Looking for the story about the vandalism of Jewish gravestones in St Louis, NYT posted an AP article with the title 'Evidence of Rising Anti-Semitism, but Data Mostly Elusive" I suggest the NYT host a talk/discussion about the use of the word "Elusive"
In a world of media distrust and "alternative facts" it is more important than ever that papers of record (including The Times) keep -- and even expand -- their fact-checking and editing. The errors that may expand with a new system with less review and a push for speed will only reinforce the narrative of those who are trying to discredit your paper and others. The rush to publication and to online clicks has many deleterious consequences. I read the print newspaper because I want a curated (edited) source (and really do not have patience to listen to videos).
My second point concerns the word-level editing in this article: In an article about editing, I find the substitution of "most" for "almost" particularly disturbing (last sentence in paragraph 4, "most everyone"). The words do not mean the same thing. "Almost" everyone would be everyone minus a few people; "almost" is not quite, or nearly. "Most" is a different word altogether, the superlative of many, much, the largest compared with others. The usage in this column is unfortunately common; I am sorry to see the public editor contribute to the death of the very useful word "almost."
My second point concerns the word-level editing in this article: In an article about editing, I find the substitution of "most" for "almost" particularly disturbing (last sentence in paragraph 4, "most everyone"). The words do not mean the same thing. "Almost" everyone would be everyone minus a few people; "almost" is not quite, or nearly. "Most" is a different word altogether, the superlative of many, much, the largest compared with others. The usage in this column is unfortunately common; I am sorry to see the public editor contribute to the death of the very useful word "almost."
1
The fire hydrant image is amusing, as was Drew Middleton's characterization of editors a few decades ago as "pallid clerks," but the proposed changes for the Times remind this former reporter of Gannett's turn to McNews. It's cheaper, yes, quicker, but turning reporters into photographers and video producers and click counters could well undermine, though exhaustion alone, the reportorial energy and relentlessness that has been the foundation of the Times's excellence. It's worrying.
1
clubclick @atclubclick 3m3 minutes ago
More
@LinkedInHelp im entitled to a response started generating it in google too that u dont accept there verified brands
More
@LinkedInHelp im entitled to a response started generating it in google too that u dont accept there verified brands
dont be a google verified brand and submitt a brand request to linkedin they refuse to reply even when there own experts agree
As a high school newspaper editor in 1959 I visited the Times and still have my copy of "Winners and Sinners." Back then there was a rule of sorts against using the same word more than once in headlines on the same page. The front page on Sunday 2/12/17 had FOUR versions of "Lose." Top of page: "Column : "After Court Losses, Trump Weighs New Travel Ban." Column 1: "Knicks Invent New Type of Loss." Column 2: "Addicts Could Have the Most to Lose." Column 5: "Foreign Policy Quickly Loses its Sharp Edge." (This hed is both meaningless and biased.) The accompanying photo on the public editor's webpage shows the Times newsroom back in 1960 —a crew of middle-aged white men in ties. At least they knew how to edit the paper.
4
"Soon this conveyor will be replaced by a bespoke editing system built primarily around digital. "
This sounds like our so-called president saying "We're so good at cyber."
I guess any adjective can be a noun now.
This sounds like our so-called president saying "We're so good at cyber."
I guess any adjective can be a noun now.
3
now its all digital that makes it more important that anything verified with google be accepted by every network
"If this new model works, readers will never notice. If it doesn’t, they will be the most important check on the system."
-
So, damage the system and see who complains? If there are only a few complaints, no problem. The bottom line seems to be efficiency. Journalism at the Times is being deliberately dumbed down.
-
So, damage the system and see who complains? If there are only a few complaints, no problem. The bottom line seems to be efficiency. Journalism at the Times is being deliberately dumbed down.
2
we have no governing body over the internet that is a real issue
I pay for this newspaper and rely on it as a source. I am not at all sure why myself and other readers bear the responsibility of being the most important check on the system, as the last line in this article states. The mistakes that are made are not all due to the system, but to editorial policy that distorts the truth. I recently contacted the public editor about a nearly completely plagiarized (from a local Ohio newspaper) NYT article that, in addition to the blatant copying (which, if the original newspaper were in the NYT network, may have been permissible on some distorted level) deliberately left out the most important fact in the article while strongly implying a more "Times editorial policy" non-fact was true instead. This was nauseating. In this rambling discussion of how the NYT doesn't have enough copy editors to do the job right and that the rethink of the system now values speed and clickbait - what the market now values more - over accuracy and the truth.
