as much. There was, for example, the Public Editor’s absurd negative take on the Times excellent two sides of the Ferguson shooting article, for which the Public Editor later gave a mea culpa when the evidence showed “Hands up, don’t shoot” was a lie.
Or the column on print versus digital at the Times where the Public Editor gratuitously inserted the race and gender breakdown at an editors’ meeting. The column came soon after Jill Abramson left the Times, which led me to inquire, in all innocence, as to the relevance of the breakdown to the print/digital discussion. I received no answer. In fact, because there was no relevance.
Critiquing the Public Editor has apparently put me in the “automated reply only” category, which means no response ever to my inquiries. Inquiries such as how did a blatantly anti-Semitic comment get to be posted. Or what journalistic standard accounted for the Times article on stress on college students leading to suicide which focused exclusively on females, never once mentioning the same problems for males. As a letter to the editor from a psychiatrist the next day, pointed out.
This comment will make me the skunk at the Public Editor’s party. Not for the first time. Undoubtedly not for the last.
1
Let me suggest to you, Mr. Nawi, that one of the attributes that sets Ms. Sullivan apart from the rest is her unfailing willingness to admit her errors without the usual self-serving rationalizations that one sees from other writers and editors when they are on the receiving end of well-deserved criticisms, blatant mistakes, and outright failures of judgement.
It's very nice to hear about the difficulties and stresses of your job (we should all be so lucky!) But I don't really see any evidence that what you do actually effects reporting or standards at the Times. As has been pointed out already, days are going by without a single mention in Politics of a candidate readers care about, and who is polling ahead of every Republican candidate. Bernie Sanders, of course. The rather clear and obvious political bias and lack of coverage/totally inconsistent coverage by the Times is certainly one of the most important and time sensitive issues. Yet that issue was dropped after a flat (and unsubstantiated and rather patently false) denial by the political editor. The Times should not be patting itself on the back.
1
Mr. Cortez, you are expecting Ms. Sullivan prove a negative.
This is, at best, unfair criticism.
This is, at best, unfair criticism.
Finally, a worthwhile use of my Times Insider upcharged subscription.
Might I suggest that the Times has been seriously adrift since the Dean Baquet putsch and not replacing him as Managing Editor? A perfect corrective would be for Ms. Sullivan to revive the M.E. Position when her Public Editor tenure ends.
Might I suggest that the Times has been seriously adrift since the Dean Baquet putsch and not replacing him as Managing Editor? A perfect corrective would be for Ms. Sullivan to revive the M.E. Position when her Public Editor tenure ends.
2
Margaret, you have my complete admiration for your efforts to keep readers uppermost in the Times's journalism, no matter the medium or format. The fact that so many others at the company are protected by actual or perceived walls makes your position all the more valuable. I imagine you working with a glass wall into the corporate ant farm.
2
While I haven't agreed with all of your calls, I think you get way more right than wrong, you are very rigorous, and your efforts to be fair yet reach real conclusions (you're not wishy washy) are much appreciated. I think the Public Editor position has been a real improvement to the Times; you have done an admiral job with it. It's my hope you'll stay around for awhile!
1
Margaret, chalk up an appreciative reader here, and not just of you but of Joumana and others working with you. No matter how long you do the job, I'm certain you can never get used to being the dartboard for all manner of unmentionables. Or, at least, you should not get used to it, or you will have sacrificed a part of yourself to do such.
Margaret, hang in there, enjoy the duality of your impossible position, and try to take some sustenance from knowing that you make a difference, not just for the Times, but also for many of us out here.
When I started this column, I was afraid the last paragraph was going to be your resignation. Glad to be wrong.
Margaret, hang in there, enjoy the duality of your impossible position, and try to take some sustenance from knowing that you make a difference, not just for the Times, but also for many of us out here.
When I started this column, I was afraid the last paragraph was going to be your resignation. Glad to be wrong.
