The left side of the room looks like the girls and the right the boys, with a few misplaced..
When Kellyanne Conway talked about journalists and pundits who should be fired, was this the sort of thing she had in mind?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvObdGZo30&index=1&list=FLTekvF...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvObdGZo30&index=1&list=FLTekvF...
NYT - I fear that the Trump distraction techniques have you flummoxed. Where was the breaking news on the Steve Bannon "announcement"? I heard it from the BBC first.
2
PLEASE don't stop getting to the Truth and publishing it! When we are being led by an egomaniac like Trump, who is trying to suppress journalists and their findings, we need news reporters more than ever. I'm a reader, so I'm not so crazy about the idea of the NYT becoming a visually dominated publication. you can't get all the facts and nuances out in a picture.
7
Yes, our world has become more visual in casual communication, yet for meanings that transcend the casual and the surface level of daily intercourse, sometimes words reach into our minds deeper than a thousand pictures ever will. Show me videos, if you wish to give me the spectacle, but write me words of you wish to give me answers to WHY.
Stay vigilant and diligent, NYT.
Stay vigilant and diligent, NYT.
6
New York Times, you act as if readers haven't been eating these high-toned word burgers locally for years. Come on, do you really imagine that you're any different? You're circling the drain with the rest of them.
1
A few points from the podcast:
- While I like video, I hate auto-play video, especially auto-play video I can't stop. It's distracting.
- Covering Trump aggressively but truthfully is fine, but it's important to call a direct lie a lie, and not fall back on euphemism.
- When covering Trump, don't be distracted by all the crazy tweets. Focus on the important but underreported events that affect real people, like raising the mortgage insurance premiums that Obama had just cut.
- While I like video, I hate auto-play video, especially auto-play video I can't stop. It's distracting.
- Covering Trump aggressively but truthfully is fine, but it's important to call a direct lie a lie, and not fall back on euphemism.
- When covering Trump, don't be distracted by all the crazy tweets. Focus on the important but underreported events that affect real people, like raising the mortgage insurance premiums that Obama had just cut.
7
If I see another TWIT box ,reprinted in the middle of an article ,I will scream!
Irrelevant to almost anything a news organization needs to report.
How about hiring some reporters OVER the age of 50, who remember how to write and do not simply RETWIT!
Irrelevant to almost anything a news organization needs to report.
How about hiring some reporters OVER the age of 50, who remember how to write and do not simply RETWIT!
5
When USA Today started out, all of you laughed and guffawed, the same way that Ted Turner was laughed at before he proved he was right.
So now you realize that USA Today was right along. Boy, you were pretty quick to figure that out. Almost as quickly as you figured out that invading Iraq was a mistake.
You folks have to figure out the way the masses of America think - which is to say, not a lot. I enjoy the New York Times, but if you want to be influential outside of urban centers with people of higher education and intellectual curiosity, you're going to have to have a "News For Dummies" edition.
So now you realize that USA Today was right along. Boy, you were pretty quick to figure that out. Almost as quickly as you figured out that invading Iraq was a mistake.
You folks have to figure out the way the masses of America think - which is to say, not a lot. I enjoy the New York Times, but if you want to be influential outside of urban centers with people of higher education and intellectual curiosity, you're going to have to have a "News For Dummies" edition.
2
David Leonhardt sets my teeth on edge here. He makes the risible claim that the Times is not interested in clicks and clickbait headlines.
Yet he refuses to acknowledge that the Times measures clicks, categorizes articles garnering the most clicks under the rubric "trending," and counts page hits and how often stories are e-mailed or, I presume, posted on facebook.
When Leonhardt goes on about the Times seeking interaction with the Times, this is even worse than the Times' clickbait addiction. The Times used to have almost very reporter's and columnist's e-mails listed on their Times Topic pages. That is no longer the case. The Times a few years ago went all in on encouraging interaction through blogs. The Times has greatly diminished opinion blogs to a very few, has eliminated a whole roster of sports specific blogs, & yanked the greatly missed After Deadline blog on grammar and usage, which regularly provided a critique on mistakes in grammar and usage in the Times' own pages. And, in response to inquiry by then Public Editor Margaret Sullivan about the greatly criticized "digital redesign" of the Times that greatly diminished the accuracy, trackability and utility of comments, community editor Bassey Etim promised major changes, as yet unseen, about three years ago. Those Sullivan pieces garnered several thousand comments, some with what amounted to specific bug reports, most of which have been completely ignored by the IT department, the Times' cheese relocation team.
Yet he refuses to acknowledge that the Times measures clicks, categorizes articles garnering the most clicks under the rubric "trending," and counts page hits and how often stories are e-mailed or, I presume, posted on facebook.
When Leonhardt goes on about the Times seeking interaction with the Times, this is even worse than the Times' clickbait addiction. The Times used to have almost very reporter's and columnist's e-mails listed on their Times Topic pages. That is no longer the case. The Times a few years ago went all in on encouraging interaction through blogs. The Times has greatly diminished opinion blogs to a very few, has eliminated a whole roster of sports specific blogs, & yanked the greatly missed After Deadline blog on grammar and usage, which regularly provided a critique on mistakes in grammar and usage in the Times' own pages. And, in response to inquiry by then Public Editor Margaret Sullivan about the greatly criticized "digital redesign" of the Times that greatly diminished the accuracy, trackability and utility of comments, community editor Bassey Etim promised major changes, as yet unseen, about three years ago. Those Sullivan pieces garnered several thousand comments, some with what amounted to specific bug reports, most of which have been completely ignored by the IT department, the Times' cheese relocation team.
5
Think you have to reframe our core issues to unify. Trump in every headline is giving him what he wants. Visual is good, but more inforgraphics to lead us in so we learn. The stress out here is so bad, people are not listening. Singing to your choir doesn't advance us. We need to focus on fixing govt versus issues Donald and Far Right use to fragment, divide, and polarize us. I loved volunteering at the Women's March, but it was basically mourning and did not drive change. It didn't unify. They (Donald & Far Right) have the power and the money. We have to change the game and how we frame issues. I think you have to trust people's intelligence more by using systems thinking and for why leveraged changes impact. More bullets less prose. From my millennials, have to get to point early on, then back it up: Problem-Solution-Proof-Cost/Benefit Values, Analysis to Who Has to Change and Next Steps. You need to lead inspiring learning through your presentation of news, issues, opinion. The Times needs to protect all of us being sucked into Donald & Far Right Negativity because as narcissists they sap all the energy out of empaths which so many of us are. Love to see Times get a whack on the side of the head to do more unifying in the way you frame our news - more on loyalty, authority, sanctity--translate to middle income too, e.g., increase in grocery cost to date of climate change and increase every year
1
I couldn't care less about "visual journalism," and neither should The Times.
