Count me as a past subscriber; I just cancelled my subscription today (please go ahead and verify, Ms Spayd). Since this will be my last post, even though I have three more weeks on my subscription, I thought I'd give my reason to the Public Editor on the off-chance she'd care to know why a longtime reader would now leave: Unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton.
6
This, in a nutshell, is why covering the news has become a well-nigh impossible, thankless job. In the days of yore, there were news cycles: Writers and editors had time to consider and regroup. Now it's a man-killing (and woman-killing) sprint to the next milepost, with no end in sight.
I note in a quick look down the past Public Editor articles, that Patrick Healy's name keeps leaping out at me. Perhaps someone should start checking how many apologies per article reporters generate...
5
"Her team, she said, primarily relies on both live discussions and concise briefings on breaking news, and indeed these features dominated the homepage Wednesday night."
What does this mean? That the web team sees no need to get the formal written article right, so long as it's surrounded by random short-form hot takes?
Newsflash, NYT: there are plenty of people tweeting on the news who are better at that than you, and I can read them for free. From the Times I expect grown-up journalism.
What does this mean? That the web team sees no need to get the formal written article right, so long as it's surrounded by random short-form hot takes?
Newsflash, NYT: there are plenty of people tweeting on the news who are better at that than you, and I can read them for free. From the Times I expect grown-up journalism.
6
"The News changed."
"The story was slow to catch up."
Remarks about many time zones, reporters scrambling...
You would think it was a coup in Indonesia.
If the Republican presidential candidate making 2 scheduled public appearances in 1 day is too much for the Times....
If the reporter who drew "the short straw" wrote the article without watching the speech.
If the Times was taken by surprise that Trump would be different at a state event and at a campaign rally....
Then the Times does not represent excellence or even professional pride.
"The story was slow to catch up."
Remarks about many time zones, reporters scrambling...
You would think it was a coup in Indonesia.
If the Republican presidential candidate making 2 scheduled public appearances in 1 day is too much for the Times....
If the reporter who drew "the short straw" wrote the article without watching the speech.
If the Times was taken by surprise that Trump would be different at a state event and at a campaign rally....
Then the Times does not represent excellence or even professional pride.
7
hear hear - yes, well put.
1
"For many readers, the story looked like a significant misportrayal of events."
That's because it was. It was a significant misportrayal of events.
And that's a big problem - one deserving a more serious explanation than this. Getting the news wrong isn't something you shrug off as a mix-up in the newsroom. This was disgraceful and emblematic of what's wrong with the Times' coverage of this election.
That's because it was. It was a significant misportrayal of events.
And that's a big problem - one deserving a more serious explanation than this. Getting the news wrong isn't something you shrug off as a mix-up in the newsroom. This was disgraceful and emblematic of what's wrong with the Times' coverage of this election.
7
I'm sorry - but you're the public editor, and this is not good enough. If the Times can't hire someone who is genuinely unbiased, then what's the use of a public editor? My sense is that you are over your head here, and should resign. This is a tough job and I get it, it's no fun. But when the Times embarrasses itself - literally lies and posts non-news...well, this is a scandal. Stop making excuses for serious mistakes - mistakes that attest to bias in reporting! I've cancelled my "Times Insider" membership and used the money to subscribe online to the Washington Post and frankly, I've begun to trust them more and turn to them first. This has really shaken my trust in the NYTimes and I want more than your mumbling excuses for it. I'm sure Dean Baquet will see the Times' horrifying error in reporting on Trump as "casting a new shadow over Hillary Clinton's campaign" but I see it as Jason Blair all over again - a reporter lying in print. I have friends at the Times, I'm a fan of the Times, but I have alarm bells going off and you should, too. Enough innuendo - when Paul Krugman is sounding the alarm, it's time to listen.
9
A harsh, but seemngly fair analysis. I'm willing to cut a small amount of slack to someone with only a couple of months on the job, but not much more. A not so gentle reminder: the job is to be an objective, outside voice, on matters of journalistic integrity. Anything reading like it might have originated in the Times' PR department is a fully unacceptable red flag event.
As for Ms. Ryan's plaintive wail that "reporting is hard," neither she nor her staff of political hackers has been conscripted into this service. It's always possible to find someone for whom objective reporting comes a little bit more naturally.
As for Ms. Ryan's plaintive wail that "reporting is hard," neither she nor her staff of political hackers has been conscripted into this service. It's always possible to find someone for whom objective reporting comes a little bit more naturally.
2
The banner headline for the media's coverage of the Trump and Clinton campaigns is 'False Equivalency.' Dumb down Trump's outrages, escalate Clinton's 'troubling tendencies' until both campaigns and candidates appear to be morally and intellectually in the same realm.
Geez, I long for the days of Cronkite, Murrow and Katharine Graham.
Geez, I long for the days of Cronkite, Murrow and Katharine Graham.
3
What I noticed across the board in Wednesday's Trump coverage was indecision about the lede. You had the two Trumps, the first in Mexico, the second in Arizona. To me, that was the natural lede. But some news orgs., including the Times, seemed caught in trying to include the reporting of subtle shifts in Trump's actual policies. That slowed down reporting and confused readers. For example, was he softening on the removal of 11 million undocumented people? Who would pay for the wall? Since any serious reader now knows nothing Trump says can be trusted, I felt the subtle shifts could wait. The only story Wednesday was that Trump presented two versions of himself -- nice Trump, mean Trump.
2
I'm starting to wonder if the NYT is responding to unreported threats of lawsuits by Trump in failing to portray his many fatal flaws against the strong merits of Hillary Clinton. Although individual commentators have it right, the NYT news stories have been seriously guilty of false equivalence, magnifying Clinton's perceived flaws at the expense of truth. The Washington Post has a much more accurate take and their many Op-Ed columnists from across the political spectrum are nearly uniform in their condemnation of Trump. At the NYT we have Maureen Dowd, obviously tainted by a malignant hatred of the Clintons. I'm seriously considering ending my subscription to the NYT in favor of the Washington Post. The future of humanity may well be at stake in this election and it is essential that the media portray the seriousness of this campaign.
6
Ms. Spayed, Read again the 2 paragraphs of Healey's article -- the lede -- that you included: "audacious," "shelving his plan to deport," "spirited bid," "turnaround from 'deportation force' and other severe tactics." The problem isn't that the lede was behind fast-moving events, describing an afternoon when we'd already reached the end the evening. The problem is that it includes no facts! Plenty of adjectives and Mr. Healey's interpretation, but no actual facts that would help readers ground their own assessments. When I read reporting like that-- well it's not really reporting, is it? It's more a narrative-- I lose trust in the writer. And I see more and more writing like this in the paper's campaign coverage. Times reporters need to slow down, as you pointed out, dial back the expressionist narratives and amp up the reporting in their news stories.
4
Excellent analysis of Healy's abysmal reportage. Thank you.
3
This is a good read, although the NYT public editor could have been tougher.
What occurred -- or did not occur; the paper was slow to update its web story -- simply shows how the newsroom culture and thought processes remain wedded to print, at the expense of disappointing and alienating the immediate digital audience.
If it were otherwise, the politics editor would have deployed her staff accordingly -- and when she had not, one of her team would have spoken up and offered advice.
This is a great example for the industry, and I hope Dean Banquet and HIS senior editors realise the import.
What occurred -- or did not occur; the paper was slow to update its web story -- simply shows how the newsroom culture and thought processes remain wedded to print, at the expense of disappointing and alienating the immediate digital audience.
If it were otherwise, the politics editor would have deployed her staff accordingly -- and when she had not, one of her team would have spoken up and offered advice.
This is a great example for the industry, and I hope Dean Banquet and HIS senior editors realise the import.
1
Why people are starting to worry now? The Times died on August, 1.
2
Did anyone notice in the visit to Mexico how long the President took to point by point educate Donald Trump about the value of our cross border relationships? He probably knew better than to react badly there when he had a quick trip back to a traditional rally in good old Phoenix,later. But,as much as the Editorial Board of the NY Times is telling the World how bad a candidate Trump is,certain respected Times essayists like Ms.Dowd prefer to make the phone calls to him and give us the quotes. She also has a thing about the Clintons but so many of us learned long ago that the Clintons have played the media and many Democrats for fools although Mrs.Clinton is obviously a better President to elect in spite of more Republican opposition to almost everything. As we head to debates,let's see if the Times fleshes out who are the advisors to Trump and Clinton and whether anyone at the State Dept. gets punished for some very bad decisions about access to emails.
2
So they got beat and learned that group chats, while fun, are secondary to writing the article.
Writing articles is not the same as being a talking head speculating off-the-cuff on live TV. Sometimes it takes time to put a solid story together filled with facts rather than speculation. Readers should understand that the Times is not a broadcaster, per se, like Fox or CNN, etc. The product this newspaper puts together is expected to go beyond basic reporting. Sometimes getting it right takes time.
And as the AP drilled into me, "get it first, but first get it right."
Writing articles is not the same as being a talking head speculating off-the-cuff on live TV. Sometimes it takes time to put a solid story together filled with facts rather than speculation. Readers should understand that the Times is not a broadcaster, per se, like Fox or CNN, etc. The product this newspaper puts together is expected to go beyond basic reporting. Sometimes getting it right takes time.
And as the AP drilled into me, "get it first, but first get it right."
3
He wasn't backing away from his policy to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Let's not obscure that. At all.
Let's not obscure that. At all.
2
Instead of engaging in the race for ever faster updates and corresponding alerts, what if the NYTimes were to distinguish itself by imposing a 24-hour delay on all news stories.
That would allow for a settling period to avoid incorrect first reports (common in shootings and other disasters). And it would allow for some analysis of what is going on.
That would allow for a settling period to avoid incorrect first reports (common in shootings and other disasters). And it would allow for some analysis of what is going on.
This article is some really weak tea. The NY Times has lost all credibility. That was obvious when you took a fact based article on Bernie Sanders and edited it (probably at the behest of the Clinton campaign)to insert editorial opinion and negativity, again without bothering to inform your readers. Now you're blatantly editorializing what should have been a fact based piece on Trump's rally.
I laugh every time I get another email begging me to resubscribe. If you ever start practicing journalism again, I'll consider subscribing again.
I laugh every time I get another email begging me to resubscribe. If you ever start practicing journalism again, I'll consider subscribing again.
5
I'm sorry, you are still completely missing the mark.
Read Josh Marshall's insightful piece at talkingpointsmemo about the Times utter failure to call Trump's speech hate speech. It was hate speech, like so many if not all of his speeches, and the Times should called it hate speech. Stop excusing the Times' reporters for having to deal with fast-changing stories and the challenges of keeping online stories up to date. Pay attention to what Trump is really spewing, and write about it, not the false equivalency, attempt at balance that clouds the facts. The paper of record should do no less. Shame on the Times, and on your weak explanation that completely misses the point of the paper's utter failure in accurate reporting.
Read Josh Marshall's insightful piece at talkingpointsmemo about the Times utter failure to call Trump's speech hate speech. It was hate speech, like so many if not all of his speeches, and the Times should called it hate speech. Stop excusing the Times' reporters for having to deal with fast-changing stories and the challenges of keeping online stories up to date. Pay attention to what Trump is really spewing, and write about it, not the false equivalency, attempt at balance that clouds the facts. The paper of record should do no less. Shame on the Times, and on your weak explanation that completely misses the point of the paper's utter failure in accurate reporting.
5
It'd be nice if there wasn't a criticism of NYT for every little thing. The point is NYT did update their coverage to include the tenor of Trump's Phoenix speech. Sorry that the update wasn't fast enough for impatient readers or the Public Editor.
1
This story and the comments show that multiple people, watching the same event can see different things. Preexisting views influence what people see. What I saw in Trump's speech was a determination to enforce existing immigration laws. The only thing I found new was that he would set up a special force to expedite the deportation of those here illegally who had also broken other, non immigration laws. His tone was harsh, but that's not unusual of politicians, including Bill Clinton in the '90s, when they want to emphasize their devotion to law and order. Those unhappy about immigration laws should pressure Congress for a change. It seems illogical to blame a candidate for promising to enforce laws when the first thing they will have to do as President is swear to uphold all laws. Maybe it's not surprising that President Obama and Mrs. Clinton, both lawyers, seem to think upholding immigration laws is optional, whereas Trump, a non lawyer feels he will be obliged to do so.
This is why you should never depend on a single source for your news. I'm not really that upset by this, because in terms of hard news, I have generally turned to the NYT not to get it first, but to get it right and complete. With regard to this particular story, I would have seen the first version (had I been logged on that late, which generally I am not), then the follow-up. I'm not hanging breathlessly on Trump's every word, and as at least one other comment has noted, I expect him to utter self-contradictory statements with no apparent awareness of the contradictions and to pander to whatever audience he happens to find himself facing. And I don't think any sane person on this thread can seriously accuse the NYT of soft-pedaling or going easy on Trump.
Why is Ms Ryan so dug in on this? Her "team" was not up on a fast moving story and the old "print" side of the newsroom is still dominant in the newsroom', it seems. Since I pay for it, I want my news at the speed of the Internet not the speed of a printing press. Get on it. And, I am still looking for confirmation that Trump has actually changed his plan to deport 11 million undocumented people.
1
In general I have been schocked by the publicity The Times has offered Trump to the degree that questions must be asked about much more than "organization." Frankly this column resonates with the range of undone homework owed to various munching by the house pet, i.e. "mechanics." The Times is repeating the same bad stories about Hilary Clinton and portraying Trump as someone who wants to change. The situation is shocking. Meanwhile, The Guardian has apparently become a better paper. How did this happen?
3
Here's the part that jumped out at me: "Patrick Healy, writer of the lead story, drew the short straw..." Meaning that he got chosen, despite his lack of background in what was going on that day, because the Times has laid off so many newsroom personnel that there weren't two people available to cover the story properly? It had sounded to me that Healy had gotten an advanced copy of the speech and wrote his story from that. Without actually being on the ground to listen first hand before he turned it in, the story would have indeed been close to what he wrote. However, in listening first hand, the report would have included all the other elements that rang so false to observers.
20
It is interesting that the responsibility for the operation of the newsroom, even under Ms. Spayd eagle-eyed view, is not placed on the shoulders of Managing Editor Dean Baquet.
When is Ms. Spayd going to start naming names and apportioning responsibility where it really lies.
This is a leadership issue which the Times seems unwilling either to admit or to address.
When is Ms. Spayd going to start naming names and apportioning responsibility where it really lies.
This is a leadership issue which the Times seems unwilling either to admit or to address.
Patrick Healy drew the short straw indeed. But beyond that Healy is an obvious rookie. The tone and language of first two paragraphs read more like a romance novel than a news report. The real blame is on Healy's editors who threw away their blue pencils and let this stuff see the light of day.
2
Dean Baquet stopped being managing editor when his coup deposed Jill Abramson. There no longer IS a managing editor, and perhaps an absence in that position is telling.
1
It's all right. Every sane person in Arizona was already braced for the next round of 'Arizonans are obviously mad, white nationalists.'
2
Unfortunately, the Times lost all credibility long ago, and not just because of how it handles stores about Mr Trump. The Times seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton campaign, conveniently ignoring any story that is at all detrimental to what is left of Hillary's reputation. Woodward and Bernstein used to be the idols of newspaper reporters. Now, it seems, Times reporters idolize George Stephanopoulos, and that is not an improvement.
7
You mean like the lead story today on the Clinton FBI investigation of her emails? Amazing how that story is conveniently ignored when it's the lead, the top, the most important story on page 1 of the New York Times. That's some convenient ignoring right there, yes sir.
1
Yes, I've been reading and recommending the New York Times for over 39 years. I even defended against attacks from conservatives. I myself voted for Obama. I reject the left-right split and like the idea of post-partisan politics. But I find it funny how upset many New York Times readers are that the New York Times went a few minutes without portraying Trump in their almost consistently negative and dismissive way. He couldn't even have a nice visit to the President of Mexico reported in a neutral or sympathetic way. And there were many parts of the speech given later in the day that were more interesting than is supposedly angry tone. And there wasn't a shred of racism in that speech. If you are already convinced he's a racist then it will seem to support your prejudice. But there was nothing per se racist. It has been quite a shock to me how unable the New York Times has been to rise to the occasion of handling in a neutral or fair way somebody that they reporters and editors disapprove of. I now regularly seek other sources of information as I can't depend on the New York Times to let make know what is really going on when the subject is Donal Trump. It's really sad. Also, I think the paper should reconsider the larger meaning of the word bigotry: holding beliefs so strongly that you are intolerant of those who believe differently. The New York Times has succumbed to their contempt for Donald Trump.
Trump trump is so mercurial, so variable, so undisciplined and incoherent that it is difficult for any news agency to keep up with the changes. As well as attempting this, the Times needs to make sure that Trump's delirious mad unpredictability is clearly evident in its articles. Please don't neglect to show the wide swings in mood and changes in substance (where such rational content even exists) by trying to smooth his wild randomness into a semblance of thinking, it is important that the public know that Trump lives in a world where only wild impulsiveness exists.