3
What I've learned from your column is that most/all Times editors who are questioned or challenged go on the defensive and respond with some form of "the readers just don't understand our job." Editors like the book editor and Needleman seem incredulous that readers push back when they don't employ common sense. Thank you for your efforts but your columns are frustrating in that they repeatedly expose the arrogance and condescension of the editors.
2
I really appreciate the Times having you as Public Editor. Keep up the good work.
1
As I was reading this, the tone made me worry you were giving notice and getting ready to introduce a new Public Editor. I know that day will come eventually, but not too soon, okay?
Thanks for all that you do.
(signed) Another satisfied customer.
Thanks for all that you do.
(signed) Another satisfied customer.
4
Ms. Sullivan, As one of the most vocal and blunt public critics of the Times' coverage of the European migrant issue (yesterday I was simply furious about this issue, and the Times printed my thoughts); I must also say that I really appreciate this piece you have written dated November 4. I truly do believe, after reading it, that the Times does respect the intelligence of its readers and I get a sense that it listens to what we have to say,
On most topics in my incessant interest in learning what is going on in the world today the Times has filled me in with details that I could not find anyplace else. And, you are right, the Times has expanded far beyond a national newspaper to a worldwide digital news source in a world where it seems that 99% of news afficionados get their news online. The Times comprehensive coverage of the world has made my subscription well worth it, even though I have disagreed with some areas of coverage. But, one thing I know is that if you like the quality of 95% of what you read and only question 5%, you are reading a good news source; and that is how I feel about the Times.
So, Ms. SUllivan (or Margaret if you prefer), please accept my gratitude for your very honest and down to earth comment, and keep up the good work. I will continue to be a great fan of your organization,
On most topics in my incessant interest in learning what is going on in the world today the Times has filled me in with details that I could not find anyplace else. And, you are right, the Times has expanded far beyond a national newspaper to a worldwide digital news source in a world where it seems that 99% of news afficionados get their news online. The Times comprehensive coverage of the world has made my subscription well worth it, even though I have disagreed with some areas of coverage. But, one thing I know is that if you like the quality of 95% of what you read and only question 5%, you are reading a good news source; and that is how I feel about the Times.
So, Ms. SUllivan (or Margaret if you prefer), please accept my gratitude for your very honest and down to earth comment, and keep up the good work. I will continue to be a great fan of your organization,
3
Required reading for all readers who find themselves addicted to the public editor's column ....
Nikki Usher's "Making News at the New York Times" (2014). Author is a professor of communications at George Washington University.
This book examines the emergence and maturation of the online New York Times.
Among other things, Professor Usher traces the online version of the NYT from its emergence. She gained the cooperation -- but by no means was she co-opted -- of the newspaper. This enabled her to have access to some reporters as well as editors, who served as "sources."
Usher's book, to its credit, views the NYT thru a critical eye. It explains the inherent tensions -- a hallmark of the revolution in communications technology that took hold during the 1990s -- between traditionally trained reporters/editors and the au courant technologists who stand at the cutting edge of the new-form newspaper of the twenty-first century.
I have often wondered why Ms. Sullivan has not devoted attention to this "must read" text.
Nikki Usher's "Making News at the New York Times" (2014). Author is a professor of communications at George Washington University.
This book examines the emergence and maturation of the online New York Times.
Among other things, Professor Usher traces the online version of the NYT from its emergence. She gained the cooperation -- but by no means was she co-opted -- of the newspaper. This enabled her to have access to some reporters as well as editors, who served as "sources."
Usher's book, to its credit, views the NYT thru a critical eye. It explains the inherent tensions -- a hallmark of the revolution in communications technology that took hold during the 1990s -- between traditionally trained reporters/editors and the au courant technologists who stand at the cutting edge of the new-form newspaper of the twenty-first century.
I have often wondered why Ms. Sullivan has not devoted attention to this "must read" text.
1
I think the ability to complain is one of the great gifts of the gods. To be in a position to have to field so many complaints might not be. Thanks for doing such a good job even though...