You need to begin turning out quality journalism, which you haven't for a long time. Your coverage of Bernie Sanders constitutes an enduring shame for this paper, and your unrelenting breathless articles on Hillary Clinton's emails, without understanding that it was a non-issue, has infuriated millions of your readers. And still, your refusal to acknowledge your atrocious coverage of the past campaign season and apologize to readers is probably worse than the original offense.
Your line-up of opinion writers is stale and grossly out of touch. Thousands of readers have written to complain about Maureen Dowd's bizarre vendetta against the Clintons, yet The Times turns a blind eye to it. Your readers are fed up with your conservative voices Douthat and Brooks, and tells you so with every column. Yet you turn a blind eye.
Your "The Upshot" is laced with conservative opinions, which are far out of step with your readers, as well as economic reality. Yet you turn a blind eye to the problem.
"Visual journalism" won't solve your problems, and your bleeding subscriber base. You need soul-searching, and to apologize to your readers for your failures of basic journalism.
You need to begin turning out quality journalism, which you haven't for a long time. Your coverage of Bernie Sanders constitutes an enduring shame for this paper, and your unrelenting breathless articles on Hillary Clinton's emails, without understanding that it was a non-issue, has infuriated millions of your readers. And still, your refusal to acknowledge your atrocious coverage of the past campaign season and apologize to readers is probably worse than the original offense.
Your line-up of opinion writers is stale and grossly out of touch. Thousands of readers have written to complain about Maureen Dowd's bizarre vendetta against the Clintons, yet The Times turns a blind eye to it. Your readers are fed up with your conservative voices Douthat and Brooks, and tells you so with every column. Yet you turn a blind eye.
Your "The Upshot" is laced with conservative opinions, which are far out of step with your readers, as well as economic reality. Yet you turn a blind eye to the problem.
"Visual journalism" won't solve your problems, and your bleeding subscriber base. You need soul-searching, and to apologize to your readers for your failures of basic journalism.
5
The Times has a lot of "business model" rethinking to do, and I hope the paper/website/associated activities all succeed.
American journalism has deep rethinking to do, and we desperately need the Times (and WaPo) to lead in re-invigorating our free press in the age of liars, scoundrels, and would-be thieves of free and stable government.
American journalism has deep rethinking to do, and we desperately need the Times (and WaPo) to lead in re-invigorating our free press in the age of liars, scoundrels, and would-be thieves of free and stable government.
2
Self interest is powerful stuff, and it can be difficult to identify with the unemployed steel worker or the highly educated climate scientist. We need to put this aside right now. All Americans face a clear and present danger and it has nothing to do with "elites" or ISIS. Even the super rich are vulnerable.
1
Focusing on the visual is a smart move, since most of your readership has trouble with reading comprehension, words, logic, and well structured arguments.
5
Based on most of the comments I read in the NYT every day, I would argue that most of their readers are well-educated, conscientious and inquisitive.
People like you making uninformed comments based on your own warped, biased views are what's wrong with this country right now.
People like you making uninformed comments based on your own warped, biased views are what's wrong with this country right now.
3
@Ben G: Really? Does "most of your readership" include you?
2
Ben was being facetious.
Regarding "long strings of text": As a lifelong NYT reader and subscriber, I have long felt that one area for improvement is in the focus and organization of news articles. I love that the NYT takes the trouble to say all that needs to be said on any subject. But many news articles ramble on at excessive length, without focusing on the essential points of the story. I often wonder about some essential fact in the story until finding it in the 28th paragraph. I would prefer articles that get straight to the point and build a structure of facts and logic tightly like a legal brief. The Economist and the Financial Times are paragons of concise, pithy writing and should be emulated. Challenge the writers to tell the story in half the words, and we'll get a better result.
21
I generally agree. However, there is a delicate balance I think in fully explaining essential ideas and concepts efficiently while not compromising communication by catering to short attention spans.
2
California Today is a good start on making the NYT a good choice for my morning read. I agree that the videos are annoying. They crash my iPad when I try to read. They are also battery sucking demons.
I would like to see more focus Congress. Trump is the shiney object but his enablers give him the glow.
I would like to see more focus Congress. Trump is the shiney object but his enablers give him the glow.
15
The times are changing rapidly, our planet is experiencing an awakening that few saw coming and the media was not prepared for. The upheaval upon us is now being further complicated with a sudden change of direction, a turning of the corner of sorts. What else could explain why all of a sudden the terrain up ahead is now so unfamiliar, and if you look backwards, what is there to look back on anymore.
Maybe it is time for the media to also expand their consciousness when looking at time itself in their reporting, they may just come away with a better understanding of what is really happening on our planet, and how we could better proceed from here.
Maybe it is time for the media to also expand their consciousness when looking at time itself in their reporting, they may just come away with a better understanding of what is really happening on our planet, and how we could better proceed from here.
I remember the hubbub it created back in the early '90s when The Times starting running color photographs in its news pages. Some 25 years later it's hard to imagine color pictures in newspapers was a national industry debate. A decade or so later would come the once unthinkable: display advertisements on the front page of The Times. Now the digital revolution brings more disruption that may ultimately be existential for newspapers as we have traditionally known them. If the the present is any indication, Americans in the future will need to be informed more than ever, and in a different interpretive way than before. With bloggers, podcasters, "micro-reporting", "citizen journalists", fake news and sundry other disaggregation crowding the media space, credible, legacy media like The Times have to not only survive, but thrive because you will increasingly be the firewall against the decline of civilization -- if it rests on an objectively informed populace. As the 2016 election proved, breezy, limited depth, cable and network news is incapable of fully informing the public.