3
im a developer as we speak microsoft are trying to design digital identification for all users online its still under construction to make life easier online
I was surprised that this piece completely failed to acknowledge how far the copy editing standards of the Times have slipped. In the past several years, I have found that every time I pick up the paper (yes, I am a print holdout), I notice at least one grammatical error, such as a dangling modifier or a redundant word. I was taught that the Times was the gold standard of grammar and usage, but clearly that standard has become tarnished in the digital age. Please do not allow the standards of the Times to slip any lower.
6
As another print holdout, "at least one" may be true but is still relatively few considering the number of articles written.
As far as I am concerned, a big intentional slip in standards occurred about 20 years ago when The Times starting referring to President Clinton (and subsequently Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump) as "the president" instead of "the President".
[I better beware of DW (see earlier postings), who will probably jump in here to tell us about his recognizing a longtime "trend to lowercase" sans giving a single reason supporting such.]
As far as I am concerned, a big intentional slip in standards occurred about 20 years ago when The Times starting referring to President Clinton (and subsequently Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump) as "the president" instead of "the President".
[I better beware of DW (see earlier postings), who will probably jump in here to tell us about his recognizing a longtime "trend to lowercase" sans giving a single reason supporting such.]
2
i disagree in a dgital world if u compare the times to alot of publisists u will see how good they are with there content and media
1
I want the NYTimes to implement a standard version identification system, a technology that has been around in software developmet for decades. In fact, it is so basic, I have to wonder if it is in the writing/editing system that the newspaper uses, but has been turned off at the direction of top management, going back to at least Jill Abramson?
I'd rather read an article that has been thoroughly fact-checked and edited and have to wait an extra hour to see it, than read a quickly written and even more quickly edited product that has to be 'rushed' to digital to beat a Tweet.
It's what I am paying for in my subscription - to get the real news, the truth, and all the facts pertinent to a story. If I see that this change you are instituting is having a negative effect on the news, I'll have to say goodbye. Don't want to do that, but I depend on NYT as a major source of information.
It's what I am paying for in my subscription - to get the real news, the truth, and all the facts pertinent to a story. If I see that this change you are instituting is having a negative effect on the news, I'll have to say goodbye. Don't want to do that, but I depend on NYT as a major source of information.
6
Dear Ms Spayd,
Thanks for a thoughtful, frank and penetrating piece that reaches beyond the copy desk of the NYT to the industry as a whole. As a 27-yr. vet of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, four years as senior editor/co-owner of an online magazine, and recent work writing and editing content marketing, I appreciate your lucid grasp of the uncertain big picture. Your piece is required reading for my students in the Writing for Media class at Oregon State.
Thanks for a thoughtful, frank and penetrating piece that reaches beyond the copy desk of the NYT to the industry as a whole. As a 27-yr. vet of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, four years as senior editor/co-owner of an online magazine, and recent work writing and editing content marketing, I appreciate your lucid grasp of the uncertain big picture. Your piece is required reading for my students in the Writing for Media class at Oregon State.
In light of the new political "realities," maybe the Times would consider creating a new position: Alternative Fact Checker.
2
I would suggest that the PE entries before and after this entry bodes very poorly for the Times.
What is unquestionably demonstrated is that the number of editors on the payroll is entirely irrelevant if they abdicate their chief function, assuring that the standards of the Times are upheld.
There is abject failure in the Times as constituted, and it promises to get worse.
What is unquestionably demonstrated is that the number of editors on the payroll is entirely irrelevant if they abdicate their chief function, assuring that the standards of the Times are upheld.
There is abject failure in the Times as constituted, and it promises to get worse.
2
The quality of writing is what I care about. And a lot of times that means the quality of the editor as well.
I read sports stories simply because Michael Powell wrote them. I think video is boring and almost never look at it.
I wish you would focus on great writing and forget how fast you could post a digital story no one looks at.
I read sports stories simply because Michael Powell wrote them. I think video is boring and almost never look at it.
I wish you would focus on great writing and forget how fast you could post a digital story no one looks at.
8
Please don't start emphasizing video over print. On rare occasions that might enhance a story, but for me it is mostly a reason to skip that story. It is much, much faster to quickly read a story or a quote than to have to listen to someone say it. It is true that video would be a way to reach our president, who apparently cannot or does not read, but that approach should not become normalized.