16
The master manipulator sucker punches the naive new york times staff again. anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming. trump always plays to his audience so it should not have surprised your reporters to find out that his fire eating arizona speach would be entirely different from his obseqious talk with the mexican president. trump knows how liberal news media bends over to be fair. if you know your subject you should expect to be kicked in an appropriate place
13
The uncomfortable truth of this print cum digital age is that the New York Times has failed to recognize that on a moving, breaking story it must deliver news much as the wire services have for decades. Readers who rely on their various digital devices increasingly expect to see lead stories quickly updated with important developments, even if the dateline changes. The Washington Post seems to get it. Why can't the Times?
The apologetic public editor also should be wondering why "none of he main political writers were (sic) on the scene in Mexico City or in Arizona."
The apologetic public editor also should be wondering why "none of he main political writers were (sic) on the scene in Mexico City or in Arizona."
14
Yes. I couldn't agree more. I expect far more from The New York Times. This was a major error - enough excuses.
1
Slow to catch up is not the same as misrepresentation and inaccuracy.
12
But in recent memory, Leslie, the NY Times has been guilty of both.
A sad, sad commentary on the state of affairs in the NY Times Building.
A sad, sad commentary on the state of affairs in the NY Times Building.
2
Wow a lot of vitriol aimed at the Times in these comments. I can certainly understand how people are frightened, disgusted, or aghast at Trump's tone, demeanor, inexperience and inflammatory rhetoric. Take your pick. But I have read far more articles than I can count in these pages that have meticulously documented his business dealings, political proposals, interactions with women over the years, his rallies, the type of vitriol expressed by supporters, the demographics of his supporters, tax avoidance schemes, racial bias, and on and on. Much of it has been very good reporting and leave no doubt to his lack of character and dubious intentions. If you want opinions, judgements, and frightening doomsday predictions, read the editorials and opinion pages. Plenty of those too. But don't confuse one with the other please. I for one don't want a liberal Fox News when I turn to the NYT.
15
When the Times wants to see itself as the very best in its category, the newspaper of record, it should not debase itself with its top political editor whining that reporting is hard, and then getting beaten to the story by a slew of other outlets, from the Amazon Post to vanguardiamx (https://mobile.twitter.com/Random_Pixels/status/771318471967797248).
I think the vitriol reflects, fairly, that the Times reflexive defensiveness regarding mistakes is unbecoming of "the newspaper of record."
I think the vitriol reflects, fairly, that the Times reflexive defensiveness regarding mistakes is unbecoming of "the newspaper of record."
2
Liz Spayd is so liberally bias she can't see past her own norrow mined view. Could it be she heard and read what she wanted to hear, any slightly unbiased opinion, no matter how short lived, is considered invalid. Had it been slanted incorrectly in the other direction would she be singing it's literary praises? I think so!
4
Political Editor Ryan seems to place a much higher priority on defending herself and her team against any criticism than on improving the coverage. Perhaps the Public Editor should take matters further up the chain of command when she gets a stonewalling response like that.
The excuse that reporting is really, really hard doesn't sound like the position of the world's best news source, especially when others are doing better.
The excuse that reporting is really, really hard doesn't sound like the position of the world's best news source, especially when others are doing better.
23
As someone who noticed the story in question and its remarkable departure from the observations of the reporters in the live chat, I see this piece as a sincere effort to own up to the gap. I think that many of my fellow readers are being unduly harsh in their criticism here in the comments--how many other media outlets offer this level of accountability and transparency? I think the Times is setting an admirable standard here and I agree with another reader who commended the Times' overall coverage of this campaign. I think this newspaper's substantive and thought-provoking investigations into both Trump and Clinton have been excellent and that Wednesday evening's piece was a noticeable outlier.
I am thankful that this publication has a public editor with a mandate to point out problems with its reporting in a public way, and encourage change for the better.
I am thankful that this publication has a public editor with a mandate to point out problems with its reporting in a public way, and encourage change for the better.
9
The ones that need to own up to the gap do not include Ms. Spayd, who is merely addressing the issue.
When Political Editor Ryan both predictably and continually responds with the knee-jerk defenses with little or no acceptance of the critique, one has to wonder whether or not the culture in the newsroom, particularly in the interest areas where political bias is possible, has been subsumed by the political interests of everyone in the chain of command, top to bottom.
When Political Editor Ryan both predictably and continually responds with the knee-jerk defenses with little or no acceptance of the critique, one has to wonder whether or not the culture in the newsroom, particularly in the interest areas where political bias is possible, has been subsumed by the political interests of everyone in the chain of command, top to bottom.
1
A newspaper in Mexico got it right....and on deadline, too.
https://twitter.com/Random_Pixels/status/771318471967797248
https://twitter.com/Random_Pixels/status/771318471967797248
5
Fell for the head fake ...
1
I am not a fan of the 'rolling discussion among staff members' if that means the live coverage blog. Most often, it reads like smart alecks bantering with each other and making inane comments that don't tell me enough about what's happening to be worth my time and the space on my screen. What's seriously missing is thoughtfulness and the ability to contextualize the event. Not everyone has to be a Murrow or a Seymour Hersh, but the live coverage blog isn't adding anything of value to my NYT experience.
26
Agreed - and neither is reposting random tweets in lieu of actual journalism.
1
When will all the news outlets figure out that Trump never changes his core messages? The moment your political team wants to write a piece suggesting Trump might be trying to change / soften / refocus his message, wait for a few hours and the real Trump will show his true colors again. That's the story the needs to be written.
14
The Times has always been my landing spot for news but lately I've grown disillusioned. This weird, dissonant story that was so out of sync with what was happening in real time was the straw that broke the camel's back. I honestly couldn't figure out what was wrong - was I missing something with my own eyes which had just watched the speech the TImes was reporting on? It was an unforgivable mess and Ms. Ryan's explanation doesn't cut it.
24
"Quashed," not "squashed." Please.
7
Thank you for rectifying what for me was a very off-kilter interpretation of what I had just experienced. Trust is so important to maintain, perhaps even more important than the momentary disconnect that can happen in the rush of fast-changing news.
4
Here's an article for you, NYT, see if you can keep up:
The Trump Foundation illegally contributed funds to Florida District Attorney candidate Pam Bondi. Ms. Bondi had indicated she would move forward on a class action suit filed by Florida citizens against Trump University. After receiving the funds from Mr. Trump's Foundation, Ms. Bondi suddenly dropped the case, leaving victimized Floridians without a path to justice. This case has two elements: 1) Trump's Foundation broke the law by using its funds for political means; and 2) Trump broke the law by bribing a political official to drop a lawsuit against him.
Now, was that so hard?
The Trump Foundation illegally contributed funds to Florida District Attorney candidate Pam Bondi. Ms. Bondi had indicated she would move forward on a class action suit filed by Florida citizens against Trump University. After receiving the funds from Mr. Trump's Foundation, Ms. Bondi suddenly dropped the case, leaving victimized Floridians without a path to justice. This case has two elements: 1) Trump's Foundation broke the law by using its funds for political means; and 2) Trump broke the law by bribing a political official to drop a lawsuit against him.
Now, was that so hard?
27
One quibble. I think Bondi is Florida Attorney General, not a district attorney.
1
Over a year ago, two of the NYT political reporters, late into the evening, reported that "criminal" charges were forthcoming against Hillary Clinton based on information provided from Gowdy committee. The story ran for nearly 24 hours before being properly corrected. This misinformation could have had grave consequences for her campaign. The former Public Editor, Ms. Sullivan, wrote extensively about this incident. Yet, the reporters in Ms. Ryan's department have continued to have a penchant for writing articles that have not been fully edited.
Please read and carefully analyze what has been written by commenters in your two most recent articles. Many of us have been reading the NYT for decades. We are educated, mostly open-minded, and erudite. We are able to parse sentences. For example, after months and months of NYT reporting on this election, I realized I needed to subscribe to the Washington Post for better understanding of the dynamics of this election. Presently, after more than a decade of digital subscription with NYT, I am contemplating ending it even though I would regret not having access to Krugman, Collins, Kristof, Greenhouse and editorials. Therefore, in a plea to you, as our representative, please accept the sincerity with which we express our discontent, and convey to management that all we are requisition is for. ironically, NYT reporters and its reporting be more "fair and balance" or better "all the news that is fit to print".
Please read and carefully analyze what has been written by commenters in your two most recent articles. Many of us have been reading the NYT for decades. We are educated, mostly open-minded, and erudite. We are able to parse sentences. For example, after months and months of NYT reporting on this election, I realized I needed to subscribe to the Washington Post for better understanding of the dynamics of this election. Presently, after more than a decade of digital subscription with NYT, I am contemplating ending it even though I would regret not having access to Krugman, Collins, Kristof, Greenhouse and editorials. Therefore, in a plea to you, as our representative, please accept the sincerity with which we express our discontent, and convey to management that all we are requisition is for. ironically, NYT reporters and its reporting be more "fair and balance" or better "all the news that is fit to print".
28
The old journalistic tension between "Get it first" and "Get it right" is part of the problem here. For years, I have gone to the Washington Post for early reports on breaking stories. The Times is, journalistically, the more conservative (small c) institution. Whether the Post's "nimble" editorial policy leads to more gaffes, I will let others decide. Perhaps this is yet another reflection of the excessively lean editorial compliment at the financially strained Post. It sure shows up in its grammar.
2
The problem with all the pettifogging re whether he did or did not "soften" his call to deport 11 million people--a "policy" with a shelf-life as long as the next news cycle--is that it ignores the forest--or in this case the forest fire. Trump uncorked a nativist tirade featuring the ghoulish, pathetic spectacle of bereaved parents (all white from what I saw), tying their losses to "illegals." This is not policy--it's demagoguery of the most frightening kind.
Is this how the Times covered Hitler's Nuremburg "policy addresses" of the 1930's?
Is this how the Times covered Hitler's Nuremburg "policy addresses" of the 1930's?
15
This story reflects the speed with which news is expected to be delivered with today's technology. If it's not right to the minute, and second, it's already old and people have moved on, or, as in this case, people are looking for more immediately, and disappointed with the slow response of the NYT. Maybe it's one of the biggest challenges for a printed paper, staying on top, and ahead, of a story in our digital age.
2
Patrick Healey was an energetic instrument in the NYT''s shamefully dismissive coverage of Bernie Sanders' campaign, no doubt expecting access to a Clinton administration. It is not hard to suspect he may have reason to expect access to Trump, just in case.
3
"This 11 p.m. version made no mention of Trump’s invitation to have individuals join him onstage to share the names of relatives who they SAID were killed by illegal immigrants."
These people either WERE or WERE NOT killed by illegal aliens. If they were not, the Democrat machine (or some other fact checking group) would have pointed that out immediately.
Which leads me to conclude that there people were killed by illegal immigrants.
Why the seed of doubt planted by the NY Times? I saw no mention of "allegedly killed by the police" at the Democrat convention.
Why the double standard?
These people either WERE or WERE NOT killed by illegal aliens. If they were not, the Democrat machine (or some other fact checking group) would have pointed that out immediately.
Which leads me to conclude that there people were killed by illegal immigrants.
Why the seed of doubt planted by the NY Times? I saw no mention of "allegedly killed by the police" at the Democrat convention.
Why the double standard?
4
Wasn't really worth researching. I don't think anyone imagines there are no criminals among immigrants (legal or otherwise). Immigrants are just people. A certain percentage are criminals. Just like the rest of the population. Whether the particular people Trump invited on stage were attacked by immigrants who were criminals has nothing to do with anything. You seem to think that if they were, then it would mean Trump made some kind of point, but that's not the case.
Also a nice word - "individuals". Not mothers, not parents, not spouses...
Donʻt assume the live chat is an integral supplement to of the story. I donʻt read it.
8
I'm a subscriber. I'd like my money back.
7
If Trump loses, I'm sure you'll continue to cover him just for the internet eyeballs.
3
Thanks for noting; now can the front page news reflect this.
8
"anyone entering the United States illegally will be deported"
Isn't that the law? Since when has that become controversial?
Isn't that the law? Since when has that become controversial?
9
The expense of deporting everyone is too great. So anyone entering the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation (as Trump has said elsewhere), but that does not actually mean it will happen because of the expense involved makes mass deportation cost prohibitive.
That is why anyone serious about ending illegal immigration goes after those who employ illegal immigrants. That is the cheaper so more prosecutions can happen and the motive to enter illegally can be more effectively eliminated.
That is why anyone serious about ending illegal immigration goes after those who employ illegal immigrants. That is the cheaper so more prosecutions can happen and the motive to enter illegally can be more effectively eliminated.
5
You're right, it is current law. Since when does Mr. Trump think it requires a change?
2
Ms Spayd writes: "Here’s my take. I see nothing nefarious or ill-intentioned on the part of any editors or reporters involved in the Trump piece."
The public editor, once again, defends the Times from any and all criticism. Who's not surprised?
This has become the new public editor's modus operandi.
Readers complain.
The public editor reluctantly contacts a Times editor about it.
Public Editor Rrecords the editor's defense of her actions.
The Times public editor agrees with the Times editor.
End of story.
The public editor, once again, defends the Times from any and all criticism. Who's not surprised?
This has become the new public editor's modus operandi.
Readers complain.
The public editor reluctantly contacts a Times editor about it.
Public Editor Rrecords the editor's defense of her actions.
The Times public editor agrees with the Times editor.
End of story.
38
The Public Editor very clearly critiques the Times process in this piece.
4
You could try reading the next paragraph.
2
Well of course the Public Editor agrees with the times editor!
When it's all said and done, who has the power to hire and fire her? The NYTimes!
There in no possible way for the Public Editor to be an independent voice!
When it's all said and done, who has the power to hire and fire her? The NYTimes!
There in no possible way for the Public Editor to be an independent voice!
5
C'mon, NYT. A lot of us are paying $40 every month (plus voluntarily enduring obnoxious half-screen pop-up ads) in order for you to get the story.
Certainly you know this candidate is volatile and unpredictable. (That's part of his formula for attracting media, by the way.) Certainly you had to expect a rally in Arizona following a "state visit" would be potentially newsworthy, and nearly certain to yield a Trumpian contradiction.
You've had a full year to adapt. Tighten up, or you'll start losing paying customers.
Certainly you know this candidate is volatile and unpredictable. (That's part of his formula for attracting media, by the way.) Certainly you had to expect a rally in Arizona following a "state visit" would be potentially newsworthy, and nearly certain to yield a Trumpian contradiction.
You've had a full year to adapt. Tighten up, or you'll start losing paying customers.
44
This response was #sad.
What the NYT really needed/needs is a stronger newsroom team and process. And rather than a Public Editor column, a front page apology from the Publisher was and is in order. And that Ryan believes that she may make those statements in lieu of an apoliogy goes directly to the heart of the problem.
Yes, how about the NYT spending a bit MORE TIME on actual journalism and news and not video and endless ads that screw up the displayed pages? For many years, you were my browser home page -- that stopped after your last design change aka the beginning of the broken NYT. Perhaps you shouldn't have pushed Jill A out quite so fast? You've done nothing but go downhill. (And I've been a subscriber for decades and a reader for more...)
What the NYT really needed/needs is a stronger newsroom team and process. And rather than a Public Editor column, a front page apology from the Publisher was and is in order. And that Ryan believes that she may make those statements in lieu of an apoliogy goes directly to the heart of the problem.
Yes, how about the NYT spending a bit MORE TIME on actual journalism and news and not video and endless ads that screw up the displayed pages? For many years, you were my browser home page -- that stopped after your last design change aka the beginning of the broken NYT. Perhaps you shouldn't have pushed Jill A out quite so fast? You've done nothing but go downhill. (And I've been a subscriber for decades and a reader for more...)
8
The Times is a mess. Their subscription prices aren't even consistent from one device to another. It seems like now they want to be Lifehacker with a front page full of how-to tips; their journalism standards have dropped to a lifetime low; they're missing timely news stories and sending me to other sources over and over as the same stories stay on the front digital page for days. And yes, I miss Margaret as public editor; she seemed a little less like part of the corporate PR machine and more like a real journalist.
8
I submit that "Jill A" was an early symptom of the decline of the New York Times. Sorry to say: the NYT has been slipping for many years. The current management's mad and wholly irrational embrace of digital-first/print-later only accelerates that decline. What's most disappointing is that no one on Eighth Avenue appears to realize that they've got it all backwards, publishing long, boring, minimal reader-interest takeouts in the print edition and shunting hard news to the web.
Something Trump said in his Phoenix tirade has been, as usual, glossed over by the MSM. He claimed at one point that he had lots and lots of Mexican friends, good friends, friends who worked on his construction sites and at his properties.
It's in these little details that political coverage is utterly failing to inform readers about what is truly happening.
It's in these little details that political coverage is utterly failing to inform readers about what is truly happening.
17
Right. And he loves taco bowls. Demented Donald's "lots of mexican friends" and employees are people whose name he does not know and whose lives he obviously could care less about. At least these Mexicans and other Latinos are not as stupid as his white trash supporters who actually believe everything this clown says. Trump does not have a clue, not a clue, about the every day life of "common" people, white european aryans or indigenous hispanics or mestizos from latin america. Similarly he knows nothing about the lives of "his" blacks, or care. Spiritually deformed narcissists sociopaths simply don't care about anyone unless it is to use them, abuse them or have them lick his rear.