12
The NYT has become more essential than ever before in this era where alternate truths are proclaimed daily by our Great Leader who rules by whim rather than by thought. Projecting their own flaws onto all who oppose them, the Republicans (who have given up respectability for power) "support" the Great, Amazing Tremendous Leader , who proclaims facts as lies and alternate facts as truth. More power to the NYT and the media; defend the first amendment with the same tenacity that the Swamp defends the second.
10
It's January 29th, and as I scan the front page, I see absolutely no mention of Steve Bannon being appointed to the Security Council, and the marginalization of DNI and the Chiefs of Staff.
So, does your strategy include ignoring the slow-motion coup happening in the Trump administration?
An alarming omission by the NYT.
So, does your strategy include ignoring the slow-motion coup happening in the Trump administration?
An alarming omission by the NYT.
27
Completely agree, and just wanted to bring up that, in general, I've asked before for "faster reflexes" in the coverage...
Sometimes important and even necessary news are slow to come... Quality can be delivered in short notice, if the policy demands it.
Sometimes important and even necessary news are slow to come... Quality can be delivered in short notice, if the policy demands it.
I cannot believe the NYT says nothing about this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241
Why do I need to read about this on a British web page while living in NYC?
That is just one example why the NYT has stopped being the place to go to for relevant news with far reaching implications affecting the future of this country.
Why do I need to read about this on a British web page while living in NYC?
That is just one example why the NYT has stopped being the place to go to for relevant news with far reaching implications affecting the future of this country.
6
Yep. I read it there, too. It was even on the WPost. 'Moving pictures' are not what news is about. Start with a simple date and time for the story, then the essential facts, then the detail. Those nice short sentences in the first paragraph will then satisfy the trendy reader who has trouble with words. This policy looks like the tail wagging the dog, but the decision is already made obviously, so comments are futile.
3
Keeping up with the "Times", (pun intended) requires a constant reevaluation of ones surroundings so that the methods of expression stay relevant while the core principles of operation remain steady. I subscribe to the Times because it is a beacon of honesty in an increasingly foggy landscape. I will continue to do so.
Ofcourse,the NYT has to exist both as a papper edition and on the internet.Sticking to traditional reporting(being a third power in society) is more important than ever before in times like ours.As the problem mainly is about financing its time for people like Buffet and Gates to support democracy,freedom and justice at home through investments in newspappers instead of giving away money to other countries.Without newspappers we are completly in the hands of people like Trump,Putin,Erdogan,Kaschinsky,Orban and others.
3
Warren Buffet, through his company has been a long-time owner of the Buffalo News, and comparatively recently bought several other papers. Judging from its quality, the Buffalo News pays as much attention to its journalism as to its finances, in marked contrast to its penny-pinching Gannett-owned Rochester neighbor.
1
As the Trump Administration with Steve Bannon and company leading the charge moves towards the abolition of the Free Press and the suspension of the very Constitutional rights they so roundly claim to defend, we need more than legions of subscribers to the NYT. It won't generate the revenue you will need to battle them in court where they have the infinitely deep pockets of the Kochs and the Adelsons of the Corporate World who see in DT the Champion that can at last allow the Republicans to eliminate the last remnants of the opposition to their global desires.
I would suggest a new NYT Investigative Foundation that would donate ALL collected funds to support investigative journalism. And we need to do it before it's too late! I'd be glad to be the first donor!
I would suggest a new NYT Investigative Foundation that would donate ALL collected funds to support investigative journalism. And we need to do it before it's too late! I'd be glad to be the first donor!
16
In its obsession with HOW to present stuff, the New York Times has completely lost sense of WHAT to present.
The content has been so bad, the New York Times bears considerable responsibility for the "election" of Trump.
From the start of the nomination contests in summer of 2015 through the electoral college vote, the New York Times failed to focus reader attention on the two big issues that readers needed to focus on for responsible voting:
1. Climate change, which threatens the future of our civilization and species.
2. Seizure of our economy and government from The People, by and for a Money-Insider Establishment.
Instead, the New York Times drowned the readers and voters with oceans of diversionary trivia: twitters of TrumpTrumpTrump, emails of Queen Hillary, and graphics of election-outcome probabilities suited only for Las Vegas bookies, as if our election were merely a football game to bet on.
The report described in this column is just more of the same: new methods of presenting all the fluff that is not fit to print.
The content has been so bad, the New York Times bears considerable responsibility for the "election" of Trump.
From the start of the nomination contests in summer of 2015 through the electoral college vote, the New York Times failed to focus reader attention on the two big issues that readers needed to focus on for responsible voting:
1. Climate change, which threatens the future of our civilization and species.
2. Seizure of our economy and government from The People, by and for a Money-Insider Establishment.
Instead, the New York Times drowned the readers and voters with oceans of diversionary trivia: twitters of TrumpTrumpTrump, emails of Queen Hillary, and graphics of election-outcome probabilities suited only for Las Vegas bookies, as if our election were merely a football game to bet on.
The report described in this column is just more of the same: new methods of presenting all the fluff that is not fit to print.
10
[[The content has been so bad, the New York Times bears considerable responsibility for the "election" of Trump.]]
The Times definitely was in the tank for Clinton. They endorsed her in '08 over Obama and they endorsed her again in '16 over Bernie. For some reason The Times was essentially an extension of the Clinton campaign. Even after she lost, the paper was still "reporting" every hiccup and burp from "aides" and "inside sources."
Hillary Clinton did nothing in her time after being SoS except line her pockets.
I don't know why The Times couldn't see that that wouldn't play well in the rustbelt and the other swing states.
The Times definitely was in the tank for Clinton. They endorsed her in '08 over Obama and they endorsed her again in '16 over Bernie. For some reason The Times was essentially an extension of the Clinton campaign. Even after she lost, the paper was still "reporting" every hiccup and burp from "aides" and "inside sources."
Hillary Clinton did nothing in her time after being SoS except line her pockets.
I don't know why The Times couldn't see that that wouldn't play well in the rustbelt and the other swing states.
2
I wrote to the NY Times Leadership, offering this strategic expansion of their mission:
Become the paper read by all America.