1
Highest praise: You do a very good job in an impossible position. Please keep going but don't burn out: We need your future contributions too. Thank you!
1
I'm in my rookie season as a high school soccer referee. We both have the same "support " from the public.
2
I have written this before. You are by far the best Public Editor that the NY Times has had. I hope you continue for a long time.
The only time you have filed was in your handling of the Jill Abramson firing and subsequent fascination over the years with Dean Baquet. Mr Baquet has shown that he can not even carry Ms. Abramson's laptop.
The only time you have filed was in your handling of the Jill Abramson firing and subsequent fascination over the years with Dean Baquet. Mr Baquet has shown that he can not even carry Ms. Abramson's laptop.
Margaret Sullivan, You are terrific. Don't burn out. At least, when I write to the
[email protected], I know you will read my comments. When I write to Kristof,
Friedman, Cohen, Nocera (before he was banished to the Sports Desk) Dowd,
Collins, etc. these pundits never answer. They are just too important. By
the way the Times is repeating the thirties in reporting the news. "Buried by
the Times". Baquet will forever be cursed by his Charlie Hebdo decision not to
print the cartoons. Hang in there. RS
[email protected], I know you will read my comments. When I write to Kristof,
Friedman, Cohen, Nocera (before he was banished to the Sports Desk) Dowd,
Collins, etc. these pundits never answer. They are just too important. By
the way the Times is repeating the thirties in reporting the news. "Buried by
the Times". Baquet will forever be cursed by his Charlie Hebdo decision not to
print the cartoons. Hang in there. RS
1
Margaret, your load is daunting to be sure, but you didn't provide much insight into what you DO in the midst of this onslaught. Seriously, I'm interested in know how you pick your battles, or do you battle at all? (I'm sure you do, I just don't know why or when).
1
Margaret, chalk up an appreciative reader here, and not just of you but of Joumana and others working with you. No matter how long you do the job, I'm certain you can never get used to being the dartboard for all manner of unmentionables. Or, at least, you should not get used to it, or you will have sacrificed a part of yourself to do such.
Margaret, hang in there, enjoy the duality of your impossible position, and try to take some sustenance from knowing that you make a difference, not just for the Times, but also for many of us out here.
When I started this column, I was afraid the last paragraph was going to be your resignation. Glad to be wrong.
Margaret, hang in there, enjoy the duality of your impossible position, and try to take some sustenance from knowing that you make a difference, not just for the Times, but also for many of us out here.
When I started this column, I was afraid the last paragraph was going to be your resignation. Glad to be wrong.
9
I'm grateful for your hard work and fair assessments of the Times' reporting. As readers, we all benefit.
4
I think you are doing a great job. It is a tough job, but It says a lot about the Times that your job even exists! So, THANK YOU!
6
Wow. I hope you get regular vacations and that you meditate regularly!
And you do perform a great service. It speaks well for the paper that they have such a position as yours at all.
And you do perform a great service. It speaks well for the paper that they have such a position as yours at all.
6
It speaks volumes, too, that the Times publisher, Mr Ochs, was smart enough to realize that Ms. Sullivan was the right person for the job.
I move that Ms. Sullivan be granted another term as Public Editor. She is terrific.
I move that Ms. Sullivan be granted another term as Public Editor. She is terrific.
There are currently three NYT's writers that make my eyes light up in anticipation of reading their work: Adam Liptak, Gail Collins, and you.
Many, many thanks for your hard, honest work. I hope you clip some of the comments I've seen here and add them to what should be an ever-growing stack. Thank you again.
Many, many thanks for your hard, honest work. I hope you clip some of the comments I've seen here and add them to what should be an ever-growing stack. Thank you again.
3
*
*
What a wonderful and worthy look behind the curtain (or is it a Velvet Rope?) of the Public Editor's role!! Truly a welcome read. This is the second time (I think) that Ms. Sullivan has been featured in the Times Insider. Can we be told: Will a Public Editor's Notebook become a regular Insider feature? That would bring in more subscriber revenue; and one always looks for more digital revenue, right?