7
@paul b
Do you believe him?
Do you believe him?
1
The NY Times has shown extraordinary deference to Trump while perpetuating the myths promulgated by the AP about the Clinton Foundation. The false equivalence we see in the NY Times between Clinton and Trump is abhorrent. Frankly, this election is the most important issue facing Americans right now, and if the NY Times cannot fulfill its journalistic responsibility to readers to inform them about the realities of the two presidential candidates then it has failed its readers. The NY Daily News, for all its reputation as a tabloid has done a better job assessing the two candidates than the NY Times which is quickly losing its reputation as the country's "paper of record."
66
I agree,especially their feeling that there is equivalency to the Hillary stories, they have been the largest engine of reporting for those stories. There should be more effort to clarify the hysterics that come out of the right through Judicial Watch.
9
No one has explained why, as you pointed out, other news outlets were on top of this while the Times wasn't. Are you understaffed? Are your resources poorly distributed or deployed? What does WaPo have that NYT doesn't?
42
"What does WaPo have that NYT doesn't?"
The loss of press credentials for Trump events and a bigger ax to grind, for starters.
The loss of press credentials for Trump events and a bigger ax to grind, for starters.
1
Jeff Bezos?
Backbone.
I certainly hope this contretemps doesn't cloud the Times coverage or cast a shadow over it's reporting on the Trump campaign.
6
Has Judith Miller returned to the Times under the name Healey and taken over complete control of the election and candidate reporting?
The Times - leaving its reputation as a leading NEWS source behind, has become a Trump cheerleader/Clinton Hater, in the style of right-wing click-bait tabloids! Incredibly disappointing.
This election is between a sane person who will steer our nation in the direction advanced by our Founders - that ALL are created equal, and a sociopathic xenophobe who advances White Supremacist memes, divisive policies, racist, sexist, misogynistic, nativist themes along with an agenda that promises nothing but misery for millions. And in that he thinks it fine to threaten reporters with imprisonment for writing articles unfavorable to him, I would expect at least a LITTLE pushback from a news organization! Instead, the Times allows its resident anti-Hillary, Trump apologist to make up a story advancing a version of Trump that just does not exist, while we hear continuing innuendos and attacks on Clinton - for being involved with a Foundation that is saving lives!
These candidates are not equal - and no amount of effort on the part of your writers will make them so. Clinton has spent 40 years working to improve the lives of women, children, families, veterans, workers here in America. Trump has spent 70 years trying to improve the life of Trump, at the expense of those same people. Your writers don't see the difference?
The Times - leaving its reputation as a leading NEWS source behind, has become a Trump cheerleader/Clinton Hater, in the style of right-wing click-bait tabloids! Incredibly disappointing.
This election is between a sane person who will steer our nation in the direction advanced by our Founders - that ALL are created equal, and a sociopathic xenophobe who advances White Supremacist memes, divisive policies, racist, sexist, misogynistic, nativist themes along with an agenda that promises nothing but misery for millions. And in that he thinks it fine to threaten reporters with imprisonment for writing articles unfavorable to him, I would expect at least a LITTLE pushback from a news organization! Instead, the Times allows its resident anti-Hillary, Trump apologist to make up a story advancing a version of Trump that just does not exist, while we hear continuing innuendos and attacks on Clinton - for being involved with a Foundation that is saving lives!
These candidates are not equal - and no amount of effort on the part of your writers will make them so. Clinton has spent 40 years working to improve the lives of women, children, families, veterans, workers here in America. Trump has spent 70 years trying to improve the life of Trump, at the expense of those same people. Your writers don't see the difference?
61
I could not agree with this more...thank you!
3
Those commenters criticizing NYTimes for this one story, and extending that to suggest that NYT has been somehow lacking in its other coverage of Trump, are not reading the same newspaper I have been. I see NYTimes as a media leader on the Trump story overall, with week after week of detailed, powerful exposes of this candidate's history in shaky business deals, housing discrimination, customer and vendor scamming, campaign shakeups and the rest. I see no horrible reporting lapse in being slightly behind on Trump's mystifying doublespeak; I think we're all having trouble keeping up with Trump's juggling act or whatever it is he thinks he's doing.
NYTimes has also been constant in its critical look at Ms. Clinton's ongoing email saga and other troubles, in an exchange that looks very balanced to me. I see nothing here but excellent reporting.
NYTimes has also been constant in its critical look at Ms. Clinton's ongoing email saga and other troubles, in an exchange that looks very balanced to me. I see nothing here but excellent reporting.
11
The headline today about Clinton does not represent balanced journalism. Two people asked and were told no.
1
The Times' journalistic malpractice represents yet another of the cloudy clouds which have cast a shadow over its coverage of anything remotely related to the Clintons. Cloudy, shadowy questions that raise Very Troubling Questions That Refuse to Go Away of the Kind That Have Dogged The Times' Coverage Since the 1990's.
Sorry, but it's hard not to use the words that appear in most every story the NYT publishes about Hillary. It is profoundly troubling that both Spayd and Ryan implicitly acknowledge that Healy's story was apparently written before he'd heard or seen the text of the actual speech and yet neither of them seems to think that was, in itself, bad practice. It is troubling that the Times' doesn't seem to worry that doing that creates a confirmation bias filter when (or if) the reporter updates the story after the speech is released that causes him to miss the fact that he was utterly, completely wrong.
And it is deeply troubling, albeit typical, that the problem of the Times' failure to acknowledge the post-publication editing in an Editor's Note, is ignored. Because, hey, it's not as if that's is a thing that's ever been a problem for the Times in a story relating to this campaign before.
Sorry, but it's hard not to use the words that appear in most every story the NYT publishes about Hillary. It is profoundly troubling that both Spayd and Ryan implicitly acknowledge that Healy's story was apparently written before he'd heard or seen the text of the actual speech and yet neither of them seems to think that was, in itself, bad practice. It is troubling that the Times' doesn't seem to worry that doing that creates a confirmation bias filter when (or if) the reporter updates the story after the speech is released that causes him to miss the fact that he was utterly, completely wrong.
And it is deeply troubling, albeit typical, that the problem of the Times' failure to acknowledge the post-publication editing in an Editor's Note, is ignored. Because, hey, it's not as if that's is a thing that's ever been a problem for the Times in a story relating to this campaign before.
34
I'm sure you felt you had to get something out there. Something it was. Kinda silly we pillory the one trying to get their job done while Donald keeps the Phoenix crown hanging. Possibly Bannon has a mole in your print shop?
8
Yet again, a story is badly mistaken, and yet again, the editor insists that nothing could have been done. "Ryan maintains that The Times was on the news too. She said that there has been too much focus on this single piece. " Yes. When there's a subway crash, everybody focuses on that one instance instead of the thousands of trains that run smoothly. That's what makes it news. Same goes with mistakes by the Times -- when a story is this badly mistaken, it's a serious issue, no matter how many other stories were correct.
Thank you for pointing out that many other major news sources didn't make this mistake, and that the Times was shockingly slow to correct it even though the story was called out on Twitter among reporters almost immediately.
Thank you for pointing out that many other major news sources didn't make this mistake, and that the Times was shockingly slow to correct it even though the story was called out on Twitter among reporters almost immediately.
25
What I don't understand in the original lede is the use of the word "audacious," which suggests something positive from a candidate who disqualified himself as a bigot long ago. Audacious? Perhaps conniving would be a better word. Meanwhile, all the reporters were busy having a live chat, which was filed there on the front/home page as "Highlights and Analysis" as if this is Sports Center. That was later changed to "Coverage and Analysis," assumedly because there are no "highlights" in a Trump speech. Only lies, lies and more lies, which the reporters sometimes noticed, sometimes not.
What is most disturbing is the coverage takes Trump seriously at all. Perhaps as a potential tyrant he could be taken seriously, but to refer to his "shelving his plan" suggests that there is anything serious about his plan at all. It's time we stopped covering him as if he means anything he says and just start discussing what a Clinton presidency will look like. A newspaper can do that, you know.
What is most disturbing is the coverage takes Trump seriously at all. Perhaps as a potential tyrant he could be taken seriously, but to refer to his "shelving his plan" suggests that there is anything serious about his plan at all. It's time we stopped covering him as if he means anything he says and just start discussing what a Clinton presidency will look like. A newspaper can do that, you know.
24
Unfortunately, and unforgivably, the NYT's "reputation" for at least this one "reader" is already in the thrash due to it's one-sided, nit-picking, and excessive fault-finding with Mr. Trump. That the "tedious newsroom mechanics" may have led to a somewhat placid (as opposed to the now annoyingly and predictably screechy tone) piece on Mr. Trump, and to write a piece apologizing for it, is to this reader at least, laughable. Welcome to the era of an unmentionable Mexican billionaire!
7
While others find that the Times has been too lax in pointing out the inconsistency and fabrications in Trump's statements.
The idea that Times is too tough on Trump seems a bit...odd...
The idea that Times is too tough on Trump seems a bit...odd...
6
I continue to be disappointed by Ms, Spayd's conception of her role. This column is a legitimate one for a media critic, but it has little to do with what I think a public editor should be doing. The Times took too long (by an hour or two) to change its story. Other news sites did it faster. I think the word trivial applies.
The previous public editor seemed to focus on things like the unspoken assumptions of Times articles, whether there was "spin," on decisions about was important enough to cover, about whether the reporting methods reflected sources' agendas, etc. I hope Ms. Spayd begins to look at those sorts of issues.
The previous public editor seemed to focus on things like the unspoken assumptions of Times articles, whether there was "spin," on decisions about was important enough to cover, about whether the reporting methods reflected sources' agendas, etc. I hope Ms. Spayd begins to look at those sorts of issues.
17
I wasn't too upset by The Times' delay in changing the story. They're often a little late to break, and often more accurate than the competition, and I'll take that trade-off.
What is upsetting is this: “'[...H]e was backing away from his policy to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants,' she said." Although that's what he wanted moderates to believe, it's not supported by what he actually said, which is that the priority would be placed on deporting criminal illegal aliens. As being in this country illegally is itself a crime, there's no reason to believe his speech represented a change in policy at all. Here's point three from his ten-point policy: "Zero tolerance for criminal aliens." He did also imply that the government would be prioritizing the deportation of illegal aliens who've committed crimes since arriving, but it's just part of the intentionally vague Rorschach portrait he painted. The Times, as well as other news outlets, let him off easy on this one.
What is upsetting is this: “'[...H]e was backing away from his policy to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants,' she said." Although that's what he wanted moderates to believe, it's not supported by what he actually said, which is that the priority would be placed on deporting criminal illegal aliens. As being in this country illegally is itself a crime, there's no reason to believe his speech represented a change in policy at all. Here's point three from his ten-point policy: "Zero tolerance for criminal aliens." He did also imply that the government would be prioritizing the deportation of illegal aliens who've committed crimes since arriving, but it's just part of the intentionally vague Rorschach portrait he painted. The Times, as well as other news outlets, let him off easy on this one.
10
Sounds like the Harry Golden Rule needs a tune up!
Calvin Trillin came up with this rule to describe your paper's problemo. He was riffing on Harry Golden's shock Goldwater announced just as Harry had cracked wise about a Jewish President, but before his joke hit the street. Blat went that trumpet.
"in present day America it's very difficult, when commenting on the events of the day, to invent something so bizarre that it might not actually come to pass while your piece is still on the presses."
So you did make a bizarre guess Donald was pivoting toward progress, but he regressed back into El Payaso del Norte in under an hour.
I'd look into Nigel Farage if I were you guys. He's quit his UKIP leadership and his government post, so he's obviously looking for a new roost to boost from. US TV? Let us not forget we fought the British to impose our own Mexican presidents, and I fear Donald's with Nigel's crew, Scooby.
Calvin Trillin came up with this rule to describe your paper's problemo. He was riffing on Harry Golden's shock Goldwater announced just as Harry had cracked wise about a Jewish President, but before his joke hit the street. Blat went that trumpet.
"in present day America it's very difficult, when commenting on the events of the day, to invent something so bizarre that it might not actually come to pass while your piece is still on the presses."
So you did make a bizarre guess Donald was pivoting toward progress, but he regressed back into El Payaso del Norte in under an hour.
I'd look into Nigel Farage if I were you guys. He's quit his UKIP leadership and his government post, so he's obviously looking for a new roost to boost from. US TV? Let us not forget we fought the British to impose our own Mexican presidents, and I fear Donald's with Nigel's crew, Scooby.
2
"For many readers, the story looked like a significant misportrayal of events."
Nothing new here. The NYTimes regularly misportrays illegal aliens ("immigrants") and has recently embraced of yellow journalism (just this week: Bruni, Blow, Krugman, etc.).
By the way, how does the NYTimes define an "immigrant", Ms. Spayd, and does the paper recognize any other category of non-citizen inside our borders?
Nothing new here. The NYTimes regularly misportrays illegal aliens ("immigrants") and has recently embraced of yellow journalism (just this week: Bruni, Blow, Krugman, etc.).
By the way, how does the NYTimes define an "immigrant", Ms. Spayd, and does the paper recognize any other category of non-citizen inside our borders?
5
An immigrant may come to the use without the necessary visas or a foreign national with a tourist visa may overstay the permitted number of days. Those persons will have committed an illegal ACT. It is certainly NOT accurate or grammatically correct to use the term "illegal alien" or "illegal person", in my view. There may be "illegal casinos", "illegal dogfights", "illegal drugs"...or there may be "illegal entry" but "illegal" as an adjective describing a person (immigrant, alien, resident) just does not sound quite correct. And i don't mean just "politically correct". In any case, Demented Donald will never be elected so we can hope that his jingoistic, racist and xenophobic acolytes can crawl back under the rocks they live under. You can come back out for air in 8 years or so. Although I predict that by that deate, Trump will probably be locked up in a looney bin or quietly sitting in a nursing home suffering from Alzheimer's.
3
It was pretty clear that DT's appearance in Mexico and, then, in a "major speech" in Phoenix would be completely different in tone and THAT is the story for the day: play nice, then rant and rave. Hard to miss that one.
To be fair to The Times, however, DT is an unpredictable nutjob who spews as he sees fit. His "major speech" was nothing of the kind, just more of the same.
To be fair to The Times, however, DT is an unpredictable nutjob who spews as he sees fit. His "major speech" was nothing of the kind, just more of the same.
4
So, the Times reporting can't keep up with other major media outlets such as the Washington Post.
Got it.
Got it.
24
Don't feel bad, you just got punked by El Payaso del Norte. Imagine EPN's face when Donald returned to Phoenix to fire up another wagon.
PLEASE don't call him the Arizona Trump. Just because he and Kobach treat us like their dummies, we don't all mouth their SB1070 rhetoric to remain safe from their deportation forces. Put those wind catchers back in Kansas so we can get some rest.
In fact, long before Donald got around to clowning about immigration, AZ was challenged by the US Chamber of Commerce for using E-Verify and birthing the FIRST law to hold accountable employers for hiring undocumented workers. Caught twice, you can't incorporate in AZ, again.
Better go back to Kansas. SCOTUS had to tell USCC the free ride on the backs of "illegals" was over. But their fully funded governor, Janet Brewer, hasn't let the AG apply that law since she got elected. Go figure. Still luring folks up from Mexico to stock up their private prisons.
PLEASE don't call him the Arizona Trump. Just because he and Kobach treat us like their dummies, we don't all mouth their SB1070 rhetoric to remain safe from their deportation forces. Put those wind catchers back in Kansas so we can get some rest.
In fact, long before Donald got around to clowning about immigration, AZ was challenged by the US Chamber of Commerce for using E-Verify and birthing the FIRST law to hold accountable employers for hiring undocumented workers. Caught twice, you can't incorporate in AZ, again.
Better go back to Kansas. SCOTUS had to tell USCC the free ride on the backs of "illegals" was over. But their fully funded governor, Janet Brewer, hasn't let the AG apply that law since she got elected. Go figure. Still luring folks up from Mexico to stock up their private prisons.
5
The Times seems to have missed the main point: the newspaper of record's main story was allowed to remain in place prominently on its website long after it stopped accurately reflecting reality. Why on earth wasn't it pulled off and ten reposted once it was appropriately updated? If all these other areas of the Times--the live feed, etc. were accurate, why not put a placeholder where the story had been saying, in effect, "this story is being updated to reflect the most resent events,. Meantime, you can check these other resources for up to the minute information." Buys you time and you don't look stupid.
21
The important facets of where and when this story would unfold could have been predicted by a fourth grader. The Times itself reported in anticipation of the potentially dramatic sequence of the presidential meeting followed by the major policy speech. But then stopped at gauzy coverage of the meeting and didn't cover the speech? This is like if NBC had left the camera trained on the starting blocks of the Rio men's 100m sprint, gave a flowery description of the 8th place finisher, and mentioned that Usain Bolt was also in the race. Then explained, "well we were working hard to cover the start, and we were caught off guard when there were rapid developments at the end".