Act Global - be LOCAL .. in Cincinnati, Des Moines, Phoenix, Atlanta, but also smaller cities - Grand Forks, Waco, Boise, Dayton, Evansville, ... pay to put reporters there.. and hire local.. be BIGGER than NYC and the California special.. become .. American - in the deeper sense. Listen - and report how people see THEIR world.. report THEIR good news.. their concerns and fears..
Immerse into our heartland.. and the rewards will be 10 fold !
Become the paper read by all America.
Act Global - be LOCAL .. in Cincinnati, Des Moines, Phoenix, Atlanta, but also smaller cities - Grand Forks, Waco, Boise, Dayton, Evansville, ... pay to put reporters there.. and hire local.. be BIGGER than NYC and the California special.. become .. American - in the deeper sense. Listen - and report how people see THEIR world.. report THEIR good news.. their concerns and fears..
Immerse into our heartland.. and the rewards will be 10 fold !
3
oops...one problem...the people ypu refer to don't read, they watch tv...they elected a president who hasn't read a book in his life
2
Your plans were fine, pre-Trump, on general matters. But developing a serious battle plan is of paramount importance right about now. The first week of his administration teaches us to assume intensifying autocracy and domestic propaganda battles at a level not seen before. Trump is in fact powered by professional propagandists like Bannon...pros at gaming media. Short of distributing key staff off-shore in case you are shut down, you need to quit being gamed by Trumpists (e.g., press conferences and meetings with: large numbers of his staff in the back cheering on his lies? every ridiculous tweet a headline? CNN bullied in front of you and the responsible press doesn't walk out as a group?...). You need to develop better real-time tactics and strategies very soon. Maybe most importantly, there can be no separating fact checking as a separate exercise from actual stories/coverage on Trump news/events/issues. If you continue with traditional reality/fact checking as a POST-event, POST-story activity, as an afterthought rather than as an intrinsic part of real-time coverage, then un-truth wins -- Trump gets his message out regardless of facts. Each Trump statement should be evaluated in real time then by a large, objective, reality check team of researchers who can immediately access the facts and correct the record when, and even as, it is being misrepresented. This immediate response team is as important as the journalists present.
2
The NYTimes could double its circulation if it stopped being the house organ of the Democratic party. How many Times reporters voted for Trump? How many even know someone who voted for Trump?
The NYTimes put itself into a bubble, and it abandoned objective journalism. What a shame! I long for the days of William Safire, when the bias was less obvious.
At the current rate of decline, you won't make it to 2020.
The NYTimes put itself into a bubble, and it abandoned objective journalism. What a shame! I long for the days of William Safire, when the bias was less obvious.
At the current rate of decline, you won't make it to 2020.
6
The Times can’t continue to go on wasting valuable newsprint and space in the paper parsing, analyzing and endlessly dissecting Trump's lies.
The tactic it should adopt beginning tomorrow is simple. Print every lie he utters on page one exactly as he utters it, followed by the word lie in parentheses, as in (lie). And say nothing more about it. Then, and only if the President or his staff complain, print the paper’s supporting proof of his lie.
This man is a pathological, delusional, out-of-control liar and a total believer in all of his
lies. Is there a single person in this country who believes that he has actually changed his mind about President Obama being born in Kenya? Of course not. It’s still Kenya all the way.
The Times needs to stick with the facts of his ongoing misdeeds as best it can, without constantly chasing down all of his rabbit hole
lies.
Dealing with his lying is not a job for journalism. It’s a job for psychiatry.
The tactic it should adopt beginning tomorrow is simple. Print every lie he utters on page one exactly as he utters it, followed by the word lie in parentheses, as in (lie). And say nothing more about it. Then, and only if the President or his staff complain, print the paper’s supporting proof of his lie.
This man is a pathological, delusional, out-of-control liar and a total believer in all of his
lies. Is there a single person in this country who believes that he has actually changed his mind about President Obama being born in Kenya? Of course not. It’s still Kenya all the way.
The Times needs to stick with the facts of his ongoing misdeeds as best it can, without constantly chasing down all of his rabbit hole
lies.
Dealing with his lying is not a job for journalism. It’s a job for psychiatry.
10
Please stand up for what is right. You have an awesome team- please find ways to keep them. You have many challenges ahead of you. There would be efforts to choke you so that you give up independence and become an instrument serving the fake media. Never ever forget that there are millions counting on you. The basic foundation of our great nation is at danger- your courage is our only hope!
1
I urge the NYT to produce a big fat TV ad campaign.
Stand up for yourself and your readers and I'm sure your readers will stand up for you.
Don't produce some slick thing designed to entice people to subscribe.
Go documentary style, rapid fire barrage, montage style, of the battles you've fought over press freedoms. Unfortunately, the minds of many people nowadays cannot be reached by any avenue other than TV.
Or go to TV if printed page is no longer viable as a business model. But if you do, PLEASE don't be like the other mindless news shows. Be like a newspaper on TV. Same journalists, just on camera discussing the published articles. Skip the guests for the most part unless they are part of the published articles. It's mostly people desperate to talk over each other and hosts ill equipped to challenge lies - or worse, trying to keep it "unbiased" for the sake of it's audience's sensitivities re biased reporting.
Do it on the web and skip the TV broadcast if that is more fiscally feasible.
Be brave and proclaim in a loud voice that the Times is here and is not going away anytime soon.
Stand up for yourself and your readers and I'm sure your readers will stand up for you.
Don't produce some slick thing designed to entice people to subscribe.
Go documentary style, rapid fire barrage, montage style, of the battles you've fought over press freedoms. Unfortunately, the minds of many people nowadays cannot be reached by any avenue other than TV.
Or go to TV if printed page is no longer viable as a business model. But if you do, PLEASE don't be like the other mindless news shows. Be like a newspaper on TV. Same journalists, just on camera discussing the published articles. Skip the guests for the most part unless they are part of the published articles. It's mostly people desperate to talk over each other and hosts ill equipped to challenge lies - or worse, trying to keep it "unbiased" for the sake of it's audience's sensitivities re biased reporting.
Do it on the web and skip the TV broadcast if that is more fiscally feasible.