7
a blend of video and wrighting is media online in 2017
Which, of course, is what has led to the general public accepting spelling such as "wrighting."
Another round of purges, huh? Soon we will have fewer, but better, editors.
4
@Cheap Jim, that's their story and they're sticking to it...
6
As editors leave, errors proliferate and credibility falls. The Times is commendable in its avoidance of words like "brand" but looser editing will show in the decline of the brand.
The glory of the Times is your longer analytical stories covering the life of a homeless girl and her family in New York or the ways corporations economically exploit small cities desperate for investment. Don't cut there.
The glory of the Times is your longer analytical stories covering the life of a homeless girl and her family in New York or the ways corporations economically exploit small cities desperate for investment. Don't cut there.
8
Then will the Times be willing to expand its coverage of its errors, inevitable when editing contracts?
4
Enough of the self-congratulations. The NYT editing is far from "impeccable", just as its comment threads are far from "being free of name calling".
The NYT's biggest problem is its insufferable arrogance.
The NYT's biggest problem is its insufferable arrogance.
4
Impeccable ediring? https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/author/philip-b-corbett/
4
Nitpick...nitpick...nitpick!
The Eustice Tilley oh-so-pretentious and pompous nose-in-the-air elite-wannabes...
This is a newspaper, not a Ph.D. dissertation, the same paper to wrap fish as is The National Enquirer.
And, Oh!, the supercilious daily use of "fancy" words...!
In today's paper, re: "Esquire," was the word, "belletrist."
Please! How many of your average readers (I included) know this word?
The NYT is as much a fish-wrapper as is The National Enquirer.
As Lenny said to Lila in "The Heartbreak Kid" (1972),
"It's over, Lila. It's over."
The Eustice Tilley oh-so-pretentious and pompous nose-in-the-air elite-wannabes...
This is a newspaper, not a Ph.D. dissertation, the same paper to wrap fish as is The National Enquirer.
And, Oh!, the supercilious daily use of "fancy" words...!
In today's paper, re: "Esquire," was the word, "belletrist."
Please! How many of your average readers (I included) know this word?
The NYT is as much a fish-wrapper as is The National Enquirer.
As Lenny said to Lila in "The Heartbreak Kid" (1972),
"It's over, Lila. It's over."
1
As who served as assistant to the National Editor and also covered Congress for the NYT, I would note that the current crop of reporters, especially with today's technology, need to be more responsible for the quality of the stories submitted. Auto-correct and easy access to Google, etc. make many errors inexcusable.
9
The whole point of good journalism is to not get all your information from Google. It is really sad that so many people don't understand this. The whole point of editing, of editors, is to be non-Google. Google is the opposite of great editing. Of Great Journalism. How can you compare Google to the NYT? To the aspiration of what a media brand - a trusted media brand is or once was?
Stephen is not comparing the NYT to Google.
2
Thank you for informing us of your plans. Please provide updates as new systems are put in place.
I am occasionally very vocal in my criticism of the writing and editing of Times stories. Despite that I have a great appreciation for the work of all the staff.
I offer a few pet peeves I hope get addressed.
1. Do not try to use the same high-emotion style of story-telling and headline writing that we expect from the National Enquirer and Faux News. Treat your readers like adults. Even if we aren't, we're here to grow up.
2. Less paraphrasing of politicians and more direct quotes. Paraphrases are too often manipulated mis-quotes. I have come to distrust them. Also, provide more context to the quote, even if doing so runs against the point the journalist hopes to make. It's called honesty.
3. No clickbait headlines please, even if it means slightly less than elegant phrasing.
Lastly, remember the great oath ...
The TRUTH,
the WHOLE truth,
and NOTHING BUT the truth...
Leave out any one of those and you can deceive while not strictly lying.
You folks have a hard and essential job. For the most part I admire how you perform it.
John Jencks,
Porland, Oregon
I am occasionally very vocal in my criticism of the writing and editing of Times stories. Despite that I have a great appreciation for the work of all the staff.
I offer a few pet peeves I hope get addressed.
1. Do not try to use the same high-emotion style of story-telling and headline writing that we expect from the National Enquirer and Faux News. Treat your readers like adults. Even if we aren't, we're here to grow up.