7
Excellent anaylsis. Live Chat is not news coverage. You are right to wonder about the effect of missteps like this one on the Times's reputation.
6
Nowhere could I find was the Mexico ETA. And that made me finally give up. I found the Arizona speech at 7PM finally listed on Cspan as 9, watched Rudy and Jeff Sessions who introduced Pence and couldn't take anymore, turned it off and went to bed.
2
While your explanation is refreshing, you still aren't getting to the reality of the situation. The news from Trump did not change. Trump was quieter while in Mexico, but he was no less irrational, and certainly failed in his attempt to "look Presidential." He read prepared remarks with as much feeling as Siri, said nothing of actual content, and reinforced the already obvious image of someone completely unqualified and unprepared for the office of the Presidency.
I have to wonder why the Times is working so hard to help Donald Trump get elected.
I have to wonder why the Times is working so hard to help Donald Trump get elected.
13
The problem is that this happens regularly with The Times. And I seem to recall the editor, Carolyn Ryan, giving similar excuses in the past. It almost always boils down to "wasn't me." I see the biggest problem with the Times being a culture that refuses to accept their responsibilities from the top down and little to nothing ever changes. The paper of record has become another tabloid.
18
Ms. Spayd, I suspect your job must be a hard one, and we appreciate it. However, I will add my voice to the others here: your last two posts have been far too kind to the newsroom. Watching the coverage of the campaign unfold as it has, one cannot help but believe the NYT has either not been on top of their game, or that the reporters are simply too overwhelmed, or wrapped up in events, or even with a likely subconscious agenda, to see the forest for the trees. With all respect, you can and should be tougher on them.
23
Really, NYT? It appears the story was changed without acknowledging the original errors in reporting. Does it have an impact on how I view the NYT as a subscriber? You bet it does. I need to be able to trust you, and this, this is a betrayal. You can't mischaracterize a story, go back and make changes, and then not tell your readers that you changed your original story. You're the New York Times.
13
Rather put off by the dismissive tone regarding bereaved relatives of those "they say were killed by illegal immigrants." Either someone is in jail for these murders or they're not. When it comes to sexual assault or BLM, unsubstantiated accusations are routinely treated as evidence by this paper, and then extrapolated to argue epidemic. Inconvenient truths exist outside your own agenda. How I long for dispassionate reporting that all sides can rely on. Selectively informed = underinformed, no matter how good it makes you feel in the moment.
3
So yeah, the Times muffed it. A little. By an hour or so. At a time when most of its readers have gone to bed or turned on the TV. The self-flagelation is amusing, even a trifle deserved, but isn't the other side of the coin when everyone complains that the Times rushed something into print without taking a moment for analysis and deciding on how to best cover a story?
I guess it's true: you can never win, so just keep on.
I guess it's true: you can never win, so just keep on.
4
It was confusing. Ms. Spayd, why the Times did not report what had gone on at the Trump rally in an article that night immediately, but two reporters were giving live conversational coverage that night in real time.
I thought there may be just some reason because of the late hour, especially with the time differences, per coast, that the rally story would hit in the morning.
Rare as it is, my comment about the destructiveness of Trump at the rally, which was going on when I wrote it, was not published......I thought maybe it was because the comment was "ahead of the Times" - no pun intended.
Oh well, we got our fill on TV that night and in the morning, (and are still getting it); another news/media venue huuuuugely and bigly disliked by Trump.
What will you all do after Election Day? What will we all do? :)
I thought there may be just some reason because of the late hour, especially with the time differences, per coast, that the rally story would hit in the morning.
Rare as it is, my comment about the destructiveness of Trump at the rally, which was going on when I wrote it, was not published......I thought maybe it was because the comment was "ahead of the Times" - no pun intended.
Oh well, we got our fill on TV that night and in the morning, (and are still getting it); another news/media venue huuuuugely and bigly disliked by Trump.
What will you all do after Election Day? What will we all do? :)
4
How does one accurately report the precise position of a politician who bungee-jumps from a bridge?
5
I'd like to remind readers that our NY Times did a very good job helping to sink Al Gore's chances of winning the Presidency years ago, using Maureen Dowd to repeat and confirm the lies from Republican operatives. Both Maureen and her editors knew that Al hadn't claimed to invent the internet, that he never claimed he and Tipper were the basis of "Love Story", etc. And yet, Maureen and the Times repeated these inanities until people began believing them ("If a liberal paper like the Times reports these things, then they MUST be true!").
Or what about the Times' coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq war?
Anyone looking to the Times for fairness or accuracy, I say you are looking in the wrong place.
Or what about the Times' coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq war?
Anyone looking to the Times for fairness or accuracy, I say you are looking in the wrong place.
24
What do we expect from The Times? Do we readers want wire service speed reporting on even the fairly predictable, such as more mad sputtering so from the current GOP demagogue? Do we demand the online reporting match to the second what we see on TV, anger and all, because we want the Times to affirm our own perceptions? The Times already has real time bloggers for many major stories if that is your need.
My God! It took a whole HOUR for the Times to amend its lede to hit the right emphasis.
Congrats to Politico, WAPO and the Arizona Republic for striking a more accurate lede a whole HOUR before the online Times. This at a point at night when a newspaper (the old fashioned kind) is "being put to bed" and deadlines for the print paper are at hand.
But, dear Times readers, be careful what you demand. Particularly on political news -- which usually has no impact on anything immediately other than our feelings -- I would prefer the Times take an hour to get it responsibly right.
Is the error here really the old one of amending the lede too quickly and not getting it quite right? In this case, Trump's visit to Mexico story required an update to reflect the Phoenix rant. I don't expect The Times website to match the AP for speed. And I hope for more than confirmation of what I see on TV late at night or mere "click bait."
I see the failure here as moving too fast. To those of us hungry for responsible journalism, a good read requires time to simmer.
My God! It took a whole HOUR for the Times to amend its lede to hit the right emphasis.
Congrats to Politico, WAPO and the Arizona Republic for striking a more accurate lede a whole HOUR before the online Times. This at a point at night when a newspaper (the old fashioned kind) is "being put to bed" and deadlines for the print paper are at hand.
But, dear Times readers, be careful what you demand. Particularly on political news -- which usually has no impact on anything immediately other than our feelings -- I would prefer the Times take an hour to get it responsibly right.
Is the error here really the old one of amending the lede too quickly and not getting it quite right? In this case, Trump's visit to Mexico story required an update to reflect the Phoenix rant. I don't expect The Times website to match the AP for speed. And I hope for more than confirmation of what I see on TV late at night or mere "click bait."
I see the failure here as moving too fast. To those of us hungry for responsible journalism, a good read requires time to simmer.
4
I am so close to cancelling my subscription. Why is the Times desperately reminding us it was Judith Miller's employer for far too long? Somebody is going to get a book or dissertation out, after the fact, on how the NY Times failed so badly, time and again, covering Election 2016.
The multitude of Trump stories, like a 7:1 ratio for covering Clinton. The Clinton Derangement Syndrome on the part of your reporters (and let's not mention Maureen Dowd). It is frightening to see the NY Times falling apart, in real time.
Sad!
The multitude of Trump stories, like a 7:1 ratio for covering Clinton. The Clinton Derangement Syndrome on the part of your reporters (and let's not mention Maureen Dowd). It is frightening to see the NY Times falling apart, in real time.
Sad!
15
Hey, I don't blame the NYT. Trump made a total reversal on every claim when he spoke to Pres. Nieto, and that was the big story. It was jarring for everyone when he immediately switched back to racist, fascist mode. That it took over an hour to catch up and reflect the whipsaw moves of this unstable man is not that surprising.
Everyday he should be hounded for tax return .
Same as prove his wife was here legally. Where is her documents?
Same as prove his wife was here legally. Where is her documents?
11
I guess the Times could try to be a CNN. But look where the 24/7 loudspeaker approach got them. I could use less coverage of Trump, even if that means it's less 'seamless'.
7
My 35 years as a reporter for newspapers, radio and network TV, brought me to my feet when, at the near-end to his speech, Mr
Trump reversed course on his determination to deport some 11
million hispanic residents of the United States.
It was a startling confession that he had at last seen this sort of Trump violence promised the death of his campaign for the White
House.
And it was the LEDE of the report on the Phoenix speech. It was the ESSENCE of the Trump message in his Phoenix diatribe.
I watched more than one of the TV "analyses" by clustered "experts" who purport to explain what they have just seen and heard from the candidate of the moment. It was clear that not one had heard the Trump confession of a fearsome political conclusion on his part.
The NYTimes need NOT explain its "exclusive" reporting.
It is for its competitors to explain why they missed the biggest story thus far in the meanderings of Donald Trump.
Trump reversed course on his determination to deport some 11
million hispanic residents of the United States.
It was a startling confession that he had at last seen this sort of Trump violence promised the death of his campaign for the White
House.
And it was the LEDE of the report on the Phoenix speech. It was the ESSENCE of the Trump message in his Phoenix diatribe.
I watched more than one of the TV "analyses" by clustered "experts" who purport to explain what they have just seen and heard from the candidate of the moment. It was clear that not one had heard the Trump confession of a fearsome political conclusion on his part.
The NYTimes need NOT explain its "exclusive" reporting.
It is for its competitors to explain why they missed the biggest story thus far in the meanderings of Donald Trump.
4
"For many readers it looked like a significant misportrayal of events." The reason it looked that way, is because it was. And was not significantly portrayed other wise by any of the updates. The public editor seems to have become a subsidiary of the marketing department.
12
Given that the Times has been unrelentingly tough on Trump in recent months, this one instance of failing to be sufficiently tough, in a complex story written on deadline, hardly seems a major misstep. The sum impression of the Times' daily coverage of Trump is that he is woefully unqualified to be president--and no doubt the vast majority of Times readers agree. As a former journalist I wish the public editor were as vigilant about anti-Trump overkill as about an occasional instance of letting him (briefly) get away with something.
5
Even in this era of instant reportage, I would rather The Times take an extra hour -- easy for me to say as I'm asleep well before 11 p.m. -- and get it right than jump into the scrum and have to retract later.
The Times is my go-to source. I want it right the first time, and I'm willing to wait for it to be right, even if The Times, as it appears to have been in this case, is well behind the curve. It is frequently ahead of the curve on many stories. Just listen to CBS or NPR, and then recall that you already saw that story in The Times.
Besides, anyone who believed that Trump's trumped-up meeting with Pena Nieto was a serious effort to craft a workable immigration policy needs to change smoking materials.
The Phoenix speech was the real Trump. Mexico City was Trump's advisers trying to put lipstick on their pig (not meant to insult pigs). And Trump will always be Trump.
Take the time, get it as close to correct as you can. I'll read it in the morning.
Bob Neal
New Sharon, Maine
The Times is my go-to source. I want it right the first time, and I'm willing to wait for it to be right, even if The Times, as it appears to have been in this case, is well behind the curve. It is frequently ahead of the curve on many stories. Just listen to CBS or NPR, and then recall that you already saw that story in The Times.
Besides, anyone who believed that Trump's trumped-up meeting with Pena Nieto was a serious effort to craft a workable immigration policy needs to change smoking materials.
The Phoenix speech was the real Trump. Mexico City was Trump's advisers trying to put lipstick on their pig (not meant to insult pigs). And Trump will always be Trump.
Take the time, get it as close to correct as you can. I'll read it in the morning.
Bob Neal
New Sharon, Maine
5
My sympathies to the Times editors and writers. Trump is like the father from the cartoon Family Guy, Peter Griffin. He has no attention span and chases every squirrel like a dog to get his audiences attention. It's hard to cover a guy who just jetted 2 times across the border he plans to make impregnable to anyone else. Trump then topped off the farce with a nicey nice press conference in Mexico followed by a bloviating anti Mexican speech immediately afterwards. This guy has no shame but anyone who supports him should be very ashamed.
5
Trump gives lots of headline opportunities...but why does the NYT give him Soooo much coverage? Even the apology for inaccurate coverage was coverage. This guy never met a headline he didn't like especially if he didn't have to pay for it. How many Trump leads does it take to turn out an edition? For him there's no such thing as bad publicity. It gives him a chance to get his ranting response published.
9
Uh, I'm confused. Yesterday, the public editor said that the NY Times attempt to connect Hillary Clinton to bizarre and offensive actions of the husband of one of her aides was legitimate news.
But they were wrong not to give extensive coverage to one of the rare moments when Trump himself was not foaming at the mouth.
Seems like a double standard.
But they were wrong not to give extensive coverage to one of the rare moments when Trump himself was not foaming at the mouth.
Seems like a double standard.
2
I could not agree more with the comments to this article. The problem is more fundamental than simply a tight deadline. The tTmes used to provide a neutral perspective with a serious analysis of issues. Too often, daily, the only headlines on the front page of the app are about Trump, containing articles without much substance, when nothing is written about Clinton except for her "shabby email practices". The paper seems very biased, trying to please an electorate which has evolved since the primaries, or trying to compete with USA today...
This is an important time. Please balance coverage of the candidates, and provide the unbiased analysis and outrage we can read in any international paper these days.
This is an important time. Please balance coverage of the candidates, and provide the unbiased analysis and outrage we can read in any international paper these days.
5
"None of the main political writers were on the scene in Mexico City or in Arizona....."
Game....set....match.
Game....set....match.
9
Stay ahead of the story. Don't be the guy running to catch up. I subscribe to this paper because I think you are one of the best in the world. Now get out there and do your job.
8
I, for one, am not going to be critical of the Times for a one hour online delay in describing the ever changing, flip-flopping mendacity of Trump.
It would be best though not to burden Mr. Healy (or any other reporter) from writing two pieces at once on Trump while Trump is in the middle of yet another surreal political rally speaking out of the other side of his mouth. Expect the worst from this candidate and plan accordingly.
It would be best though not to burden Mr. Healy (or any other reporter) from writing two pieces at once on Trump while Trump is in the middle of yet another surreal political rally speaking out of the other side of his mouth. Expect the worst from this candidate and plan accordingly.
4
Employing military combat tactics' strategy, Donald Trump has adapted and evolved on the high-risk stake game of dealing with a friendly media turned hostile.
During the primaries, Trump used the sniper's playbook. He took advantage of free publicity from a media enchanted with a new source of audience and revenues. It worked perfectly well as he dominated the center stage during the debates.
In the general election, Trump had to change tactics and is using the shooting on the move combat tactic. The media became the enemy now.
The same day political events in Mexico and Phoenix, described in this piece, are a good example of adaptation/ evolution. Trump attempts to confound media critics on the real meaning of his political messages.
On November 9th, 2016 we'll find out who is standing up in this thrilling game media versus Donald Trump. American presidential elections are no longer a boring ritual.
During the primaries, Trump used the sniper's playbook. He took advantage of free publicity from a media enchanted with a new source of audience and revenues. It worked perfectly well as he dominated the center stage during the debates.
In the general election, Trump had to change tactics and is using the shooting on the move combat tactic. The media became the enemy now.
The same day political events in Mexico and Phoenix, described in this piece, are a good example of adaptation/ evolution. Trump attempts to confound media critics on the real meaning of his political messages.
On November 9th, 2016 we'll find out who is standing up in this thrilling game media versus Donald Trump. American presidential elections are no longer a boring ritual.
2
Trump uses the media. We just never imagined the NYT would succumb to his charade. And so easily.
Maybe he'll let you survive after all.
Maybe he'll let you survive after all.
5
I don't want the New York Times to be Politico or CNN. My expectations from the Times are higher. I know the Times can be slower than other sites to print breaking news, but the Times is worth the wait. Quality takes time. If I need to know what happened five minutes ago--taking it with a large grain of salt--I can check some other site. Later, I come to the Times for reliable coverage and thoughtful analysis. I would hate to think the Times is being pressured to turn into something it isn't, threatening the loss of what it is. There are dozens of "breaking news" sites, but only one New York Times.
7
Of course the Times was slow to react but we the educated masses know that this man is dangerous and should not be President. To Trumps hillbilly supporters, they don't care about his rants, they just want to hear certain key words - huge, great, immigrants, crooks, deport, wall and they're ready to sacrifice their first born for this man.
They do not read the Times and they don't see things the way we do. I just want this political process to be over with.
They do not read the Times and they don't see things the way we do. I just want this political process to be over with.
5
In most cases you would not be expected to think that a major political party leader to do an exact 180 turnaround in a twelve hour period. Sorry, but in this case, it's your fault for not seeing it coming in advance.
5
Interesting bookends of articles looked at by Mx Speyd. The hipster readership attacks their own paper for drawing inferences regarding the Huma/Weiner story and not drawing them regarding the immigration issue. I guess it's all about what will help elect Hillary. That's why you're all at the NY times, after all.
1
At one point late at night during the DNC, Brian Williams was putting on camera the headline to the just-released late/Metro edition of The Times, and quipped the it was the "paper edition of the Online New York Times."
And if that backhanded compliment to the Online NYT was warranted at one time, it's been a while. As others have noted, more and more, it's the same stuff, repackaged for as long as possible.