I wanted to highlight a few words Ms. Sullivan wrote: "terrific ... Joumana Khatib". Elsewhere, I have seen Ms. Khatib described as "excellent" and "estimable". And I didn't look too hard for those. Kudos to her; and why doesn't SHE write a Times Insider piece?
I understand from this piece what Ms. Sullivan does to keep her cool. What I want to know is, how does she manage to be so funny in the face of the stream of complaints (and some terrible slip-ups by NYT personnel)? It's not just the MonocleMeter, or the witty "going off the grid" posts: There are literary allusions and wordplay all over her blog. I miss 95% of it, but the few I understand are really amusing!
*
What a wonderful and worthy look behind the curtain (or is it a Velvet Rope?) of the Public Editor's role!! Truly a welcome read. This is the second time (I think) that Ms. Sullivan has been featured in the Times Insider. Can we be told: Will a Public Editor's Notebook become a regular Insider feature? That would bring in more subscriber revenue; and one always looks for more digital revenue, right?
I wanted to highlight a few words Ms. Sullivan wrote: "terrific ... Joumana Khatib". Elsewhere, I have seen Ms. Khatib described as "excellent" and "estimable". And I didn't look too hard for those. Kudos to her; and why doesn't SHE write a Times Insider piece?
I understand from this piece what Ms. Sullivan does to keep her cool. What I want to know is, how does she manage to be so funny in the face of the stream of complaints (and some terrible slip-ups by NYT personnel)? It's not just the MonocleMeter, or the witty "going off the grid" posts: There are literary allusions and wordplay all over her blog. I miss 95% of it, but the few I understand are really amusing!
3
I was pretty certain this was a farewell letter, and I still believe it may be the first draft of one. If being part of Big Media is thankless enough, being the public editor of the New York Times has to be even more difficult. There is a reason how come people come and go in this job, and a reason why a lot of media outlets have no public editor position at all: it is both financially and emotionally costly. Good luck to you, Ms. Sullivan, and don't do this job a minute longer than you can stand. We will all still be complaining long after you decide to move on.
6
Thank you Ms. Sullivan for taking perhaps the most thankless job at the Times. This paper has been a daily fixture in the 40 years of my life since high school and has enriched those years immensely. Your efforts to keep the Gray Lady on the straight and narrow are appreciated, I believe, by a silent majority of Times faithful.
20
you are doing a fantastic job. whatever the economic challenges the Times may face, they're not paying you enough for the important work you do. keep it up.
15
.
I encourage you, jimjaf, and other Commenters, to do what I did:
I wrote to [email protected] asking that Ms. Sullivan get a raise and more assistants. Then I asked that her assistants get raises, and assistants of their own.
He did not write back.
I encourage you, jimjaf, and other Commenters, to do what I did:
I wrote to [email protected] asking that Ms. Sullivan get a raise and more assistants. Then I asked that her assistants get raises, and assistants of their own.
He did not write back.
8
Thanks for doing a "thankless" job - by definition. A general gripe is headlines that tease without fulfillment, and the plethora of "cures" that always seem to be qualified with a "maybe" years down the road.
2
Add me to the list of your supporters. I think you're doing a terrific job.
13
Most of us have no real idea as to how demanding and stressful your job must be.
I do KNOW the following: Almighty God is able to make you fully successful (if you will let Him).
I wish you the best.
I do KNOW the following: Almighty God is able to make you fully successful (if you will let Him).
I wish you the best.
2
.
So She is the reason Ms. Sullivan's so good at this job?
There might be something to this Goddess worship, after all!
So She is the reason Ms. Sullivan's so good at this job?
There might be something to this Goddess worship, after all!
6
Ms. Sullivan is already successful and by her own effort.
3
.