2. Less paraphrasing of politicians and more direct quotes. Paraphrases are too often manipulated mis-quotes. I have come to distrust them. Also, provide more context to the quote, even if doing so runs against the point the journalist hopes to make. It's called honesty.
3. No clickbait headlines please, even if it means slightly less than elegant phrasing.
Lastly, remember the great oath ...
The TRUTH,
the WHOLE truth,
and NOTHING BUT the truth...
Leave out any one of those and you can deceive while not strictly lying.
You folks have a hard and essential job. For the most part I admire how you perform it.
John Jencks,
Porland, Oregon
9
I find at least one punctuation, grammar, or missing word error every day when reading the digital version of the NYT. It's infuriating to realize the cause is wanting to get the story published quickly, rather than wanting to be as accurate as possible. Quality has definitely declined over the past year or two. Haste really does make waste!
7
So with all these various people looking at stories and such, how did the Times drop the ball so badly on the election? Was it a case of the entire organization being corrupted and therefore 'Group Think?' Did no one have the intestinal fortitude to say "No!"?
3
I hate to tell you this, but the Times' editing has been awful for years already. The only place I have continued to see truly excellent copy editing is the New Yorker, while I've frequently thought to myself that the Times needs me and a few of my equally neurotic (when it comes to grammar) friends.
5
Being neurotic about grammar is not a virtue, honest. The New Yorker deserves high marks for meticulous editing, I agree, but it's also a little precious and affected sometimes.
1
Being "neurotic" about grammar is indeed a virtue. The digital age has only led America into believing that it isn't.
2
Here's an editing incident I even disputed with Phil Corbett's analysis in his occasional Times Insider piece, "Copy Edit This."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/02/insider/copy-edit-this-qu...
This was the last of the 10 questions:
"The president-elect has long held a financial stake in “The Apprentice” franchise. His original contract in 2003 with Mark Burnett, the show’s creator, promised Mr.Trump as much as 50 percent of the show’s gross receipts after costs, and 20 percent from other versions of the show, like international editions, according to a copy of the contract obtained by The New York Times."
The correct answer, to Corbett, was that the quotation marks were incorrectly placed, and should have read the "Apprentice" franchise.
My problem was much greater than that piece of nitpickery. "50% of the show's gross receipts after costs?" In the semesters of hospitality accounting I took, we were taught that gross receipts were just that, gross, and that gross receipts after costs should be characterized as "net receipts." To me, he got the small point right (big deal), but missed an important mischaracterization. In Hollywood, it's crucial, because moguls have screwed over people waiting for a percentage of the net for eons. Somehow, the biggest blockbusters, after deducting costs, almost always yield a paper loss, which would be great karmic payback for Trump. Corbett told me he would pass my question to the editor, but wouldn't answer himself.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/02/insider/copy-edit-this-qu...
This was the last of the 10 questions:
"The president-elect has long held a financial stake in “The Apprentice” franchise. His original contract in 2003 with Mark Burnett, the show’s creator, promised Mr.Trump as much as 50 percent of the show’s gross receipts after costs, and 20 percent from other versions of the show, like international editions, according to a copy of the contract obtained by The New York Times."
The correct answer, to Corbett, was that the quotation marks were incorrectly placed, and should have read the "Apprentice" franchise.
My problem was much greater than that piece of nitpickery. "50% of the show's gross receipts after costs?" In the semesters of hospitality accounting I took, we were taught that gross receipts were just that, gross, and that gross receipts after costs should be characterized as "net receipts." To me, he got the small point right (big deal), but missed an important mischaracterization. In Hollywood, it's crucial, because moguls have screwed over people waiting for a percentage of the net for eons. Somehow, the biggest blockbusters, after deducting costs, almost always yield a paper loss, which would be great karmic payback for Trump. Corbett told me he would pass my question to the editor, but wouldn't answer himself.
4
It's just a business decision, from an MBA point of view employees are a cost of doing business so having many layers of editing seems superfluous.
The business of business is collecting value for its shareholders and they use the same interchangeable model to run everything. Even the .gov is now going to be run like a business and the "shareholders" are an exclusive club.
The business of business is collecting value for its shareholders and they use the same interchangeable model to run everything. Even the .gov is now going to be run like a business and the "shareholders" are an exclusive club.
2
Actually the business of business is making something of value and selling it at a profit. Shareholders are not a necessary part of "business"
1
Does the Times think that emphasizing video to the eventual exclusion of all else will somehow require fewer editors? That's just magical thinking.