But worse, access to real-time feeds from both the AP and Reuters have been affirmatively removed. (Presumably as a cost-cutting measure.) And this while the absolute number of - say - international stories that have been published during the preceding 24 hours and listed in the Online Edition under a given heading - e.g. "Europe," is now no more than half of The Times's category-by-category production as recently as three years ago.
What a loss.
And if that backhanded compliment to the Online NYT was warranted at one time, it's been a while. As others have noted, more and more, it's the same stuff, repackaged for as long as possible.
But worse, access to real-time feeds from both the AP and Reuters have been affirmatively removed. (Presumably as a cost-cutting measure.) And this while the absolute number of - say - international stories that have been published during the preceding 24 hours and listed in the Online Edition under a given heading - e.g. "Europe," is now no more than half of The Times's category-by-category production as recently as three years ago.
What a loss.
2
Why in the world Trump keeps getting all the news attention is bewildering. He's predictably unpredictable ... so what? Following this guy's every move is not news. It's boring and getting tedious. The real question is where are Trump’s tax returns for the last twenty years? Americans need to know whether or not this jerk is a crook!
9
Question: is Hillary Clinton still running for president? Looking at the front page of the NYT at 5:43AM EDT there is exactly one mention of her, in terms of who Netanyahu may or may no support for president, and five Trump stories.
Who is running the show there? On the larger picture, has anyone on staff noticed that your front page is a mess? A cacophonous hodgepodge. What is the Times identity? I used to read it for news but I'm not sure why I go there anymore.
Who is running the show there? On the larger picture, has anyone on staff noticed that your front page is a mess? A cacophonous hodgepodge. What is the Times identity? I used to read it for news but I'm not sure why I go there anymore.
18
Jimmy Kimmel displayed it the best- showed video of Trump on stage with Mexican president saying "He is my friend", and four hours later "Mexico is not our friend"!
9
Ms. Spayd,
I guarantee you that the confusion in the newsroom re: the 11pm story not reflecting the ugliness of Trump's remarks in Arizona was gleefully anticipated by Roger Ailes all the while no one in the Times newsroom caught on.
I guarantee you that the confusion in the newsroom re: the 11pm story not reflecting the ugliness of Trump's remarks in Arizona was gleefully anticipated by Roger Ailes all the while no one in the Times newsroom caught on.
8
After this latest fiasco, the question is whether Times editors and reporters ever read the furious but deserved comments their work receives, take a step back and consider whether they are doing an acceptable job, especially on an issue as important as who should be our next President.
The stark difference between the positions, qualifications and, yes, the trustworthiness and character of the two major candidates in this election isn't reflected in the Times news coverage, which occasionally gives Trump the benefit of the doubt and frequently suggests that Clinton is guilty of something, we know not what.
The stark difference between the positions, qualifications and, yes, the trustworthiness and character of the two major candidates in this election isn't reflected in the Times news coverage, which occasionally gives Trump the benefit of the doubt and frequently suggests that Clinton is guilty of something, we know not what.
9
The live chat's are abysmal. Jokey and snarky. I always feel like I'm being presented the personalities of the reporters more than they facts of what's going on. More pandering to Millennials, a surefire formula for failure and bad news reporting.
5
"A reporters' life is not an 'appy one," Gilbert and Sullivan would sing...
But as others have said, The Rag's online front page does get 'stale' and inflexible in a whiplash-news cycle. A time-lapse film of the page would show long phases of immobility interrupted by bursts of revisions. The online editors might want to set a plan for more frequent page remakes. Persevere.
But as others have said, The Rag's online front page does get 'stale' and inflexible in a whiplash-news cycle. A time-lapse film of the page would show long phases of immobility interrupted by bursts of revisions. The online editors might want to set a plan for more frequent page remakes. Persevere.
3
Trump is old news, no longer interesting. He should be relegated to the back pages.
1
Ryan's response is not believable. I actually watched the whole Trump speech (nauseating), but as a Mexican-American this issue is personal. When I saw the NYT heading, I asked myself if I have heard another completely different speech than the writer. I immediately opened other newspapers, including the The Wall Street Journal, and they all had it correctly.
It is obvious that the writer is desperate to portrait Trump in a better light. The article was written in advance of the speech, probably with some inside information from the Trump team, some things were added after the speech, but the heading stayed. This writer needs to go, this was unprofessional. I am disappointed with the NYT, and I hope things get better, because I am very close to canceling my subscription.
It is obvious that the writer is desperate to portrait Trump in a better light. The article was written in advance of the speech, probably with some inside information from the Trump team, some things were added after the speech, but the heading stayed. This writer needs to go, this was unprofessional. I am disappointed with the NYT, and I hope things get better, because I am very close to canceling my subscription.
14
I enjoy reading for entertainment, and I enjoy reading for edification and exchange of ideas. Like many, I am entertained by Trump's clownish antics and absurdities. Daily. But I also have this need for serious journalism, including important coverage.
The dominance by Trump of the news cycles speaks as though the whole world ought to watch this spectacle because - here is the US's huge, unqualified candidate, he's going to win, hold your breath!
Um, no. There's Hillary Clinton, possibly the most qualified candidate we've ever had (albeit a bit boring), who might win insteadI!
I read story after story all day about Trump's visit to Mexico (during which he basically played Pena Nieto for He, Trump's own political gain). Meanwhile, Hillary gave a beautiful speech before the American Legion in Cincinnati, in which for the first time since the convention she dropped the strident tone and conversed while talking policy and specific plans. Not a single article in TNYT. The WP wrote about it ONLY after Trump spoke to the American Legion next!
Of course Trump will draw big crowds. It's like going to the circus for free.
If you guys keep reporting in this lopsided, backwards way, pretty soon the tail actually will begin to wag the dog.
The dominance by Trump of the news cycles speaks as though the whole world ought to watch this spectacle because - here is the US's huge, unqualified candidate, he's going to win, hold your breath!
Um, no. There's Hillary Clinton, possibly the most qualified candidate we've ever had (albeit a bit boring), who might win insteadI!
I read story after story all day about Trump's visit to Mexico (during which he basically played Pena Nieto for He, Trump's own political gain). Meanwhile, Hillary gave a beautiful speech before the American Legion in Cincinnati, in which for the first time since the convention she dropped the strident tone and conversed while talking policy and specific plans. Not a single article in TNYT. The WP wrote about it ONLY after Trump spoke to the American Legion next!
Of course Trump will draw big crowds. It's like going to the circus for free.
If you guys keep reporting in this lopsided, backwards way, pretty soon the tail actually will begin to wag the dog.
29
I agree that the NYT, as well as most media outlets, are giving Trump way too much press. Clinton deserves to have her substantive ideas put out in front of the nation, instead of giving T's rude comments so much coverage. Do the electorate a service and report!
11
I would recommend this a hundred times if I could. Where is the coverage of her speech on mental health? Her speech at the American Legion? Every single bit of coverage takes only the snippet in which she is saying something about Trump, not the substantive policy. I sure hope this paper--and the rest of the mainstream media--start covering the serious issues in this campaign now that the summer is over. I'm on the verge of giving up on the Times, as I've given up on NPR.
10
Looking deep in the search results I did find another WP article and one by Thomas Kaplan at the NYT, "Hillary Clinton, Swiping at Donald Trump, Argues U.S. Is Vital World Leader" on Aug. 31 about the speech. The article focused on "exceptionalism" - really the weakest part of the speech but - controversy, because Donald Trump doesn't like the term so that must drive the story.
Then, rather than fill space with important points she made, the "sexting" (non)scandal had to be brought up, and the Clinton Foundation.
I have yet to read in the NYT her remarks regarding the VA scandals, expanding care for women veterans, her newly-released plan to improve mental health services with a section specific to veterans, for-profit schools targeting and ripping off veterans. "We’ll invest in the next frontier of military engagement, protecting U.S. interests in outer space and cyberspace. . . . As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."
The full text of her speech and video are on Time magazine's website.
Perhaps a part of the problem is search engine optimization issues - more clicks raise the article in the queue. Yes, our clicks to see what the Clown has done next, does help elevate those articles and encourages the penning of more....
Then, rather than fill space with important points she made, the "sexting" (non)scandal had to be brought up, and the Clinton Foundation.
I have yet to read in the NYT her remarks regarding the VA scandals, expanding care for women veterans, her newly-released plan to improve mental health services with a section specific to veterans, for-profit schools targeting and ripping off veterans. "We’ll invest in the next frontier of military engagement, protecting U.S. interests in outer space and cyberspace. . . . As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."
The full text of her speech and video are on Time magazine's website.
Perhaps a part of the problem is search engine optimization issues - more clicks raise the article in the queue. Yes, our clicks to see what the Clown has done next, does help elevate those articles and encourages the penning of more....
1
The NYT was simply conned by the Trump Campaign's deliberate misdirection and WILL NOT ADMIT IT. In the same way they are still conned by the anti-Clinton voices in their heads, originating with the ghosts of Editor Howell Raines + Jeff Gerth and their mendacious Whitewater Campaign. Past is prologue. (http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/06/05/gerth-blames-ny-times-editor...
29
Your headline writers were sleeping. Should be: "Coverage of Candidate's Mexican Adventure Raises Questions, Casts Cloud Over Self-styled Newspaper of Record."
26
The main story may have been slow to catch up, but by the time it caught up, it went way overboard in the other direction. By Thursday morning all the punditry was about how Trump's position was unchanged, without any acknowledgement of the tremendous boost he had achieved by appearing steady, polite and accepted on the international stage. That last was the big news of the day; his unchanging policy position was hardly news. If a disaster befalls us and Trump wins the presidency, the invitation he was given to Mexico could be the decisive factor.
1
Accepted? EPN backed off Don's hand shake and took refuge behind his podium instead of offering an embrace or much of a photo op. He knew Donald had already gone back on their "discussion" when Donald lied to their faces the payment was not discussed. Must have made all those "compliments" ring hollow, too. EPN was watching his future go down in flames while Donald danced on his grave.
3
"tremendous boost he had achieved by appearing steady, polite and accepted on the international stage."
For anyone else - this would not be news it would be normal, expected behavior. I guess people would be surprised that Trump has learned to 'heel' on command but I doubt that one simple act of maturity is will result in 'a tremendous boost'. Given the mindset of his followers - it could be the first sign
For anyone else - this would not be news it would be normal, expected behavior. I guess people would be surprised that Trump has learned to 'heel' on command but I doubt that one simple act of maturity is will result in 'a tremendous boost'. Given the mindset of his followers - it could be the first sign
1
Breaking news? More like BROKEN news, amirite?
11
The Times, and all journalistic enterprises, is in a difficult situation. Now that Trump is the candidate, what he says and does must be reported and he knows this. He is using our freedoms and resources as adroitly as a terrorist.
His meeting in Mexico and his speech in Arizona can be covered in a way that is fair to the reader and to Mr. Trump. All it takes is a little time, something no one has any more and context. Thus we could expect a pivot from the pivot and for heads to spin (if they dare pay attention) like Linda Blair's in The Exorcist. But that's the hand we and the Times have been dealt in this election. I'd rather not see the back and forth of the reporters. I just want to see a good, well-reported story in the paper or online. Don't bend over backwards to show you're being fair and not "liberal". Just give us the facts and do report on demeanor, voice, etc. and we'll get the picture. Give us credit for being your readers.
His meeting in Mexico and his speech in Arizona can be covered in a way that is fair to the reader and to Mr. Trump. All it takes is a little time, something no one has any more and context. Thus we could expect a pivot from the pivot and for heads to spin (if they dare pay attention) like Linda Blair's in The Exorcist. But that's the hand we and the Times have been dealt in this election. I'd rather not see the back and forth of the reporters. I just want to see a good, well-reported story in the paper or online. Don't bend over backwards to show you're being fair and not "liberal". Just give us the facts and do report on demeanor, voice, etc. and we'll get the picture. Give us credit for being your readers.
12
Perhaps if the coverage of the Mexico Trump hadn't been so breathlessly wrong ( though predictable), the Arizona Trump coverage would not have seemed so odd.
Trump goes to Mexico and doesn't make a complete horse's ass of himself and the NY TIMES is reporting it as a pivot, a big deal?
Guys, I expect news and insight. You dropped the ball - again.
Trump goes to Mexico and doesn't make a complete horse's ass of himself and the NY TIMES is reporting it as a pivot, a big deal?
Guys, I expect news and insight. You dropped the ball - again.
26
There was also something strange about complimentary tweets from Kellyanne Conway shortly after article came out. What influence did she have on coverage? Why didn't NYT have someone in PHX? And, where was coverage of Clinton's speech to veterans? It's a strange campaign but we expect more from you.
12
"Guys, I expect news and insight."
-------
I'd be satisfied with just the news.
The Times seems to be veering far off in the direction of insight, as if its readers can't figure things out for themselves. And the basic news coverage is suffering as a result.
One example: Why report on how Mrs. Clinton is preparing to throw Mr. Trump off balance in the upcoming debates? That's not news, yet it was the lead story for a long time on the website.
-------
I'd be satisfied with just the news.
The Times seems to be veering far off in the direction of insight, as if its readers can't figure things out for themselves. And the basic news coverage is suffering as a result.
One example: Why report on how Mrs. Clinton is preparing to throw Mr. Trump off balance in the upcoming debates? That's not news, yet it was the lead story for a long time on the website.
4
Singling out immigrants for crimes that all groups commit is hate speech pure and simple. What part of that do you fail to understand?
21
You should have said "members of all groups commit" not that "all groups commit." Immigrants do not commit crimes as a group.
I see a different problem than most. Instead of complaining that the Times is not encouraging the debate a great nation should have on economics, environment, human rights, security and more, the Public Editor is complaining about a lack of agility in covering Donald Trump. Enough already of Trump. Where are we going as a nation?
18
The Times campaign coverage has been an abomination from the beginning.
First was hiding Bernie Sanders' campaign, followed quickly by ridiculing it, and then attacking every aspect of his positions.
This didn't mean, OTOH, that coverage of HRC was accurate.
Finally, it was all topped off by burying everyone else's run for office under an avalanche of Everything Trump, providing the Donald with more free campaign PR than even a billionaire could afford.
I see things have only gotten worse.
First was hiding Bernie Sanders' campaign, followed quickly by ridiculing it, and then attacking every aspect of his positions.
This didn't mean, OTOH, that coverage of HRC was accurate.
Finally, it was all topped off by burying everyone else's run for office under an avalanche of Everything Trump, providing the Donald with more free campaign PR than even a billionaire could afford.
I see things have only gotten worse.
22
Ms. Spayd, you state "In a climate where sinister motives are attached to every word and headline The Times produces, looking squarely at such episodes is a step worth taking." However, in recent posts you only seem to offer excuses for why the mistakes were made. But let's face facts, the Times had serious lapses in coverage recently and your continuing justification of these seem like nothing more than lame excuses. I generally get better ones from my students when they fail to produce acceptable work in a timely manner.
Please, in the future, give us fewer excuses and better journalism. Thank you.
Please, in the future, give us fewer excuses and better journalism. Thank you.
30
Unfortunately, your explanation falls flat. Not because it is not plausible for a single story, but because it is now part of a pattern that your readers can pick up. Stories on Clinton hype negative narratives (she engages in "pay for play") and when they turn out to be overhyped (e.g. she was meeting with Melinda Gates and a nobel prize winner; Comey backing off his charges at his July 5 news conference, in his congressional testimony and in the cover letter sent with the FBI's report) the Times goes Mute. "Clinton Rules" appear firmly in play, as if MoDo is directing the news room.
OTOH, the Times appears to look for any chance to normalize Trump. As Healy wrote "during his afternoon in Mexico, [Trump] appearing measured and diplomatic” That is not what I saw - unless I were, or wanted to, grade on a very soft curve, give a Princeton Gentleman's C.
We all know the Times role - as the nation's paper of record - in leading us to war in Iraq. Unfortunately, some of the same biases and narrative making appears to be showing now.
OTOH, the Times appears to look for any chance to normalize Trump. As Healy wrote "during his afternoon in Mexico, [Trump] appearing measured and diplomatic” That is not what I saw - unless I were, or wanted to, grade on a very soft curve, give a Princeton Gentleman's C.
We all know the Times role - as the nation's paper of record - in leading us to war in Iraq. Unfortunately, some of the same biases and narrative making appears to be showing now.
40
Nothing in Patrick Healy's piece changed. He has a consistent anti-Clinton slant and, therefore, should be directed to the opinion page or out the door. His political opinions are wholly inappropriate in reportage.
31
I get that trying to maintain an overall objective perspective while accurately reporting on this unusual presidential campaign is particularly challenging. However, this observer perceives a subtle desire to make Mr. Trump rhetoric appear less extreme and make questions about Mrs. Clinton's ethics appear more problematic than reality in both cases might dictate. Exculpatory information in Clinton's case is de-emphasized somewhat to focus attention on the "question". Yet, little mention is made of Trump's questionable at best business ethics which are arguably more devastating. Questions about political ethics are given greater weight that those associated with business practices. "Business as usual" is tacitly accepted in so-called private business dealings, but given a stronger glare in the political sphere -- even though the former has verifiable concrete effects and the latter only has associated shadows and appearances. Does suspicion equate to actual harm? Reading and watching the coverage would lead one to conclude that the press thinks so. So, I ask you: Is this what is meant by balanced coverage? If so, then balanced does not equate to accurate or impartial.