Be brave and proclaim in a loud voice that the Times is here and is not going away anytime soon.
"Visual journalism." Great. Wonderful. Let's have the 'news' served as a graphic comic book. What we need is in-depth, courageous, independent, factual reporting of events and issues that are relevant to our national common good. Not the drivel that passed muster to appear in the Times over the last year, when your editors and many opinion writers seemed to be guardians, or lapdogs, of the status quo and the political and financial establishment. Does the Times think that selling its soul will lead to its salvation? I'm about to cancel my subscription because there is so little worth reading anymore.
5
Meh!
Yeah, they were all Team Hillary. But there's plenty of other stuff...long form stuff... that balances the scales.
But maybe I'm wrong.
I recommend you cancel your subscription.
Do it right now.
Stop making weak threats and do it.
Yeah, they were all Team Hillary. But there's plenty of other stuff...long form stuff... that balances the scales.
But maybe I'm wrong.
I recommend you cancel your subscription.
Do it right now.
Stop making weak threats and do it.
How disturbing. I am anti-video. I want to read words. And I can't even learn whats in the2020 Report without watching a video. You're losing me.
6
Keep up the good work, NYT. In these crazy times, it's important to have a dignified voice of reason which is more necessary than ever.
2
The media especially the NYT and WP are doing a great job. I subscribed to the NYT today because I want to give my support to the press who will look out for the American public since they are our only hope for a democratic society. We must stand up to any of our public figures, democrat or republican, who do not speak the truth. I admire the our media (WSJ, NYT, WP and CNN, etc) who are doing their job best they can in this hostile envoirnment and grateful we live in America. The next four years will be tough but the media has to be tougher to keep our government honest and transparent.
Frankly, more that ever we need the NYT, in whatever form it takes, to critically report well-sourced and documented facts from the recent evolution fake news, alternative facts and outright lies from people in power.
try this. We thought we stopped delivery of the paper during a 5 week vacation. On our return our neighbor handed us the 30 pounds of publication. Finally, we thought, a chance to improve the environment, so we are now digital-only. Such a price reduction! while that economy is nice, I don't want it at the risk of losing your valuable service. At some point you should increase digital-only subscriptions, unless paper really does have a such cost premium.
How can The New York Times produce quality journalism in the digital era?
Good question, too bad the Times can't answer it or does not really wish to as evidenced by its complete disinterest in readers constructive criticism.
The short answer would be to make Margaret Sullivan executive editor but Dean Banquet and company were and are incapable of hearing her or the close readers who subscribe and work to hold the Times feet to the fire.
How anyone at the Times has the nerve to serve up this thin gruel is a very bad sign.
Good question, too bad the Times can't answer it or does not really wish to as evidenced by its complete disinterest in readers constructive criticism.
The short answer would be to make Margaret Sullivan executive editor but Dean Banquet and company were and are incapable of hearing her or the close readers who subscribe and work to hold the Times feet to the fire.
How anyone at the Times has the nerve to serve up this thin gruel is a very bad sign.
4
Please don't forget that the spoken news word rate is slower than reading news by a factor of 6x or more for most readers.
11
I'm sure the Times doesn't need to be told this, but it's important enough to emphasize: Our country, our world, is under direct attack. The reason that the alarmists are always first to go is because they are alarmists, that's their (our) job.
Looking back into history, it always starts this way and then it's to late, once the alarmists have been marginalized.
It’s time. This is no joke folks, there are direct attacks on the integrity of the press, and even The Times, as a voice. Trump may feud with a reporter, or a critic, but when he tries to circumvent a free press, that’s not a ‘feud’, that, by definition, is sewing the seeds of tyranny.
I'm not saying that is can happen here. I'm saying that it is happening here.
Looking back into history, it always starts this way and then it's to late, once the alarmists have been marginalized.
It’s time. This is no joke folks, there are direct attacks on the integrity of the press, and even The Times, as a voice. Trump may feud with a reporter, or a critic, but when he tries to circumvent a free press, that’s not a ‘feud’, that, by definition, is sewing the seeds of tyranny.
I'm not saying that is can happen here. I'm saying that it is happening here.
2
I suspect this is peculiar to boomers -- I prefer reading the news to wasting time with amateur-produced news videos and podcasts. They are as dumbed-down as TV news, no difference. I've become very accustomed to online periodicals and can get through them almost as quickly as paper-based versions. Visuals in the form of still photos, graphs and charts are great but for me, the videos and podcasts are a waste of screen space.
4
We are depending on you! Keep up the amazing work!
1
This is a dangerous time where one half of the population (liberals) is declared the enemy by the president and his followers. This requires an extremely smart strategy to not end up in the role of the enemy. As long as the polarity is fed, Trump will win as this is his strategy.
1
Vital talk, vital issues, important to me.
But as slowly as i read, i still read faster than i listen; i'm not a lip reader. So this talk could use a written text.
As for the scope of coverage and its delivery: over decades i've hardly ever heard an editor with authority called The Times "the newspaper of record," but lots of readers and talkers do. i don't need the shipping news or the arrival of buyers, and i wonder how all that ever did get in the paper. Now, the use of links can give more readers a connection to more detail if they want it. Personally i think every Scotus opinion should get a link same day, and same for White House news conferences. You already do a lot of linking, admittedly, but do more.
But as slowly as i read, i still read faster than i listen; i'm not a lip reader. So this talk could use a written text.
As for the scope of coverage and its delivery: over decades i've hardly ever heard an editor with authority called The Times "the newspaper of record," but lots of readers and talkers do. i don't need the shipping news or the arrival of buyers, and i wonder how all that ever did get in the paper. Now, the use of links can give more readers a connection to more detail if they want it. Personally i think every Scotus opinion should get a link same day, and same for White House news conferences. You already do a lot of linking, admittedly, but do more.
3
The Times staff thinks I am going to spend 22 minutes listening to this article, when I could skim and scan for the important parts in about 2 minutes and then spend maybe 5-6 minutes reading in depth.
Our local rag is doing the same thing as the Times, but they always put the important details, like the time and place of the meeting, in the last sentence of the video.
I will stick with sources that give me what has worked for ages.....print.
Our local rag is doing the same thing as the Times, but they always put the important details, like the time and place of the meeting, in the last sentence of the video.