13
"System failure" and similar terms have been used by The Times to explain various journalistic blunders in recent years. The question now is whether a safety net with bigger holes than ever at "the paper of record" will cause such mistakes to occur even more frequently. It's hard to believe that it'll mean less.
7
Use "fewer," not less.
2
No, @ABC, @dirconnector had the right word. Just enter the word elided at the end: "It's hard to believe that it'll mean less (frequently)."
Now try "It's hard to believe that it'll mean fewer (frequently)."
Less properly modifies "frequently." Fewer means fewer in number. The previous sentence makes clear that the meaning is "mistakes to occur more or less frequently."
Now try "It's hard to believe that it'll mean fewer (frequently)."
Less properly modifies "frequently." Fewer means fewer in number. The previous sentence makes clear that the meaning is "mistakes to occur more or less frequently."
2
@ABC, @dotconnecter has the right word. In this case, "less" is modifying the elided word from the previous sntence. So dotconnecter could have written "It's hard to believe that it'll mean less frequently."
1
I'm sure it takes a professional to weigh the value of editors against costs. But please don't make the mistake of turning everything to Video. The amount of news generated drops significantly, like watching TV instead of reading the newspapers.
12
You said it yourself: The copy editor, as a pair of fresh eyes, is often the one who catches not just typos and grammar errors but those "duh" errors of sense and content that Joe Reader will also notice--while top editors, in their "layers" and fire-hydrant finessing of language, will miss. It troubles me to hear vague portents of staff cuts and then hints that (yep, once again) copy editors may be the first (or the main ones) to go. I've been a top editor, a line editor, AND a copy editor, and I am the first to decry the folly of over-editing. But really, folks, I'm seeing eerie parallels with our nation's growing income inequality problem here. Unless the Times is also willing to streamline and trim editors at the top, I'll have a hard time respecting its "new" editing decisions.
12
Thanks to the Public Editor for this primer on editing.
One thing I was glad to read in this Editing 3.0 primer and in several other postings (posts? --- nope!) was the importance of the 'low-value' copyeditors (copy editors? --- maybe), which is a position requiring truly great skills.
Nevertheless, I think Ms. Spayd and the others should have written something about style. For me (and probably many others), it has been about 20 years since The Times has lost some respect by changing something like "the President of the United States" to the unnatural-looking "the president of the United States", not to mention other such lowercasing, such as "the pope", ad nauseam.
Ms. Spayd asks, "What role should reporters play in taking ownership of their story and its presentation to readers,...? With respect to this aspect of capitalization, I believe most reporters would agree with me.
Anyway, as it has been about 20 years since this change, perhaps the PE should ask a question that still has not been answered: Just why??
[BTW, should I rewrite my first sentence as "Thanks to the public editor..."?]
One thing I was glad to read in this Editing 3.0 primer and in several other postings (posts? --- nope!) was the importance of the 'low-value' copyeditors (copy editors? --- maybe), which is a position requiring truly great skills.
Nevertheless, I think Ms. Spayd and the others should have written something about style. For me (and probably many others), it has been about 20 years since The Times has lost some respect by changing something like "the President of the United States" to the unnatural-looking "the president of the United States", not to mention other such lowercasing, such as "the pope", ad nauseam.
Ms. Spayd asks, "What role should reporters play in taking ownership of their story and its presentation to readers,...? With respect to this aspect of capitalization, I believe most reporters would agree with me.
Anyway, as it has been about 20 years since this change, perhaps the PE should ask a question that still has not been answered: Just why??
[BTW, should I rewrite my first sentence as "Thanks to the public editor..."?]
1
Thanks for informing me about this. However, this is what the email states:
Thank you for participating on NYTimes.com.
Your published submission can be found at this link:
My "published submission"?
Such should read my "posted submission"!
Thank you for participating on NYTimes.com.
Your published submission can be found at this link:
My "published submission"?
Such should read my "posted submission"!
That's a courtesy for readers who wish to claim to have been published by the NY Times.
But, Doug B, just what does such do for the true meaning of the word "publish" itself, which indicates a book, a journal article, or perhaps an actual article/essay in The Times?
With respect to readers who truly wish to claim to have been published in The Times, there is always the Editorial Page, namely the Letters part of it.
Furthermore, and closely related to this particular PE column, something really published is edited, unlike the at-best self-edited postings we find here.