32
The chatty interaction of the Political malpractitioners added nothing to the coverage, and posting the comments in inverted chronological order was confusing, assuming the "inside baseball" banter was helpful, which it definitively wasn't.
In a political cycle notable for the Times' hamhandedness, this stood out as a low point.
Channeling Casey Stengel, as reported by Jimmy Breslin: "Can't anybody here play this game?"
In a political cycle notable for the Times' hamhandedness, this stood out as a low point.
Channeling Casey Stengel, as reported by Jimmy Breslin: "Can't anybody here play this game?"
16
It is not a question of a late report but more about Trump's protean personality. Nothing he says is true. He has no credibility. So nobody including the media should take what he says at face value. Trump tells his supporters what they want to hear, and they buy it. He's the king of hucksters.
15
I'm not convinced it was a "mistake" to update the article more slowly than the Times's competitors. I realize fellow readers (what proportion are subscribers?) increasingly demand perfect instantaneous coverage, but I still prefer the Times to, first, get the story right (without the benefit of hindsight, repliers), and, second, to get the story first. However, this does appear to be an example of too many platforms making impossible demands of dedicated journalists.
9
I'm a fan of Liz Spayd and was relived to see that she had tweeted a response to this debacle. I was looking forward to her honest, cogent explanation. This was not even in the ballpark.
Trump gave a speech last night worthy of a klan rally. Even his ex campaign manager said the purpose of the speech was to "lock in the white male vote." When you lock in that kind of voter, you lock out everyone else. And if you get elected, you start locking a lot of them up. And you shut down the free press.
This kind of speech from a presidential candidate in 21st century America is HUGE news. The headline should have read "Trump Drops All Pretense of Diplomacy, Delivers Zenophobic Rant Worthy of de Fuhrer". This would not have been an exaggeration, and had this speech been delivered by, say, Senator John McCain 8 yrs ago, the entire NYT staff would have fallen over themselves getting the word out ACCURATELY.
Above and beyond Ms. Spayd not coming clean with the obvious explanation that Patrick Healy wrote the article before hearing the speech, hit send, and went out for pie or something, there is the overarching question as to WHY on earth the NYT is cutting this guy such slack? Even Healy's final draft is grossly tame compared to Trumps raging facist rhetoric.
What gives NYT? What on earth are you all thinking?? That IT can't happen here? That Germany and Italy can elect dictators, and we can't? Talk about American exceptionalism. I beg you, all of you, WAKE UP.
Trump gave a speech last night worthy of a klan rally. Even his ex campaign manager said the purpose of the speech was to "lock in the white male vote." When you lock in that kind of voter, you lock out everyone else. And if you get elected, you start locking a lot of them up. And you shut down the free press.
This kind of speech from a presidential candidate in 21st century America is HUGE news. The headline should have read "Trump Drops All Pretense of Diplomacy, Delivers Zenophobic Rant Worthy of de Fuhrer". This would not have been an exaggeration, and had this speech been delivered by, say, Senator John McCain 8 yrs ago, the entire NYT staff would have fallen over themselves getting the word out ACCURATELY.
Above and beyond Ms. Spayd not coming clean with the obvious explanation that Patrick Healy wrote the article before hearing the speech, hit send, and went out for pie or something, there is the overarching question as to WHY on earth the NYT is cutting this guy such slack? Even Healy's final draft is grossly tame compared to Trumps raging facist rhetoric.
What gives NYT? What on earth are you all thinking?? That IT can't happen here? That Germany and Italy can elect dictators, and we can't? Talk about American exceptionalism. I beg you, all of you, WAKE UP.
50
Why not question the gross misinterpretation of Trump's Phoenix speech in the articles. The content was extremely moderate and reasonable, so the Times, which used to be a newspaper and not the outlet of the DNC,focussed entirely on the language he had to use to cover his retreat.
The Times in January improperly leaked Trump's off-the-record briefing in which he said he puts forward extreme positions so he can negotiate them away. He knows the Democrats will have more than 41 Senators, and he is going to accept amnesty in exchange for his retreat from things he never intended. He doesn't want to deport all the labor in his hotels.
The Times in January improperly leaked Trump's off-the-record briefing in which he said he puts forward extreme positions so he can negotiate them away. He knows the Democrats will have more than 41 Senators, and he is going to accept amnesty in exchange for his retreat from things he never intended. He doesn't want to deport all the labor in his hotels.
2
You don't actually read the Times, do you. For reasons unknown the Times has been bending over backwards this season to ignore most of Trump's hateful messaging, give him undeserved credit, and portray Hillary Clinton in the most negative light possible.
9
Ok. Rectify this by pointing out the actual differences between Trump in Mexico and Trump in Arizona and between Trump last week, last month, last year. Is he flip-flopping, evolving or just saying different things to different audiences?
40
As per his looniest spokesperson, he is using different words to say the same things that won him the primary campaign with fewer total votes than the NOT TRUMP candidates. .
4
Who cares? .... I mean why does it matter, really? The wall concept was spectacularly outlandish from the get go, and should have been rendered so
right from the start. That this bloviating jerk is allowed to continually jerk people around with this foolishness is the fault of a media at large prone to idle manipulation. It's the stuff of FOX news, and should stay there.
right from the start. That this bloviating jerk is allowed to continually jerk people around with this foolishness is the fault of a media at large prone to idle manipulation. It's the stuff of FOX news, and should stay there.
5
As usual the editor questioned replied "Journalism is hard". A lot of jobs are hard some people can do them very well others, not so much.
The Times used to have a lot of good experienced journalists as well as brilliant and erudite columnists before management canned them or bought them out (I have no idea what they could have been thinking other than good reporting costs too much).
Their replacements are rookies, retreads from WaPo, relatives and frat brothers. If it is even possible it will be a long time before the Times approaches it's previous level of professionalism and quality.
The Times used to have a lot of good experienced journalists as well as brilliant and erudite columnists before management canned them or bought them out (I have no idea what they could have been thinking other than good reporting costs too much).
Their replacements are rookies, retreads from WaPo, relatives and frat brothers. If it is even possible it will be a long time before the Times approaches it's previous level of professionalism and quality.
105
This does not address a particular problem with Times coverage - the failure to note in the story that significant changes have been made. Moreover, the original read out on the actual speech in Phoenix readmore like it was based, not on the speech, but what was spoon fed to the reporters by the campaign. Shame on the Times for shoddy journalism. And, shame on you for refusing to follow those threads.
112
This. It's obvious to me that all the previous handwringing over stories that change without explanation or notification, was just a means of getting us to accept that this will happen and no one cares, no one at the Times intends to change or apologize for this anymore. Meaning, the public editor's function is to soften us up, by making us feel our concerns have been "heard."
It also seems to mean there is no longer any mandate to get the story right the first time. The first draft is what's published. Editing and fact checking come later. Hey, that's "the world we're in,"
It also seems to mean there is no longer any mandate to get the story right the first time. The first draft is what's published. Editing and fact checking come later. Hey, that's "the world we're in,"
5
The problems with Ms Ryan's account are several.
Primarily, she indicates that she had decided on the story: Trump backs away from deportation rhetoric, and that drove the coverage.
It was not the case that things changed in Phoenix and the Times struggled to keep up with it. The story claims in its second paragraph, reproduced in Ms Sayd's piece, that Trump flew to Phoenix to outline "a stark turnaround." That is simply factually incorrect.
As the Times's much better live chat pointed out, everyone in the country is subject to deportation, and there will be no "amnesty," no path to citizenship without leaving the US. Julia Preston observed, "between the two million immigrants he says are criminals, and the visa overstays, and others he says used federal benefits, he did not leave many undocumented immigrants out of his deportation plans."
That, in real time, was the nub of the history whose first draft the Times' front page punted.
It was lazy, inaccurate, angle-driven journalism, preserved for all time by the Fort Worth Star-telegram, which ran with Mr. Healy's original version.
How did that happen?
Primarily, she indicates that she had decided on the story: Trump backs away from deportation rhetoric, and that drove the coverage.
It was not the case that things changed in Phoenix and the Times struggled to keep up with it. The story claims in its second paragraph, reproduced in Ms Sayd's piece, that Trump flew to Phoenix to outline "a stark turnaround." That is simply factually incorrect.
As the Times's much better live chat pointed out, everyone in the country is subject to deportation, and there will be no "amnesty," no path to citizenship without leaving the US. Julia Preston observed, "between the two million immigrants he says are criminals, and the visa overstays, and others he says used federal benefits, he did not leave many undocumented immigrants out of his deportation plans."
That, in real time, was the nub of the history whose first draft the Times' front page punted.
It was lazy, inaccurate, angle-driven journalism, preserved for all time by the Fort Worth Star-telegram, which ran with Mr. Healy's original version.
How did that happen?
110
Perhaps the answer is simply that the NYTs is being manipulated by a very clever Trump campain staff. This man and his backers are attempting to manipulate everyone they can by sending mixed signals to create confusion and in this way remain in control of the press. By the way, it seems to be working. The papers are full of Trump headlines leading largely info-mercials that look as if they could have been written by his team while Clinton's name is burried in the same news site. In a country so heavily dependent on the media for an understanding of the importance being given to each candidate's positions and how these represent the person who wants to run the country, you may need to change the way you cover Trump's manipulative antics so that readers can make an informed choice.
113
I've been yelling, silently to myself, over the last week:
PUT AWAY THE POTATO CHIPS!
The NYT couldn't put a 72-hour hold on spreading their ink about the buffoon, the craving would hit them too hard. One well-researched and cogent article covering everything said and done over the last week would have been more than sufficient to provide the info I've seen over the too-many-to-count pieces in that time, saying nothing.
If each of the many people in these comments sections, whom I have so enjoyed reading, were to pull a three day "click boycott" and just stop clicking - or reading anything involving the buffoon - even for a few days... Think how much lovely ink might be spent on actual news: policy, legislation, disease, war, strife - there's certainly plenty enough of it going on.
I could never have imagined that this year's election "abortion" issue (you know: keep them all in a tizzy about XYZ, while we rig everything in our favor when they're distracted) would end up manifesting as an orange buffoon so devoid of anything humanly worthy he sucks the decency out of the surrounding world, like an ethical black hole.
PUT AWAY THE POTATO CHIPS!
The NYT couldn't put a 72-hour hold on spreading their ink about the buffoon, the craving would hit them too hard. One well-researched and cogent article covering everything said and done over the last week would have been more than sufficient to provide the info I've seen over the too-many-to-count pieces in that time, saying nothing.
If each of the many people in these comments sections, whom I have so enjoyed reading, were to pull a three day "click boycott" and just stop clicking - or reading anything involving the buffoon - even for a few days... Think how much lovely ink might be spent on actual news: policy, legislation, disease, war, strife - there's certainly plenty enough of it going on.
I could never have imagined that this year's election "abortion" issue (you know: keep them all in a tizzy about XYZ, while we rig everything in our favor when they're distracted) would end up manifesting as an orange buffoon so devoid of anything humanly worthy he sucks the decency out of the surrounding world, like an ethical black hole.
14
@Scott Shelton-Strong
You hit it on the nose.
The Trump campaign is demonstrating an insidious form of disinformation to reduce our faith in a normally trusted news sourcs, as the Times noted Putin employs to deceive his own citizens and at the same time reduce their faith in the news media.
The Trump campaign specifically is gaming the major East Coast media that have specific publication or production times. They wisely know when ink drives the process and how they can create a deceptive story, such as Trump pivots (sic), then reveal their real theme of demogoguery once the ink is dry in the earlier deception.
Who are readers to trust when we see 2 completely different realities of Trump, but our trusted news source is obviously wrong?
We have been gamed. Don't fall for it. But I also agree it is up to the Times editorial staff to rethink how they will proceed. The shadow of Judith Miller should always be considered.
You hit it on the nose.
The Trump campaign is demonstrating an insidious form of disinformation to reduce our faith in a normally trusted news sourcs, as the Times noted Putin employs to deceive his own citizens and at the same time reduce their faith in the news media.
The Trump campaign specifically is gaming the major East Coast media that have specific publication or production times. They wisely know when ink drives the process and how they can create a deceptive story, such as Trump pivots (sic), then reveal their real theme of demogoguery once the ink is dry in the earlier deception.
Who are readers to trust when we see 2 completely different realities of Trump, but our trusted news source is obviously wrong?
We have been gamed. Don't fall for it. But I also agree it is up to the Times editorial staff to rethink how they will proceed. The shadow of Judith Miller should always be considered.
1
dear Liz Spayd, I respect your point of view but I can only say that it was obvious to many of us casual observers that Trump's "jarringly different" expressions were in the offing. Trump is a confusing personality, but one consistency is that he gets soft and wimpy when he isn't on his own stage. I would have thought that the professional NYT team could have seen his obsequious-in-Mexico, angry-in-Arizona act coming a mile away.
Your public editor explanation is inadequate, in my opinion. "Everyone was scrambling with late-breaking news across time zones, many moving parts, and both print and web deadlines..." also known as the daily business of running the greatest newspaper on earth, the NYT-- not an excuse for falling short.
Your public editor explanation is inadequate, in my opinion. "Everyone was scrambling with late-breaking news across time zones, many moving parts, and both print and web deadlines..." also known as the daily business of running the greatest newspaper on earth, the NYT-- not an excuse for falling short.
121
Just to be clear, I said that despite the deadlines and moving parts, other news organizations managed to get right what the Times got wrong. That's the takeaway.
5
In the morning you justify insinuations about clouds over Clinton's campaign due to indiscretions of a private person who is not a part of the campaign but simply now a separated spouse of a campaign staffer.
In the afternoon you justify appearance of an article that completely misrepresents Trumps's positions and statements -- both past and current based on... (what was this base on anonymous sources in the Trump campaign?).
And then you see nothing nefarious or ill-intentioned in the actions of your editors and reporters... I think the only choice you have is between your election coverage being ill-intentioned and your reporters and editors journalistic skills and standards being absent. It is your choice to make. Once you and NYT make that choice, I will make my choice regarding the continued subscription.
In the afternoon you justify appearance of an article that completely misrepresents Trumps's positions and statements -- both past and current based on... (what was this base on anonymous sources in the Trump campaign?).
And then you see nothing nefarious or ill-intentioned in the actions of your editors and reporters... I think the only choice you have is between your election coverage being ill-intentioned and your reporters and editors journalistic skills and standards being absent. It is your choice to make. Once you and NYT make that choice, I will make my choice regarding the continued subscription.
164
The live chats are pretty much useless. Few people have the chops to make cogent, original commentary on the spur of the moment, and the Times reporters, while good writers, aren't great at spontaneous thought. They resort mainly to generalizations and silly jokes. This is not a substitute for serious reporting.
64
Your political editor "said that there has been too much focus on this single piece." That's ridiculous. I don't read either the live chat, or the highlights. I only read the articles. Each article, in and of itself, needs to strive for complete journalistic accuracy. I don't have hours in which to read every single newspaper article and blog on every subject in order to get, as a composite, an accurate picture of what's happening.
And there are no corrections appended to Patrick Healy's article - why not? You made revisions.
In combination with other missteps the NYT has made in the past year, this suggests that you don't have enough writers and editors. You're spread too thin. Maybe take Amy Chozick off the silly stories and get her to write something real.
And there are no corrections appended to Patrick Healy's article - why not? You made revisions.
In combination with other missteps the NYT has made in the past year, this suggests that you don't have enough writers and editors. You're spread too thin. Maybe take Amy Chozick off the silly stories and get her to write something real.
81
"I don't have hours to read every single newspaper"
Or to read every single article twice as it gets "updated" to actually get the facts right! Or three times! Or four times!
Or to read every single article twice as it gets "updated" to actually get the facts right! Or three times! Or four times!
5
Here's what you didn't write. Healy is a reporter who doesn't get edited much. He wears his Hillary hate like MoDo and it shows, especially puffing up a horrible speech by Trump. How does that keep happening?
206
I check the Times several times a day and was especially keen on reading of the Arizona coverage. I found it mystifying and, since it was late I concluded it would be better covered the next morning. Again, inadequate - I have found myself reading The Washington Post and other news outlets with increasing frequency. I have always expect the best of NYT, but lately it simply hasn't been at it's best - the responses to this situation indicate that there's trouble with staff and I really can't accept with the "Hard work, things, happening too fast," etc. excuses. Come on NYT - you're better than that.
8
How does it happen? The same way that Maureen Dowd's Hilary hate gets published. Whether it's updating an article in a timely manner or raising its editorial standards, the NYT is focusing on getting clicks for advertising revenue, not in getting it right.
15
Healy was one of the biggest put down artists for Sanders. I stopped reading him. Did I miss his antipathy to Clinton?
Well, Healy came from the theater review section of the Times, which fits well with our media coverage of the campaign as infotainment . And avoidance of issue discussion, and constant updates on personalities, powerplays and polls.