I will stick with sources that give me what has worked for ages.....print.
3
Unfortunately, reading news on the web is very dissimilar from reading it in print and it is much more difficult to find the material you are interested in. I would be very surprised if the amount of time people spend reading the paper on the web is anywhere close to the time people spend reading the print edition. Substantial progress has been made in placing the print edition on the web. The first efforts at this were dismal but the Arizona Republic now has an excellent digital version of the print edition. It shows the ads and is easy to read. Of course there is the question of advertising revenue. The digital print edition offers the opportunity for more ads but not targeted ads that have become very popular among advertisers. I suspect some people would be content with the digital print edition in place of their print subscription.
Attracting financially struggling readership through subscription fees based on a sliding scale may open a new perspective to ordinary folk too intimidated by sophisticated old gray lady.
2
Folks, a 22 minute podcast to find out how the Times is changing is too long. Could you think about including a text version so we can fly through it faster?
4
I don't much care how it looks on my computer. Just keep digging for the truth.
2
Reading the NYT with my morning nespresso is my ritual and keeps me sane. Being a little less politically correct would be great..call it like it is..for instance..Whenever the donald and his cronies lie (which is all the time) call it a LIE, please, not just an untruth. His intent is always to lie. We now, more than ever before need checks and balances. Please understand the urgency of this. I am still waiting for his tax returns and a full scale investigation into the role that Russia plays in his finances. Please cover this. And do it NOW!
5
I never watch the videos. If there is no accompanying transcript or article, whateveer the news or opinion is completely escapes my attention. Please don't abandon those of us who prefer to READ our newspaper.
12
I would like to see the Times's partnership with Blendle flourish. or better yet, team up with other leading papers such as WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times to offer customers a single monthly subscription to multiple papers. Readers don't have the patience to manage subscriptions to multiple papers; if the best outlets could be packaged together, digital subscriptions would be that much more attractive. Of course it would have to be affordable, and I have no idea if that would work from a revenue perspective, but FWIW...
I've noticed that the UK Guardian invites donations at the end of many articles. Why not? Yes it's sort of like "begging" but the fact is that many people WANT to support quality journalism, but obstacles confront people facing information overload and (perceived) time pressures. Reading the TImes online, there are many times I would have happily PayPal'ed a "donation" for work well done. Thanks for reading.
I've noticed that the UK Guardian invites donations at the end of many articles. Why not? Yes it's sort of like "begging" but the fact is that many people WANT to support quality journalism, but obstacles confront people facing information overload and (perceived) time pressures. Reading the TImes online, there are many times I would have happily PayPal'ed a "donation" for work well done. Thanks for reading.
2
I really like your idea about a combined digital subscription, but kind of doubt the problems you mentioned can be overcome.
I am an 80 year-old digital subscriber. I am seldom disappointed by your efforts. I start my reading with the daily briefings, read through whatever articles interest me as I work my way from top to bottom and finish with the Opinion section which I praise.
As a Democrat, I get angry at Brooks, Douthat and Dowd and frequently comment. I believe the Commenterss are highlights. I laugh and enjoy Collins and approve of the Editorial offerings.
I want you to become a watchdog of Trump and to make his many flaws public with appropriate reasons.
Between you and the Washington Post, your position in the world of news and opinions is very important.
You have my support many times over.
As a Democrat, I get angry at Brooks, Douthat and Dowd and frequently comment. I believe the Commenterss are highlights. I laugh and enjoy Collins and approve of the Editorial offerings.
I want you to become a watchdog of Trump and to make his many flaws public with appropriate reasons.
Between you and the Washington Post, your position in the world of news and opinions is very important.
You have my support many times over.
8
Add all the bling you want, but please don't reduce the breadth and depth of your print reporting. The world doesn't need another source of pointless videos, talking heads, and lightweight journalism.
12
You say: "New York Times 'is not trying to win a pageview arms race,' writes Mr. Leonhardt’s team — 'If all we cared about was click throughs, we wouldn’t cover the Federal Reserve,' he says — but will adhere to its longtime values and standards of excellence."
That last phrase is why I subscribe to the NYT.
There are plenty of publications that "keep pace with changing reader habits." Don't forget that some of your readers may be here because, quite simply, they can trust what the NYT publishes.
That last phrase is why I subscribe to the NYT.
There are plenty of publications that "keep pace with changing reader habits." Don't forget that some of your readers may be here because, quite simply, they can trust what the NYT publishes.
2
We used to be able to (trust what the NYT publishes). In 2016 the Times absolutely sabotaged Sanders to support Hillary, ignoring credible signs that he had the better chance of defeating Trump. (ANYONE but Hillary would probably have defeated Trump; she and Bill are simply too distrusted, too disliked. But the Times didn't see that, didn't report that.) When Sanders spoke it was as if someone had put him on mute; his mouth was moving but nothing was heard--because the Times and CNN and MSNBC and WaPo wanted Hillary. The mainstream media gave us Trump and now they want to glide over that reality.
6
@farhorizons - Please, the Bernie worship and distortion of the role the media played in his not winning has gone far beyond tiresome.
I'd love to know what Mr. Leonhardt has planned, but don't have 23 minutes to listen to a podcast.
Please, write it down. Most of us can still read.
Please, write it down. Most of us can still read.
15
Exactly. The fact that The Times insists on putting a podcast in its newspaper that we are required to listen to in order to find out what The Times will become demonstrates that this strategy is off-base. I don't want to sit hear listening to podcasts!
I can read. Write it down, and let us read it! Stop with the fluff! No one wants it! If you think that's what we want, then you've blown it! Big time!
I can read. Write it down, and let us read it! Stop with the fluff! No one wants it! If you think that's what we want, then you've blown it! Big time!
2
1
Forget the digital age. How about spending some more time re-evaluating how to produce quality journalism in the age of Trump & Bannon?! It took the NYT over a year to print the words Trump and "lie" in the same headline. At this pace, there won't be much of American democracy left by the time you guys hit your stride in holding those in power accountable (effectively).