With respect to readers who truly wish to claim to have been published in The Times, there is always the Editorial Page, namely the Letters part of it.
Furthermore, and closely related to this particular PE column, something really published is edited, unlike the at-best self-edited postings we find here.
Question for Ms. Spayd? Does "reporters in the field" refer to those who work outside the NYC office (or outside of the NYC and Washington bureaus) or all reporters at the Times? I'm wondering if the substantial business and metropolitan reporting staffs in the headquarters building are included in that tally. Thanks so much!
Are there any women in the editorial sea of third-floor editors? Is there a 20-year old up and coming editor in the bunch? What is going on today?
6
From Maureen Dowd's column today:
"...White House sews strife..."
As in, seamstresses of evil? Or the Johnny Appleseeds of alt-right hate (White house *sows* strife)?
Alas, copy editing is apparently on its way out...
"...White House sews strife..."
As in, seamstresses of evil? Or the Johnny Appleseeds of alt-right hate (White house *sows* strife)?
Alas, copy editing is apparently on its way out...
32
That one screamed at me, too! Personally, I think the copy-editors are so fatigued by opinion writers like Dowd, and moreso Douthat, who often slips in an error somewhere around paragraph 8 just as the editors are falling asleep.
Please let it not be any "Hal" nor any "Terminator" nor any "Borg" nor any "Watson" nor any "replicant doing any of the editing.
I am okay with "R2D2", "C3PO", "Data", "Doctor" and "Robbie".
But I trust and respect real biological human beings most of all. But the younger I get the more junior editorial moments I have. And my four eyes don't always work.
Editing yourself is one part cognitive dissonance and one part confirmation bias. Then there is a language that has two, to, two, four, fore and for.
I am okay with "R2D2", "C3PO", "Data", "Doctor" and "Robbie".
But I trust and respect real biological human beings most of all. But the younger I get the more junior editorial moments I have. And my four eyes don't always work.
Editing yourself is one part cognitive dissonance and one part confirmation bias. Then there is a language that has two, to, two, four, fore and for.
4
two twos too many....two, to, too. I'll be doggone!
1
Automated editing systems can only perform as programmed unless the creators build in a self-learning failure analysis mode.
And it is what is programmed in that brings concern.
When judgment is turned over to a machine, it is unlikely that the machine will unearth the "duh" element before the egg is cracked over the heads of the Times masthead.
There is more than enough egg on their faces with the HUMAN editors. I would think that they would want to move cautiously...Consistency, while advantageous, isn't always the route to take.
And it is what is programmed in that brings concern.
When judgment is turned over to a machine, it is unlikely that the machine will unearth the "duh" element before the egg is cracked over the heads of the Times masthead.
There is more than enough egg on their faces with the HUMAN editors. I would think that they would want to move cautiously...Consistency, while advantageous, isn't always the route to take.
2
As newsroom revenues shrink, copy editors are generally the first to be sacrificed, yet these talented specialists are the primary gatekeepers of a publications' reputation. It doesn't matter how well researched, thought out, or presented a story is: if it has typos or glaring errors in it, I think less of the publication. There have been many papers that I've bought and read just to keep my copy editing skills sharp because their copy was so bad. Hope this doesn't happen to the Gray Lady.
34
This is so true.
2
Speaking from experience, it's the proofreaders management jettisoned first. (They also did a lot of the fact-checking.)
Too, this crop of "journalists" has relied on spell-check FAR too much. (Many of them--although not, thank the Heavens, at the Times--are also celebrity crazy, fawning over the appearances/utterances of people famous only for being famous.)
None of which boosts credibility.
Oh, dear Times, when I click on a story link and a video begins playing, I find the "pause" button ASAP: I don't want anyone to TELL me a story.
Too, this crop of "journalists" has relied on spell-check FAR too much. (Many of them--although not, thank the Heavens, at the Times--are also celebrity crazy, fawning over the appearances/utterances of people famous only for being famous.)
None of which boosts credibility.
Oh, dear Times, when I click on a story link and a video begins playing, I find the "pause" button ASAP: I don't want anyone to TELL me a story.
5
A cautionary word. Copy editing is one of those skills that is not noticed unless it's not done. When done well, those at the top can easily just assume the copy arrived that way in the first place. And like other professional skills, doing it well takes time and practice. Referring to the best-selling book, I hope I don't someday read in the NY Times that the koala bear eats, shoots, and leaves.