And guest pundit spots on CNN with the other commentator line up.
Mostly a waste of time, and a travesty of what a democracy needs to operate---the news reported 'without fear or favor' to quote the Times founder.
Well, Healy came from the theater review section of the Times, which fits well with our media coverage of the campaign as infotainment . And avoidance of issue discussion, and constant updates on personalities, powerplays and polls.
And guest pundit spots on CNN with the other commentator line up.
Mostly a waste of time, and a travesty of what a democracy needs to operate---the news reported 'without fear or favor' to quote the Times founder.
2
The public editor's role at The Times is ambiguous at best and at worst a camel designed by committee. Anyone starting this assignment has my complete sympathy.
Public editor isn't an ombudsman who sorts out issues between readers and writers or editors. It isn't being the complaint desk at a department store. It isn't a beat assignment -- a Times reporter covering The Times -- as there's already a subscription premium that features behind-the-scenes of specific stories. And it isn't -- I hope -- a public relations function of acknowledging and apologizing to readers who are always right about some Times' shortcoming such as fast-breaking events, bad editorial decisions, bad writing, questionable judgment, etc.
Ideally -- which is to say it's asking too much -- your role will be to integrate all of the above for the benefit of senior editors and writers who by the nature of modern journalism and punditry live hectic lives inside bubbles with the din of real life across a very big, diverse and complex country at best a muffled hum of air conditioning set on high.
I will follow up with specific issues I hope you'll consider and can address not just by explaining why but actually try to fix. Ideal is where we all start and hope to finish, though it seldom happens that way. Good luck and future posts will follow.
Public editor isn't an ombudsman who sorts out issues between readers and writers or editors. It isn't being the complaint desk at a department store. It isn't a beat assignment -- a Times reporter covering The Times -- as there's already a subscription premium that features behind-the-scenes of specific stories. And it isn't -- I hope -- a public relations function of acknowledging and apologizing to readers who are always right about some Times' shortcoming such as fast-breaking events, bad editorial decisions, bad writing, questionable judgment, etc.
Ideally -- which is to say it's asking too much -- your role will be to integrate all of the above for the benefit of senior editors and writers who by the nature of modern journalism and punditry live hectic lives inside bubbles with the din of real life across a very big, diverse and complex country at best a muffled hum of air conditioning set on high.
I will follow up with specific issues I hope you'll consider and can address not just by explaining why but actually try to fix. Ideal is where we all start and hope to finish, though it seldom happens that way. Good luck and future posts will follow.
8
Phoenix was the obvious place to be yesterday, not Mexico City - and not New York City, where Patrick Healy was parked.
75
I do try to give the editors and reporters a break but this is the usual line that everyone hands the Public Editor.
Ms. Ryan is being disingenuous.
The Patrick Healy and Michael Barbaro pieces sat right next to each other on the Times homepage for most of the night and early Thursday morning and were completely and absolutely two different stories about the day.
Barbara wrote as though he were entirely unaware of what had just happened in Phoenix. Healy. at least, tried to keep it real. Ms. Ryan needed to go with the Healy or the Barbaro piece. Instead, they both sat there saying absolutely different things and the Times looked foolish.
All anyone had to do was take down the Barbaro piece or put up a disclaimer about why it was still being headlined on the homepage.
I'm sure that Mr. Barbaro might have had his feelings hurt. Instead, I had whiplash and a headache and the Times had another epic fail as it runs around desperately trying to reinvent itself as a leading real-time, web-based news source.
The former Public Editor spent years dealing with this resistance from the writing and editing staff. If the Times is simply going to let its writing and editing staff shrug its shoulders whenever the PE asks a question....well, why have a PE?
Ms. Ryan is being disingenuous.
The Patrick Healy and Michael Barbaro pieces sat right next to each other on the Times homepage for most of the night and early Thursday morning and were completely and absolutely two different stories about the day.
Barbara wrote as though he were entirely unaware of what had just happened in Phoenix. Healy. at least, tried to keep it real. Ms. Ryan needed to go with the Healy or the Barbaro piece. Instead, they both sat there saying absolutely different things and the Times looked foolish.
All anyone had to do was take down the Barbaro piece or put up a disclaimer about why it was still being headlined on the homepage.
I'm sure that Mr. Barbaro might have had his feelings hurt. Instead, I had whiplash and a headache and the Times had another epic fail as it runs around desperately trying to reinvent itself as a leading real-time, web-based news source.
The former Public Editor spent years dealing with this resistance from the writing and editing staff. If the Times is simply going to let its writing and editing staff shrug its shoulders whenever the PE asks a question....well, why have a PE?
51
Sloppy in initial execution.
Sloppy in corrections and updates.
Sloppy in lack of transparency.
No one at the Times should feel good about how this unfolded.
Sloppy in corrections and updates.
Sloppy in lack of transparency.
No one at the Times should feel good about how this unfolded.
98
You buried the lead. Everyone else got right in the same time what the NYT got wrong. End of story, the NYT is incompetent at best. I see bias given that the NYT attacks Hillary and demands she shut down the Clinton Foundation -- a CHARITY from which she and her family get $0 salaries. When has the NYT attacked Trump and demanded that he shut down the Trump Foundation, which Trump has used illegally to give political donations and claims to be 'his money'??
154
Perhaps the night owls were distressed, but the folks who want the top of the news in the morning had it a bit better - we understand the print edition is going to be stale when we get it, but look to it for more depth when we have time for more than breaking news headlines. In the “morning” context, then, the Times caught up.
But overall, during the day, it seems the top of the online page is not “breaking” soon enough. I’ll say that’s OK if the result is due to care, but not if it is due to poor planning, or deadline virus. Many electronic journalists these days closely follow Twitter, etc. to stay abreast, even if it is often time wasted. But the Times needs to have “special forces” to make sure the online presentation is at the top of the curve.
As for Trump - we need more positive coverage of Hillary. The Donald has become a broken record, and once announced, that is not news.
But overall, during the day, it seems the top of the online page is not “breaking” soon enough. I’ll say that’s OK if the result is due to care, but not if it is due to poor planning, or deadline virus. Many electronic journalists these days closely follow Twitter, etc. to stay abreast, even if it is often time wasted. But the Times needs to have “special forces” to make sure the online presentation is at the top of the curve.
As for Trump - we need more positive coverage of Hillary. The Donald has become a broken record, and once announced, that is not news.
24
Defensive...plain and simple.
Nothing else to say.
Nothing else to say.
31
When you go to school and learn the history of demagogues who take over an otherwise normal society, you are said to learn it so that "when the time comes" your society is ready to stand up and stop such dangers from getting too close.
Now is one of those times, and the New York Times is not only unwilling to get the facts right (nothing from last night clearly stated the deportation plan has been shelved and the actual words/tone of the speech suggested otherwise)--it's actively framing the demagogue in terms that will normalize him.
"A spirited bid for undecided voters to see him anew"? Really? This is what the Times describes as hate speech these days?
Disgusting.
But at least you all have been quite courageous in calling out the "cloud" that hangs over the Clintons efforts to help impoverished victims of HIV/AIDS survive.
Now is one of those times, and the New York Times is not only unwilling to get the facts right (nothing from last night clearly stated the deportation plan has been shelved and the actual words/tone of the speech suggested otherwise)--it's actively framing the demagogue in terms that will normalize him.
"A spirited bid for undecided voters to see him anew"? Really? This is what the Times describes as hate speech these days?
Disgusting.
But at least you all have been quite courageous in calling out the "cloud" that hangs over the Clintons efforts to help impoverished victims of HIV/AIDS survive.
225
When will the Times get around to asking, once the Great Wall is built, how are we going to protect the coastlines? If Cubans can sail to Florida and Syrians can sail to Greece, can't Mexicans come ashore somewhere along the Pacific or Gulf Coasts? Of course, my friends from Mexico tell me the easiest way is to fly north to Canada on a tourist visa, then head south. Another unreported story.
19
Sin of Omission - I
This is not the first time this happened. I used to read the New York Times (NYT) mainly. However, during the primary season, I noticed that the NYT was usually the “last” to report a number of “breaking news” - or at least Washington Post (WP) was well ahead of the NYT.
However, that is not the most grievous issue. I submitted a comment (it was never printed), that there was a disproportionate obsession of NYT (like many other papers) to cover Trump with minimal and sometimes no coverage of Clinton — unless it was about the email or foundation controversy (more on this in a separate post). The comment was precipitated when I counted 13 different Trump links and one Clinton link on the online NYT front page. I checked the NYT Politics section, there were a few more Clinton links but quite old. At that time, President Obama’s trip to Flint, Michigan was absent even in the NYT Politics (except the dated link of the planned visit). I knew about it only because of other papers.
This disproportionate coverage appears as if there is only one candidate running for US President. Also, it is as if it is only the issues raised by Trump matters.
Washington Post editorialized about Sec. Clinton's Mental Health policy proposal but most papers either failed to report or analyze the proposal (NYT Politics does not have a link). Instead, the media obsessed of Trump’s “I will build the wall” opera the past few days.
This is not the first time this happened. I used to read the New York Times (NYT) mainly. However, during the primary season, I noticed that the NYT was usually the “last” to report a number of “breaking news” - or at least Washington Post (WP) was well ahead of the NYT.
However, that is not the most grievous issue. I submitted a comment (it was never printed), that there was a disproportionate obsession of NYT (like many other papers) to cover Trump with minimal and sometimes no coverage of Clinton — unless it was about the email or foundation controversy (more on this in a separate post). The comment was precipitated when I counted 13 different Trump links and one Clinton link on the online NYT front page. I checked the NYT Politics section, there were a few more Clinton links but quite old. At that time, President Obama’s trip to Flint, Michigan was absent even in the NYT Politics (except the dated link of the planned visit). I knew about it only because of other papers.
This disproportionate coverage appears as if there is only one candidate running for US President. Also, it is as if it is only the issues raised by Trump matters.
Washington Post editorialized about Sec. Clinton's Mental Health policy proposal but most papers either failed to report or analyze the proposal (NYT Politics does not have a link). Instead, the media obsessed of Trump’s “I will build the wall” opera the past few days.
78
Hi Public Editor, I posted a comment to an earlier article of yours but it wasn't published.
My question again is, what has happened to Hillary? There seem to be a dozen different stories about Donald Trump today but none about Hillary Clinton.
Has she dropped out of the race or is the Times just totally and completely infatuated with The Donald?
My question again is, what has happened to Hillary? There seem to be a dozen different stories about Donald Trump today but none about Hillary Clinton.
Has she dropped out of the race or is the Times just totally and completely infatuated with The Donald?
116
There's been some progress today. One "unimportant" story about Hillary buried with a small link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/emails-raise-new-questions...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/emails-raise-new-questions...
1
While the Times may or may not be guilty of reacting too slowly, it most certainly is guilty of creating a false controversy about a "clash" between Pena Nieto and Trump about paying for a wall, and implying that Trump lied.
Pena Nieto's comments clearly indicated that no discussion took place, just as Trump said. The Mexican president stated his position, Trump didn't respond, and they moved immediately to other topics. That does not constitute a "discussion" by any definition of the word.
The Times' anti-Trump bias has become egregious. The "newspaper of record" has become the Fox News of newspapers very quickly. So disappointing.
Pena Nieto's comments clearly indicated that no discussion took place, just as Trump said. The Mexican president stated his position, Trump didn't respond, and they moved immediately to other topics. That does not constitute a "discussion" by any definition of the word.
The Times' anti-Trump bias has become egregious. The "newspaper of record" has become the Fox News of newspapers very quickly. So disappointing.
4
I see a bigger problem. The NYT is trying to be "fair." Just about all
the real news has been awful for Trump (of course, he is the cause). But the NYT political people feel worried about the constant complaints from the Trump media that they are biased. So they are so glad to have something almost decent to report about Trump (unlike, say, the Huff Post, which delights in every Trump screw-up). But Trump is a screw-up -- that is reality. Don't seek an artificial balance. You want to think you are no partisan. But in this case being partisan is pretty much being human: in favor of any semblance of good government, any semblance of morality, and hold at all on reality. Don't delight in finally seeing something in Trump that looks almost normal -- if you think you see it, trust to your sense of reality to know it will not last. And stop pandering to what you think is the American voting public. At this point, as badly as Trump seems to be doing, he will do infinitely better than McGovern in 1972 and McGovern was an intelligent man with real experience and credentials. We are in deep trouble -- help us out, NYT; just don't try to find some "balance."
the real news has been awful for Trump (of course, he is the cause). But the NYT political people feel worried about the constant complaints from the Trump media that they are biased. So they are so glad to have something almost decent to report about Trump (unlike, say, the Huff Post, which delights in every Trump screw-up). But Trump is a screw-up -- that is reality. Don't seek an artificial balance. You want to think you are no partisan. But in this case being partisan is pretty much being human: in favor of any semblance of good government, any semblance of morality, and hold at all on reality. Don't delight in finally seeing something in Trump that looks almost normal -- if you think you see it, trust to your sense of reality to know it will not last. And stop pandering to what you think is the American voting public. At this point, as badly as Trump seems to be doing, he will do infinitely better than McGovern in 1972 and McGovern was an intelligent man with real experience and credentials. We are in deep trouble -- help us out, NYT; just don't try to find some "balance."
144
Yes! I thought it was me, that I was missing something. I was reading the live commentary from the Times team, the Washington Post, and blogs such as Politico and Talking Points Memo, and just couldn't square them with Patrick Healy's article. Apart from anything else it was not well written; it was extremely unclear as to what speech of Trump's he was referring to - the one in Mexico? The one in Phoenix?
33
He aspires to be our first Twitter-American president. You gotta keep up, folks. Democracy depends on it.
13
This was very confusing to me when I got online last night anxious to see what Trump had done in Mexico and Arizona.
I reread the piece a number of times and then went to other sites to try to figure out what really happened-- and that's where you're going to lose subscribers, even though you put out the occasional stunning reportage like that of exploitation on the high seas, shell corporations owning NYC buildings etc.
But what's happening right now, that just changed, you're behind.
One person assigned web only, good grief.
Trump knows how to manipulate the media, and he pwned you. Sad!
I reread the piece a number of times and then went to other sites to try to figure out what really happened-- and that's where you're going to lose subscribers, even though you put out the occasional stunning reportage like that of exploitation on the high seas, shell corporations owning NYC buildings etc.
But what's happening right now, that just changed, you're behind.
One person assigned web only, good grief.
Trump knows how to manipulate the media, and he pwned you. Sad!
34
Patrick Healy's story that is still up on the NY Times website as of Thursday evening does not convey the reality of Trump's speech in Phoenix. He called Hilary Clinton a criminal. He again insinuated that a large fraction of undocumented immigrants were criminals. He spoke in a rabble-rousing manner throughout. If you only read the Healy story, you would get a very misleading impression of the substance and style of the speech. Many readers witnessed the speech directly and could tell that the Times' story was misleading--and it still is misleading. Donald Trump is a demagogue --that's why people refer to him as Trumpolini. For whatever reason, the NY Times is not telling the truth about him. Incompetence is not a good excuse.
139
Trump is clearly playing you.
The "Public" is really just a collection of individuals, all of which go to work in different time zones, work hours, days on and off, et cet. By refusing to stick to a single tone, opinion or position, a sufficiently vicious politician can selectively alter the opinions of millions of iffy voters without losing their hard core base.
No one but the true hardcore newsies hears ALL the news, complete with retractions, updates, et cetera. Trump Inc. knows that, and they're using it to their full advantage. Solution: Grow up! Adapt. Move faster. The Paper of Record is getting played by a Reality TV star.
The "Public" is really just a collection of individuals, all of which go to work in different time zones, work hours, days on and off, et cet. By refusing to stick to a single tone, opinion or position, a sufficiently vicious politician can selectively alter the opinions of millions of iffy voters without losing their hard core base.
No one but the true hardcore newsies hears ALL the news, complete with retractions, updates, et cetera. Trump Inc. knows that, and they're using it to their full advantage. Solution: Grow up! Adapt. Move faster. The Paper of Record is getting played by a Reality TV star.
18
This is the last straw. I am canceling my subscription. Instead of taking ownership over an egregious error, lame excuses are offered. In combination with all of the "shadow" and "cloud" articles about Secretary Clinton, the Times has displayed the same kind of ruinous bias it demonstrated during the Judith Miller days, which I thought we were far past. I was wrong.
96
The live chat was far too snarky; I would have preferred a live stream of the Arizona speech or a transcript so I could see or read at the Times site what was actually said minus the filter of someone else's take on the matter.
18
Bottom line: the Times has done a poor job of covering each of the candidates. Trump is outrageous so all his comments get headlines. Clinton can be boring, so she gets short changed in coverage, although she actually has something to say. Sad!
40
Trump's Mexico visit and his speech were both scheduled events. How could the Times have been caught unprepared to keep up with them in its main news columns?
Also, Trump has been showing us who he is for more than a year. The next time a reporter is tempted to credit him with anything like the long-awaited pivot, before proceeding it might be best to think of Trump as Lucy, the reporter as Charlie Brown, and the football as the pivot that is never actually coming.