5
I wonder if Mr. Leonhart and his crew spent any time discussing the paper's abandonment of its local suburban readership, even though our subscription dollars probably account for a good chunk of The Times' operating budget. Do the paper's conference rooms still have those maps on the wall with depictions of monsters and serpents between Brooklyn and the Hamptons?
4
The Times in print is by far the way for me to digest the news thoroughly, reading the first section (almost) cover to cover. The headlines size and type, the cover photograph - consistantly outstanding - then the articles leading up to the editorials and opinions have a purpose that become scattered online, although when time is short, digital works. As the demand for online news grows, the challenge for the paper to be mirrored online has, so far, been met, but only as it accompanies the paper that I pick up on my step each morning.
Bringing the Times into middle and high schools is necessary for kids to appreciate quality news, quality reporting at an early age. Many of these curious kids who love to write will end up at a desk at your newspaper. I urge every subscriber to donate their papers to public schools when they go on vacation.
There is no other source of news that has the excellence and breadth of the New York Times. Thank you!
Bringing the Times into middle and high schools is necessary for kids to appreciate quality news, quality reporting at an early age. Many of these curious kids who love to write will end up at a desk at your newspaper. I urge every subscriber to donate their papers to public schools when they go on vacation.
There is no other source of news that has the excellence and breadth of the New York Times. Thank you!
8
It may be too much to hope for but perhaps the Times editors and management will learn from its past journalism failures such as the Judith Miller/Iraq War cheerleading; the early Hillary Clinton endorsement which tainted its coverage of Sanders; its cozy membership in the "conventional wisdom" bubble of NYC-D.C. elite as relfected in so many of its Opinion columnists; some of who have been so wrong so often in their "expertise" yet continue to have the NYT platform (e.g. Friedman, Brooks to name just two.)
12
The NYT is the best English language newspaper in the world, so much so that I subscribe even though I am English and live in England. I need it even mroe in an epoch when free speech, liberal values and evenr rationality are under attack as never before.
We used to have a great liberal voice here in the UK, too - The Guardian. But dopey thinking and unwise spending has left it running a $100m a year loss, sacking most journalists, begging from readers and whoring itself out to advertsisers and interest groups ('this content is brought to you by....'). Now, it covers little news outside the Westminster bubble plus other peoples stories regurgitated, and it bulks up on 'opinion', a monoculture of ultra-conformist leftism whose only point is to out-PC everyone else. An empty shell of its former self.
Go easy on the visuals. Words are your trade. Respect them!
And please, I dont read you or any other papers to hear saloon bar bores whether left or right tell me their (so predictable) views.
Reprot the news, with words carefully chosen and deployed, independently and factually, and you'll be the last newspaper left standing!
We used to have a great liberal voice here in the UK, too - The Guardian. But dopey thinking and unwise spending has left it running a $100m a year loss, sacking most journalists, begging from readers and whoring itself out to advertsisers and interest groups ('this content is brought to you by....'). Now, it covers little news outside the Westminster bubble plus other peoples stories regurgitated, and it bulks up on 'opinion', a monoculture of ultra-conformist leftism whose only point is to out-PC everyone else. An empty shell of its former self.
Go easy on the visuals. Words are your trade. Respect them!
And please, I dont read you or any other papers to hear saloon bar bores whether left or right tell me their (so predictable) views.
Reprot the news, with words carefully chosen and deployed, independently and factually, and you'll be the last newspaper left standing!
1
I have been a NYT subscriber since August of 2016. Before that I used to subscribe to WSJ, and the Economist.
I spend longer hours studying the NYT than I ever did reading other publications. Why? Because the NYT articles attract my attention for a long time. They are rich in vocabulary and English literature, and I enjoy reading them.
You ask how the NYT can flourish in the digital era? My answer is that the NYT should consider itself a universal newspaper, a global publication. It should have the best interests of the peoples of the world in mind in everything it publishes.
I spend longer hours studying the NYT than I ever did reading other publications. Why? Because the NYT articles attract my attention for a long time. They are rich in vocabulary and English literature, and I enjoy reading them.
You ask how the NYT can flourish in the digital era? My answer is that the NYT should consider itself a universal newspaper, a global publication. It should have the best interests of the peoples of the world in mind in everything it publishes.
1
This is off to a bad start. Clicking on the podcast link, you immediately discover that there is no control for sound level, just the choice of off or on. And no indication of how long the podcast is.
5
"The report places great emphasis on 'visual journalism.'"
And here it is trumpeted in a podcast, that has no "visual journalism" at all.
Cognitive dissonance?
And here it is trumpeted in a podcast, that has no "visual journalism" at all.
Cognitive dissonance?
3
Please focus on ways to survive the upcoming overthrow of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
As you've surely noticed, legitimate media folks were arrested and charged with felonies for reporting on a demonstration against DT that turned violent. Have you set up a fund to pay reporters' legal bills? They will be considerable once DT's army of attorneys goes after anyone who mentions his lies. There will be libel and slander suits galore, all aimed at keeping the dictator propped up.
NYT apps can be forbidden (check out what happens under other authoritarian regimes). How will you get news out and keep the NYT alive if right-wing censorship clamps down on your website?
We're depending on you. Please plan ahead!
As you've surely noticed, legitimate media folks were arrested and charged with felonies for reporting on a demonstration against DT that turned violent. Have you set up a fund to pay reporters' legal bills? They will be considerable once DT's army of attorneys goes after anyone who mentions his lies. There will be libel and slander suits galore, all aimed at keeping the dictator propped up.
NYT apps can be forbidden (check out what happens under other authoritarian regimes). How will you get news out and keep the NYT alive if right-wing censorship clamps down on your website?
We're depending on you. Please plan ahead!
34
The NYT online may be disparaged by many urbanites, but for us, in very rural Montana, we find it a wonderful addition to our news reading. Thanks for looking toward a careful and in-tune-with-the times (no pun?) strategy to the news in the coming years. We find your coverage refreshing, your editorials informative, and your opinion page essential to our consideration of this era of change.
33
While all the fancy graphics and huge photos are probably very nice, though they generally crash my computer, I would appreciate more unbiased reporting, and less 'Ladies Home Journal' advice about how to live my life (on the front page, no less!). Come on, just be the paper you used to be!