34
Thank you for the view of a possibly endangered organization. I imagine the old saw about 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' may apply.
12
This is a rare time where I think the P.E. could have been WAY nore hard-hitting (to my mind, the current job-holder is WAY better than her predecessor - actually WALKS the walk of serving the readership where other folks have gotten awfully glued to P&L, eyeballs, etc.)
PAPER OF RECORD?? Been a while since I heard that one. Along with "Gray Lady" and "Must Read," each generation of Sulzberger has to work harder than his predecessor ... and each sees (realistically) a lot less "upside" and blue skies.
In a nutshell, speed is at war with quality - in journalism as it often is in cooking.
There have already been TERRIBLE errors of judgment about what stories to run - things where some combination of corners being cut "in the field" and on Eighth Avenue has been the equivalent of egg stains on one's tie. TIE? What's that?
Some of been embarrassing, but make no mistake - it is no accident that when "scooping" nimble institutions whose workforce is half the age - and a lot more "with it" than the Times' otherwise fine staff becomes LIFE OR DEATH, this or that person is BOUND to say, "Let's go with it - as is."
I think things like the decision NOT to run the "Trump 'story' set in Moscow" are about to go the way of a black-and-white-Times - something like quaint.
Anybody with half a brain can see that print is on its last legs. And there go a significant pct of "the editors!"
PAPER OF RECORD?? Been a while since I heard that one. Along with "Gray Lady" and "Must Read," each generation of Sulzberger has to work harder than his predecessor ... and each sees (realistically) a lot less "upside" and blue skies.
In a nutshell, speed is at war with quality - in journalism as it often is in cooking.
There have already been TERRIBLE errors of judgment about what stories to run - things where some combination of corners being cut "in the field" and on Eighth Avenue has been the equivalent of egg stains on one's tie. TIE? What's that?
Some of been embarrassing, but make no mistake - it is no accident that when "scooping" nimble institutions whose workforce is half the age - and a lot more "with it" than the Times' otherwise fine staff becomes LIFE OR DEATH, this or that person is BOUND to say, "Let's go with it - as is."
I think things like the decision NOT to run the "Trump 'story' set in Moscow" are about to go the way of a black-and-white-Times - something like quaint.
Anybody with half a brain can see that print is on its last legs. And there go a significant pct of "the editors!"
Dear Ed: a little correction for you...?
"Some of been embarrassing,....." hello? Do you mean "Some HAVE been embarrassing...." - or - "Some OF THEM have been...(et cetera). ? Just to be clear they probably mean the same thing - but in THIS article, attention to detail is - well - expected!
(But I'm an old pedant now - oops! nearly wrote PEANUT!)
"Some of been embarrassing,....." hello? Do you mean "Some HAVE been embarrassing...." - or - "Some OF THEM have been...(et cetera). ? Just to be clear they probably mean the same thing - but in THIS article, attention to detail is - well - expected!
(But I'm an old pedant now - oops! nearly wrote PEANUT!)
4
Of the various editorial functions Ms. Spayd identifies, the most important is that of the backfielder, "identifying holes, reviewing sources, questioning facts". Bad grammar or punctuation, misspelling and, to a lesser extent, violations of the style manual, may put readers off, as may poor choice of words, but holes, unpersuasive sources and inaccurate facts leave the reader uninformed and put in question The Times' reliability and usefulness.
The Times already has a problem with holes. Articles too often cite conflicting opinions without examining the evidence that makes them plausible or not. This is not just a matter of false equivalence but of a simple failure to dig for the truth rather than being satisfied with reporting contesting opinions.
This problem should be born in mind in making changes in the editing process.
Much the choice of words editing, by the way, the dogs leaving their calling card on the fire hydrant, is unnecessary. Often it probably doesn't improve an article but merely substitutes one person's preference for another's. The greatest savings in time and staff might be made in this area.
The Times already has a problem with holes. Articles too often cite conflicting opinions without examining the evidence that makes them plausible or not. This is not just a matter of false equivalence but of a simple failure to dig for the truth rather than being satisfied with reporting contesting opinions.
This problem should be born in mind in making changes in the editing process.
Much the choice of words editing, by the way, the dogs leaving their calling card on the fire hydrant, is unnecessary. Often it probably doesn't improve an article but merely substitutes one person's preference for another's. The greatest savings in time and staff might be made in this area.