@ Gaijinjoy,
Assuming you are correct -- and it’s hard to imagine some version of what you typed is not true -- Ms. Sulliivan can assess only what people at NYT do (or fail to do).
So maybe the Almighty is providing her with all that raw material?
@ Gaijinjoy,
Assuming you are correct -- and it’s hard to imagine some version of what you typed is not true -- Ms. Sulliivan can assess only what people at NYT do (or fail to do).
So maybe the Almighty is providing her with all that raw material?
What? Are you packing it in?
Please don't.
Please don't.
5
I hope you are not leaving your post Ms. Sullivan? This seems a bit elegiac. No departure yet please. You are one of the best minds at the NYT these days.
13
Thank you for what you do. You make the Times a better paper, and make reading it a better experience.
8
Having a public editor like Margaret Sullivan* is a great growth experience for The Times, and for its readers. A genuinely satisfied customer here.
---
*Why does she get no byline for this piece?
---
*Why does she get no byline for this piece?
4
It submitted before I was ready. In the past 2 months, from your work, we have gleaned the following:
Pamela Paul does no due diligence on conflicts of interest in the Book Review, no matter how controversial the subject (in this case, Henry Kissinger). She leaves it all to the honor system, and ends up with a reviewer who has published jointly with the author of a book. Say it ain't so.
Deborah Needleman dismisses obvious conflict of interest of the author of a T Magazine piece about airbnb written by the wife of one of its biggest investors. Needleman's take? The author is a billionaire in her own right, and therefore too rich For the COI to matter. Yikes!
Carolyn Ryan makes the unsupported claim that Sanders supporters are engaged in an "organized effort" to "demand more positive coverage" of their candidate. As yet, no follow up demanding proof of her claim. For this Sanders supporter, the demand is for fair, proportionate coverage. Meanwhile, the last 27 posts on First Draft, for the last three entire days, there are ZERO posts about the Sanders campaign. There's even 1 on the end of the Lessig campaign. Prove it!
Regarding the coordinated Mo Dowd op-ed and Amy Chozick front page news article regarding Beau Biden's supposed dying wish for his dad to run, Dean Baquet issued this stunner: "It's hard to imagine that some version of this isn't true." So the Executive Editor has embraced truthiness.
Ms. Sullivan, will the Times miss its integrity when it's gone?
Pamela Paul does no due diligence on conflicts of interest in the Book Review, no matter how controversial the subject (in this case, Henry Kissinger). She leaves it all to the honor system, and ends up with a reviewer who has published jointly with the author of a book. Say it ain't so.
Deborah Needleman dismisses obvious conflict of interest of the author of a T Magazine piece about airbnb written by the wife of one of its biggest investors. Needleman's take? The author is a billionaire in her own right, and therefore too rich For the COI to matter. Yikes!
Carolyn Ryan makes the unsupported claim that Sanders supporters are engaged in an "organized effort" to "demand more positive coverage" of their candidate. As yet, no follow up demanding proof of her claim. For this Sanders supporter, the demand is for fair, proportionate coverage. Meanwhile, the last 27 posts on First Draft, for the last three entire days, there are ZERO posts about the Sanders campaign. There's even 1 on the end of the Lessig campaign. Prove it!
Regarding the coordinated Mo Dowd op-ed and Amy Chozick front page news article regarding Beau Biden's supposed dying wish for his dad to run, Dean Baquet issued this stunner: "It's hard to imagine that some version of this isn't true." So the Executive Editor has embraced truthiness.
Ms. Sullivan, will the Times miss its integrity when it's gone?
17
Take solace that you are, by a wide margin, not only the best Public Editor that the Times has ever had, but the most prolific, as well. In fact, you are the Times employee that I hold in the highest esteem, by a long chalk. You have a level of integrity that is sadly leaking from the Rest of the Times.
I understand that there are limits of how far you can push, but in the last two months, you have taken up some astoundingly tone deaf rationalizations by the Times. That the Times doesn't see the attitude as an existential threat is simply dispiriting.