38
Isn't it kind of sad when the Times runs one of their historical issues for us and we get to see what a newspaper used took look like. . . . Concise stories that were full of relevant content and short on editorializing. If I want long-winded rambling stories that feel like they'll never end while saying very little worth remembering, I'd renew my subscription to New Yorker, which I dropped specifically for that reason. Just to think I was somehow impressing someone by dropping it's name wasn't worth the time or the money, besides being pretentious. That's one role model the NYTimes would be wise not to try and emulate. But it's probably too late.
2
"...just be the paper you used to be"? " ; "...unbiased reporting..."???
I've been closely reading these pages for close to thirty-five years. I disagree.
I've been closely reading these pages for close to thirty-five years. I disagree.
I need a newspaper that I can sit down, skim my eyes over, and read, even if I'm also holding onto a subway rail or eating my breakfast at home.
A website doesn't let me do that; it's a job requiring my hands, and constant interaction. It doesn't let me see an array of possible stuff I might like to look at more closely, like Jeanne-Claude's hair drew me yesterday to notice the article about Christo's canceled Colorado project. And it tires out my eyesight. Increasingly, the Times website uses pop-ups, Flash features, etc that overtax my three-year-old computer, which bogs down for 5-50 seconds every time I click so it can (per Status bar in lower left corner) talk to countless advertisers or other external websites before proceeding.
Each and every year, less and less is there for me to read - photos and white space are huge, while more and more content is shifting to online only. I rarely get a chance to trudge to my desk to look even some of it up.
And now, I can't even find out what David Leonhardt thinks; it's not "fit to print"! I only have time to read, not sit through all the same content in audio form! I do not listen to podcasts; to do so costs me way too much of the news.
So I can only hope that the Times is headed in a direction that serves me more, or at least the same; but evidently I'll never know the plan. (I'm still paying the full subscription price. How unfair that online readers don't get less and less each and every year, but I do!) Sigh.
A website doesn't let me do that; it's a job requiring my hands, and constant interaction. It doesn't let me see an array of possible stuff I might like to look at more closely, like Jeanne-Claude's hair drew me yesterday to notice the article about Christo's canceled Colorado project. And it tires out my eyesight. Increasingly, the Times website uses pop-ups, Flash features, etc that overtax my three-year-old computer, which bogs down for 5-50 seconds every time I click so it can (per Status bar in lower left corner) talk to countless advertisers or other external websites before proceeding.
Each and every year, less and less is there for me to read - photos and white space are huge, while more and more content is shifting to online only. I rarely get a chance to trudge to my desk to look even some of it up.
And now, I can't even find out what David Leonhardt thinks; it's not "fit to print"! I only have time to read, not sit through all the same content in audio form! I do not listen to podcasts; to do so costs me way too much of the news.
So I can only hope that the Times is headed in a direction that serves me more, or at least the same; but evidently I'll never know the plan. (I'm still paying the full subscription price. How unfair that online readers don't get less and less each and every year, but I do!) Sigh.
25
I agree! I know some people love podcasts. Not me. But I remember hearing that my forebears were mesmerized by them back when they came forth from something called a "radio." I don't get it...
But I do look at the Times on my computer, mainly for the comments. I'll read something inflammatory in the paper-paper and then run to my e-paper version to see if comments are allowed. Since the election of President Trump, there are way fewer opportunities to comment. Less opportunity for dissent against your dissent...
Visual is not the way to go. Eyes get tired at work. I will continue *keeping it real* with the paper I can hold, fold, and crumple. If you're trying to please millennials by tailoring your once-glorious paper to fit smartphone screens, big mistake.
Do what you're best at! The written word. It used to be "All the News That's Fit To Print." Now you strain to be "Not Just News!" Explain all you want but that's what's happening to this once fine paper. And don't get me started on your over-the-top, liberal-bubble contempt for our new president.
But I do look at the Times on my computer, mainly for the comments. I'll read something inflammatory in the paper-paper and then run to my e-paper version to see if comments are allowed. Since the election of President Trump, there are way fewer opportunities to comment. Less opportunity for dissent against your dissent...
Visual is not the way to go. Eyes get tired at work. I will continue *keeping it real* with the paper I can hold, fold, and crumple. If you're trying to please millennials by tailoring your once-glorious paper to fit smartphone screens, big mistake.
Do what you're best at! The written word. It used to be "All the News That's Fit To Print." Now you strain to be "Not Just News!" Explain all you want but that's what's happening to this once fine paper. And don't get me started on your over-the-top, liberal-bubble contempt for our new president.
5
"How can The New York Times produce quality journalism in the digital era?"
A start might be hiring someone that voted for Trump and didn't grow up on the West Side
A start might be hiring someone that voted for Trump and didn't grow up on the West Side
14
So why do you read the NY Times when you have Murdoch media and Breitbart as your version of "quality journalism."
60
Might you mean someone "who" voted for Trump? Just wondering if grammatical errors are a characteristic of Trump voters...
4
Was that a not-so-thinly-veiled anti-Semitic barb with your reference to the West Side? What a surprise. When I want to hear from and read anti-intellectual jingoistic "reporting," I can drop by Fox News, thanks. There is no liberal or conservative or independent worth reading who admits to voting for Trump. It's hard enough for me to read the articles the Times writes interviewing Trump voters, who have as a whole caused me to lower my previously generous opinion of the intelligence of some of my fellow Americans. I should have known this was the Idiocracy we were heading toward after years of declining emphasis on education, obsession with media slop like Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian, and non-stop viewing of the brain trust on Fox and Friends. I don't want to read reporting by someone who admittedly voted for a man this ignorant and dangerous any more than I want to go under the knife of an intoxicated surgeon. Judgement and sobriety count for more in certain professions and journalism is one of them.
10
To me, a great example was the piece David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post (my local paper that lands on my driveway each morning) did to investigate where Trump's claimed charitable donations went. Not only was it a long form piece that gave me information that was NOT available anywhere else, it also combined old fashioned shoe leather journalism with the use of Twitter and social media *to gather information and to amplify reporting* - not just to do the old "ask any a-hole" kind of article filler to include views from both "sides."
I look forward to seeing more of that kind of thing on my digital subscription to the NY Times.