And finally, no editor's note on the revised story? "This article has been revised to more fully reflect Mr. Trump's speech in Phoenix." That's all it would have taken. The Times' defensiveness and lack of transparency are among its worst traits, and they hurt its credibility.
Also, Trump has been showing us who he is for more than a year. The next time a reporter is tempted to credit him with anything like the long-awaited pivot, before proceeding it might be best to think of Trump as Lucy, the reporter as Charlie Brown, and the football as the pivot that is never actually coming.
And finally, no editor's note on the revised story? "This article has been revised to more fully reflect Mr. Trump's speech in Phoenix." That's all it would have taken. The Times' defensiveness and lack of transparency are among its worst traits, and they hurt its credibility.
54
I repeatedly went back to the lead article to get a sense of whether Trump's speech differed from his visit to Mexico. I couldn't tell. I find the long string of comments from reporters to be difficult to follow and often to include conversation between themselves rather than analysis. Thank you for discussing the issue. If other papers can figure out what Trump was saying and update their articles, the New York Times should be able to as well. I rely on this paper for balanced, intelligent reporting and last night didn't quite live up to that.
18
These comments say a lot of what I see now day after day- my beloved NYTImes is NOT the paper it used to be, ie dependable, informative, and mostly on top of the issues of all sorts. We are losing one of our most important news sources to sensation and some warped desire to speak to the lowest common denominator rather than broad and valued news coverage that can't seem to keep pace with modern technology. I'm SO disillusioned - reading this paper since age 13, many years ago now - it isn't what it was by any stretch of the imagination.
97
You started reading the Times at 13! I started somewhere before that age. The point is that we didn't have to have a "conversational tone", we didn't need to be fed what was relevant to us at the time. We wanted a grown-up experience.
What we have now is the Times going for younger and younger readers who may or may not be attracted to the "new" Times. But how many readers like us (when we were younger and as we are now) will it lose. I'm troubled by this.
What we have now is the Times going for younger and younger readers who may or may not be attracted to the "new" Times. But how many readers like us (when we were younger and as we are now) will it lose. I'm troubled by this.
3
Moral: when a major candidate for president speaks out of both sides of his mouth on the same day, have two separate teams of reporters and editors covering each side. And a third team to tell us what it all means, if anything. (Talk about "signifying nothing".)
16
The Times did not have a political writer on the ground in Arizona after it being hyped as the Republican nominee's BIGGEST POLICY SPEECH on the most critical platform of his entire campaign? What in the world was more important? After the article smearing Hillary with Weiner's transgressions, and now this - boy this ain't my father's New York Times.
103
The headline is misleading. The story wasn't slow to catch up, the NYTimes was.
29
What's happening to the NYTimes?
It seems like all they do is catch up!
Every day I grow more disillusioned with the lack of professionalism exhibited in this paper!!
It seems like all they do is catch up!
Every day I grow more disillusioned with the lack of professionalism exhibited in this paper!!
28
Best not to be a day late and a dollar short.
8
I really appreciate this piece. I'm repeating a comment I posted concerning the piece posted last night and the one that appeared in this morning's New England edition of The Times. If you actually read these comments, I'd love your response.
The Editorial Board seems to recognize where Trump is coming from, calling him out for his demagoguery.
How, then, did The Times manage to post a Patrick Healy article last night that reads as though the Phoenix rally never happened? An article under Healy's byline, emphasizing Trump's cynical imitation of diplomacy, appears on the front page of my New England edition, under the headline MEXICAN LEADER DISPUTES TRUMP ON BORDER WALL." Phoenix isn't mentioned at all, even after the jump, or, so far as I can see, in any news article.
So there are at least two problems here: Was anyone paying attention to Trump's rantings and the associated wall-to-wall coverage last night? Certainly not closely enough to edit Healy's obviously pre-written article before posting it And why should I, a lifelong reader no longer living in New York, pay for a print edition that goes to press so far in advance that it fails to cover the top national story of the day?
None of which even addresses the central point: the existential fear Trump poses to our politics and to our way of life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/opinion/donald-trumps-deportation-nati...
The Editorial Board seems to recognize where Trump is coming from, calling him out for his demagoguery.
How, then, did The Times manage to post a Patrick Healy article last night that reads as though the Phoenix rally never happened? An article under Healy's byline, emphasizing Trump's cynical imitation of diplomacy, appears on the front page of my New England edition, under the headline MEXICAN LEADER DISPUTES TRUMP ON BORDER WALL." Phoenix isn't mentioned at all, even after the jump, or, so far as I can see, in any news article.
So there are at least two problems here: Was anyone paying attention to Trump's rantings and the associated wall-to-wall coverage last night? Certainly not closely enough to edit Healy's obviously pre-written article before posting it And why should I, a lifelong reader no longer living in New York, pay for a print edition that goes to press so far in advance that it fails to cover the top national story of the day?
None of which even addresses the central point: the existential fear Trump poses to our politics and to our way of life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/opinion/donald-trumps-deportation-nati...
20
The Times blew it. Are they still getting the story wrong?
14
The news media likes a horse race. It's good for newspaper and good for cable ratings. If this was any other election a candidate's outrageous statements would be grounds for scorn and disqualification. With Trump as the candidate it's one big reality show without any regard whatsoever for the country. What passes for 'journalism' is a disgrace...
11
I find it really interesting that the Times felt the need to write an explanation for not having an article on its front page in real time. I followed the live chat last night because I was interested in real time coverage and analysis, but to expect the same from an article is unfair. I subscribe to the times for fact based analysis and would rather wait longer for the correct information and analysis than place the expectation of instant pieces on events.
I also appreciate that print media is trying to stay relevant in a changing, fluid news cycle, especially with the current Trump spectacle. We should support them by not placing new found expectations for news and wait the extra hour to get analysis worth reading and paying for. If not than wouldn't the Huffington Post suffice?
I also appreciate that print media is trying to stay relevant in a changing, fluid news cycle, especially with the current Trump spectacle. We should support them by not placing new found expectations for news and wait the extra hour to get analysis worth reading and paying for. If not than wouldn't the Huffington Post suffice?
The problem with Healy's article is not so much about the print version. It's the online version–which (online NYT) is something the Times has staked a lot of its future success on–was what was still inaccurate, long after other online news sources had published accurate articles.
4
The article mentioned may be a glaring example, but there has been a problem for some time now concerning changing ledes and partially recycled copy under different headlines. I think there is a cognitive conflict between keeping the website "up to the minute" (whatever that really means), and getting stories right. The result is readers looking at the same articles more than once looking for new news, when they really isn't any. The chat feature (the analytical content of which is dubious) is no solution. This feels very much like a business model in conflict with journalistic care.
27
Healy's article remained far past the time to make that whole "catching up" excuse to mean anything, this am it was jaw-dropping in his glib and breezy description of the night before. This is not the first time either- the article implying that the marital woes of a staffer was some ominous cloud over Clinton's campaign was another example that Healy was involved in. I am glad to read Spayd's article, but it remains to be seen what will happen going forward.
129
Yes, those clouds, shadows and penumbras need to be swept away.
10
The statement that Trump has "shelved his plan" is just plain wrong based on the speech. At best, it is highly misleading. I'm really struggling to understand how anyone could come up with that as the most noteworthy point of his speech. That is still in the story as it currently stands, and I don't understand why.
84
"I'm really struggling to understand how anyone could come up with that as the most noteworthy point of his speech."
Probably the same person who asserted the day before that Anthony Weiner's sickness "cast a cloud" over the Clinton campaign.
Probably the same person who asserted the day before that Anthony Weiner's sickness "cast a cloud" over the Clinton campaign.
65
These looks inside the Times newsroom have been fantastic. Love the transparency.
11
Thank you for trying to keep them honest, much appreciated.
I noticed this last night as well, and saw Times reporters being very defensive of their coverage and pointing to their live chat as proof they covered the event well.
I don't think the live chat is anything close to a well written article. You had to read more than 1/2 the chat to start seeing the read meat Trump was throwing to the crowd in Arizona.
You should not expect Times readers to have the time to read all that back and forth, outside of the live event window.
I noticed this last night as well, and saw Times reporters being very defensive of their coverage and pointing to their live chat as proof they covered the event well.
I don't think the live chat is anything close to a well written article. You had to read more than 1/2 the chat to start seeing the read meat Trump was throwing to the crowd in Arizona.
You should not expect Times readers to have the time to read all that back and forth, outside of the live event window.
68
Agreed. Call me a dinosaur but there is nothing like an adroitly-written, on-point news story encapsulating the facts. Other news outlets did it. Why not NYT? A significant fail, guys! Of course this is a phenomenon we're increasingly seeing in the world of news coverage as news organisations strain to transmit every last nuance through a complex maze of digital media. Harkening back to Dragnet's Joe Friday in the '50s, "Just the facts, ma'am."
29
Amusing to see liberals talk about the "threat to American values". I thought it was the right wing who demonized their opponents thusly..
2
It depends on whether or not the statements are true.
7
The right seems to be more into portraying its demons as murderers and rapists these days. Oh, and "illegals."
3
And of course the rebuttal to any non-liberal viewpoint is followed up by a liberal rebuttal.
The NYT moderators are a predictable sort.
The NYT moderators are a predictable sort.
The Times has one of the largest newsrooms in the world. If much smaller outlets can get it right, it doesn't quite track that the Times can't. The updated version didn't capture the menace we saw in Arizona either. The rally wasn't spirited. It was a hate filled nativist rally that was, frankly, terrifying. That was what should have been said. Full stop.
I am losing confidence in the political team and in the Times. Too many articles try hard to normalize Trump's behavior. I can appreciate not going over the top, but any honest history student could tell you that his rhetoric is right out of the demagogue playbook. Name it.
I am losing confidence in the political team and in the Times. Too many articles try hard to normalize Trump's behavior. I can appreciate not going over the top, but any honest history student could tell you that his rhetoric is right out of the demagogue playbook. Name it.
293
The Times is run by twinkies. Very smart, smug, Ivy grad twinkies, full of confirmation bias and group think, and signifying nothing.
50
I completely agree with Tina. The NYT commenters could have done a better job of writing the story of Trump's unremarkable and pointless trip to Mexico City and subsequent transformation into an angry, shouting demagogue in Phoenix. These misleading headlines, along with the frequently lightweight treatment of Trump's seriously dangerous statements, are making me question why I even subscribe to the NYT.
6
Why subscribe to the Times, you wonder? Yes. Maybe its because of the commenters. Better than the paper many times. Possibly reader comments help sell the Times better than its own staff. And we pay the monthly fee yet.
This is the return of the journalistic stylings of Judith Miller who wanted to make news instead of reporting it.
The NY Times has been trying to write the story of a Trump Pivot ever since he won the nomination. They predict it the cajole for it. They beg for it. They write about what Trump should do, what he should say. The reporters try to minimize what Trump says. It's soon confusing...
Immigration is the one thing that Trump has been surprisingly consistent on, if one isn't busy looking for tea leaves showing a different position and a different candidate.
Trump himself has said that he will be who Donald J Trump will be, no one else. If there is one thing Trump has been true to it is this. Not any speculation coming from the NY Times.
The NYT got caught out for writing about who they want Trump to be, the race they want to cover and influence. Not the facts, not the reality of Trump the man , or Trump the candidate.
All the News that's fit to Print- No the Times is officially off the rails, trying to make news instead of reporting it.
The NY Times has been trying to write the story of a Trump Pivot ever since he won the nomination. They predict it the cajole for it. They beg for it. They write about what Trump should do, what he should say. The reporters try to minimize what Trump says. It's soon confusing...
Immigration is the one thing that Trump has been surprisingly consistent on, if one isn't busy looking for tea leaves showing a different position and a different candidate.
Trump himself has said that he will be who Donald J Trump will be, no one else. If there is one thing Trump has been true to it is this. Not any speculation coming from the NY Times.
The NYT got caught out for writing about who they want Trump to be, the race they want to cover and influence. Not the facts, not the reality of Trump the man , or Trump the candidate.
All the News that's fit to Print- No the Times is officially off the rails, trying to make news instead of reporting it.
155
Despite the efforts of the previous Public Editor to call it out, there remains a powerful reserve of "bothsiderism" at the TIMES. Jim Rutenberg did a column in the TIMES about that issue recently. In essence, it makes mainstream journalists in general, and evidently the TIMES staff in particular, very nervous to depict an outlier like Trump as he actually is. They are ever sensitive to shrieks of "liberal bias" from the right wing, and they don't want to seem to be editorializing in their news articles. So they end up portraying the Abedin-Weiner issue as being politically related (when it wasn't) and Trump as at least partly reasonable (when he isn't). They badly want Trump to "pivot" so they can be relieved of their discomfort, and they thus overinterpret any supposed move by Trump toward rationality and profess bafflement at his savagery. That was a major factor in both the botched stories this week.
42
I really am beginning to wonder why I subscribe.
19
The Times seems to be "ever sensitive to shrieks of "liberal bias" from the right wing, "
Thus the Fox empire has set US media standards that the Times reacts to. Just look at it's op ed page--a narrow range of views that stay within certain parameters.
The Times quotes Limbaugh regularly in articles on various issues, and even once quoted him in the same sentence as Pres Obama in an article on the Pope and poverty. That's raising the prestige of a rw talk show host, and lowering that of the US president.
No longer all the news fit to print...'without fear or favor' to quote the Times founder Adolph Ochs.
Thus the Fox empire has set US media standards that the Times reacts to. Just look at it's op ed page--a narrow range of views that stay within certain parameters.
The Times quotes Limbaugh regularly in articles on various issues, and even once quoted him in the same sentence as Pres Obama in an article on the Pope and poverty. That's raising the prestige of a rw talk show host, and lowering that of the US president.
No longer all the news fit to print...'without fear or favor' to quote the Times founder Adolph Ochs.
Long story short: the TIMES handled this breaking-news story incompetently (not maliciously -- although small difference to readers), and several other press outlets handled it competently. Two remaining questions: (a) Why was there no note in the TIMES about the major revisions the story underwent? (b) Why does the article still up on the web give the impression in the lede, as the story did this morning in the print version, that the TIMES cannot discern Donald Trump's real views on immigration? His Hispanic advisory council doesn't seem to have that problem; we've been reading all day about mounting resignations from that group, based on the speech in Arizona. What do they discern that the TIMES doesn't?
187
As a reader I couldn't care less about the reporters' lengthy chitchat. So inaccessible!
9
The rest of us see it too. NYT is no longer the first place I go to read in the morning.
You guys, dear Times, are letting us down. And by "us" I mean all the people in the world who care about journalism, progress, civilized values and, of course, facts.
Trying to dress up Trump is beyond meaningless, it's wrong. Maybe some Times people know Trump personally (Maureen Dowd!) and like him (ditto) but what he represents politically is catastrophic. It is catastrophic. It spells disaster to a uniquely diverse and constantly changing nation, the United States of America - trying to cast us as a white "Christian" fortress state, terrified of change, women, people of color, Muslims, Jews, and especially Mexicans is ridiculous and it is tragic.
And it's high time the Times recognized this essential fact and reported honestly and also, stopped the slime and innuendo about Hillary Clinton and started reported on her speeches and the issues she raises and her ideas.
You guys, dear Times, are letting us down. And by "us" I mean all the people in the world who care about journalism, progress, civilized values and, of course, facts.
Trying to dress up Trump is beyond meaningless, it's wrong. Maybe some Times people know Trump personally (Maureen Dowd!) and like him (ditto) but what he represents politically is catastrophic. It is catastrophic. It spells disaster to a uniquely diverse and constantly changing nation, the United States of America - trying to cast us as a white "Christian" fortress state, terrified of change, women, people of color, Muslims, Jews, and especially Mexicans is ridiculous and it is tragic.
And it's high time the Times recognized this essential fact and reported honestly and also, stopped the slime and innuendo about Hillary Clinton and started reported on her speeches and the issues she raises and her ideas.
53
There were two stories written last night - a pre-written one and a corrected one. Both versions were up on Newsdiffs.org last night. Anyone could clearly see that the Arizona story had been pre-written, published, then corrected and re-published. The changes were tracked in color, so there was no mistaking what had happened. Why didn't you include the info from Newsdiffs in this column?
10
Donald Trump is such a farce and has his head visibly buried in six feet of self-induced detritus. Critics need a history lesson. For instance:
"You Don't Always Get What You Wished For" is played at the conclusion of every Trump rally. Why?
Here's why:
History repeats itself. Said the dog chasing the Volkswagen: "For me, you see, the important thing is the getting . . . not the having." (Trump: "Surviving at the Top", p. 6, Trump/Leerhsen (1990).
So, 25 years later, the dog is chasing the POTUS prize. And, then what? Does anyone think this attention-deficit-candidate is fit for a four-year stint now?
My instinct says the next moderator should pin him to the wall with that quote and ask him if that is true. Trump, being an optsimath on prudence and obsessed with self, will deflect, of course.
God help us all. Critics, read the book. It's all there. The dog-man is a charlatan and will abandon this ship when he sees the end coming.
aures lupi