When you considered the Times abysmally snarky and dismissive coverage of the Bernie Sanders campaign, Political Editor Carolyn Ryan made the astounding, and unsupported claim that Sanders supporters were engaged in an organized effort to demand more favorable coverage of their candidate. As yet, nobody has asked (or, in her terms) demanded that she prove her claim.
I understand that there are limits of how far you can push, but in the last two months, you have taken up some astoundingly tone deaf rationalizations by the Times. That the Times doesn't see the attitude as an existential threat is simply dispiriting.
When you considered the Times abysmally snarky and dismissive coverage of the Bernie Sanders campaign, Political Editor Carolyn Ryan made the astounding, and unsupported claim that Sanders supporters were engaged in an organized effort to demand more favorable coverage of their candidate. As yet, nobody has asked (or, in her terms) demanded that she prove her claim.
15
of course sanders supporters are trying to get better coverage. this is no argument for denying it to them.
3
That claim also suggested, in that it wasn't considered necessary to assess why say, Trump or Rubio get outsized coverage, how their ( could it be disorganized?) PAC money and PR specialists manipulate media and buy attention . It revealed a completely dismissive attitude towards those not in the mainstream of political organizations.
1
Margaret, I think you do great work (even though I don't always agree with you). I wonder, though, if you think there is a time limit on the job? I question if after 3 or 4 years, you lose outsider status and become part of the home team. I don't know the answer....it is just a question. In any event, you've been very effective in your role. Having a robust and independent public editor is really important to keeping the NYT's integrity in place. Thank you.
6
As thankless as your job may be...thank you.
7
I spent more than 60 years in the journalistic trenches before finally bowing out, and my resume more than matches those of 95% of your Times colleagues. In my opinion, you are easily the best of a distinguished group of NYT Public Editors, and too damn bad for the sensitive souls in the newsroom who think you are too tough.
22
Well, let me express my deep appreciation. I don't know how in the world you haven't been driven to strong drink. I think you do a phenomenal job.
11
First off, thank you for doing what is almost a thankless job. As I have always thought of the Gray Lady's mid-East coverage, if there are complaints from all sides, they must be doing something right; same for you.
Second, your name is not on the column, should be fixed.
Third, I think that often the critics of the Times - - especially the NY Times - - are simply looking for what they perceive to be errors, biases, journalistic sleight of hand. In fact, what I see the vast majority of the time is a well-written, non-partisan, even-handed presentation every single day of what happened yesterday and increasingly what to look for tomorrow and what the critics are thinking right now. Inevitably there will be mistakes, duplications, contradictions but those of you who go into daily journalism, and the NYTimes is of the highest order, deserve our gratitude. That you are there to act as our mouthpiece, and to call it as you see it, is icing on the cake.
Finally, thought that this might be your valedictory address; glad it's not. And please pass along to the journalists working on 8th Avenue and around the world the thanks of this long time print, and on-line, reader. Oh yes, I will be a print subscriber as long as there is print. Holding the paper, making the subway fold [everyone should do it at least once on the BMT], adds to the experience every day.
Second, your name is not on the column, should be fixed.
Third, I think that often the critics of the Times - - especially the NY Times - - are simply looking for what they perceive to be errors, biases, journalistic sleight of hand. In fact, what I see the vast majority of the time is a well-written, non-partisan, even-handed presentation every single day of what happened yesterday and increasingly what to look for tomorrow and what the critics are thinking right now. Inevitably there will be mistakes, duplications, contradictions but those of you who go into daily journalism, and the NYTimes is of the highest order, deserve our gratitude. That you are there to act as our mouthpiece, and to call it as you see it, is icing on the cake.
Finally, thought that this might be your valedictory address; glad it's not. And please pass along to the journalists working on 8th Avenue and around the world the thanks of this long time print, and on-line, reader. Oh yes, I will be a print subscriber as long as there is print. Holding the paper, making the subway fold [everyone should do it at least once on the BMT], adds to the experience every day.
3
Hard, challenging, demanding jobs that call upon integrity seem impossible -- but when you look back on them, you realize that there lies the hope of a meaningful life. Please hang in there. The task you have taken on is worthwhile. An easy life is marshmallow; you, like each one of us, deserves better than that.
5
The Times' best resource are its readers. A newpaper is in the business of delivering readers to advertisers and the Times has the most desirable readers. Your office and the moderated comments provide readers with a sense of NYT community that engages these readers and that no amount of digital excellence can substitute for. Ask for a raise.
7
No comments showing at 01:33 h CET so this is just a simple thank you for being brave enough to take on an "impossible" task. Every commenter who comments daily has a glimpse of what you face. Tack. Shukran. Thanks.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
8
.
Tack is Swedish!! (I saw the Millennium Trilogy with the great Noomi Rapace!)
Tack is Swedish!! (I saw the Millennium Trilogy with the great Noomi Rapace!)
I feel guilty now about my emails and tweets over the years: not too many I hope but I am passionate! My uncle got me reading the IHT in c. 1987 in London (where I am writing from now on a trip). This is when and where I first properly met the NYT, outside one trip as a young man to North America. (I'm 49 now, a Brit, and a daily subscriber at work or at home, or both, since 1992.)
I survived the IHT/INYT transition but I think most of my contacts with the Public Editor have been about how the NYT needs to work harder to understand the needs and sensibilities of its international readers (readers such as me and many people I know, but funnily enough, not many Brits I know, except those working in international media).
Finally, with the October 2015 "Our Path Forward" memo, it looks like the NYT is going to give international readers some serious thought, but if not, as a NYT Loyalist, you can probably guess which poor beleaguered person I will be writing to! Apologies in advance.
Apologies too for any typos. This is written on my phone, another thing which has changed over the years in terms of my relationship with my favourite 'newspaper', if you'll allow me to use such a 20th century term.
I survived the IHT/INYT transition but I think most of my contacts with the Public Editor have been about how the NYT needs to work harder to understand the needs and sensibilities of its international readers (readers such as me and many people I know, but funnily enough, not many Brits I know, except those working in international media).
Finally, with the October 2015 "Our Path Forward" memo, it looks like the NYT is going to give international readers some serious thought, but if not, as a NYT Loyalist, you can probably guess which poor beleaguered person I will be writing to! Apologies in advance.
Apologies too for any typos. This is written on my phone, another thing which has changed over the years in terms of my relationship with my favourite 'newspaper', if you'll allow me to use such a 20th century term.
2
The Times is indeed fortunate to have the beleaguered but unbowed Margaret Sullivan as its fifth public editor. As any fair-minded reader must acknowledge, nobody does it better. Or ever did.
18
.
Nobody? I don't know, I thought H. L. Mencken was pretty good.
Oh, did you mean no other Public Editor? Yeah, I agree with that.
Nobody? I don't know, I thought H. L. Mencken was pretty good.
Oh, did you mean no other Public Editor? Yeah, I agree with that.
1
You're doing an excellent job. I hope you won't get burned out anytime soon.
11
I think you are simply a treasure, and the New York Times and readers would be all the poorer were you not with us and here for us.
49
I agree. I think Martha Sullivan's been the most effective and thoughtful Public Editor the Times has yet appointed. I know these appointments have in the past been time-limited, so I was worried this column was going to end with an announcement of her departure. I'm very glad it didn't.
8
.
Margaret Sullivan has been even better than she was.
And it has been made fairly clear that the position is time-limited. Having passed 2 years, the other options for Ms. Sullivan are 4 years or 6 years (total).
Margaret Sullivan has been even better than she was.
And it has been made fairly clear that the position is time-limited. Having passed 2 years, the other options for Ms. Sullivan are 4 years or 6 years (total).
1
Ms. Sullivan has set an incredibly high standard. She has earned all of the accolades that she receives.