5
Thank you for the article. It shed a light on how editing works for those readers (like me) who had no real idea.
From the article: "Some also note that it was just re-engineered so breaking news can move at a faster pace". It is important to maintain accuracy with breaking news and if this results in the NYT not being the first, so be it. I suspect readers want a source that they can rely on, even if an event has been made public elsewhere a minute, an hour or a day earlier.
From the article: "Some also note that it was just re-engineered so breaking news can move at a faster pace". It is important to maintain accuracy with breaking news and if this results in the NYT not being the first, so be it. I suspect readers want a source that they can rely on, even if an event has been made public elsewhere a minute, an hour or a day earlier.
22
Good Luck with the changes .... they are necessary. Hopefully a well thought out and tested rollout. (unlike, let's say the refugee and immigration executive order)
3
The Sulzbergers should spring for a compete set of Theodore M. Bernstein's books for every reporter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Menline_Bernstein They're going to need them.
4
It's already become more and more common to see grammatical errors, misspellings and poorly worded headlines on the website. I sincerely hope that efforts toward efficiency and cost-saving do not diminish the product, but that seems highly unlikely.
19
Contrary to Ms. Spayd’s opening paragraph, I've seen a notable decline in the level of the Times' editing over the past year or so. My letters to the editor and to Ms. Spayd about these examples have gone unacknowledged.
1. Contradictions between Ford story by Binyamin Appelbaum, 11/18/16 and Carrier story by Nelson Schwartz, 11/26/16, regarding whether Trump was responsible for Ford keeping jobs in the US. The 2nd article described Trump's lie as “not clear," though it was exposed in the 1st article.
2. Softening of descriptions of Trump’s documented misbehavior in story about Nikki Haley by Richard Fausset and Somini Sengupta, 11/24/16. The authors falsely equated unproven accusations of “sexual encounters” between Ms. Haley and 2 Republican operatives during her gubernatorial campaign with the videotape of Trump boasting about uninvitedly kissing women and grabbing their genitals (which IS sexual assault).
3. Articles by Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, 11/17/6, were suspiciously similar in wording of 7 phrases. It seemed that the authors either plagiarized each other, coincidentally came up with 7 nearly identical phrases, or collaborated on each others’ articles without bylines. The editors should have noticed the repeated phrases in two articles on facing pages and edited it out of one or the other article.
If the Times’ editing gets much worse we readers are in big trouble.
1. Contradictions between Ford story by Binyamin Appelbaum, 11/18/16 and Carrier story by Nelson Schwartz, 11/26/16, regarding whether Trump was responsible for Ford keeping jobs in the US. The 2nd article described Trump's lie as “not clear," though it was exposed in the 1st article.
2. Softening of descriptions of Trump’s documented misbehavior in story about Nikki Haley by Richard Fausset and Somini Sengupta, 11/24/16. The authors falsely equated unproven accusations of “sexual encounters” between Ms. Haley and 2 Republican operatives during her gubernatorial campaign with the videotape of Trump boasting about uninvitedly kissing women and grabbing their genitals (which IS sexual assault).
3. Articles by Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, 11/17/6, were suspiciously similar in wording of 7 phrases. It seemed that the authors either plagiarized each other, coincidentally came up with 7 nearly identical phrases, or collaborated on each others’ articles without bylines. The editors should have noticed the repeated phrases in two articles on facing pages and edited it out of one or the other article.
If the Times’ editing gets much worse we readers are in big trouble.
7
Arguing over the subjective -- yes, subjective. NYTimes can't afford that, anymore.
2
I had a cat once. At the end, she had a tumor under her tongue. I remember when the vet mentioned that it was possible to remove the tongue and put in a feeding tube. As I recall, I found the whole premise sick because it wasn't going to prevent the inevitable, it was just going to mutilate the cat so that I could keep it going for a few months more at best.
This is the Times trying to convince itself that one more mutilation is, somehow, going to turn it all around. And at the end, the Times will discover the thing I knew right from the beginning. When you cut away at something you love in this fashion, you kill it, and you do it in a way that removes any shred of dignity that could have been salvaged.
This is the Times trying to convince itself that one more mutilation is, somehow, going to turn it all around. And at the end, the Times will discover the thing I knew right from the beginning. When you cut away at something you love in this fashion, you kill it, and you do it in a way that removes any shred of dignity that could have been salvaged.
22
In Maureen Dowd's column today: "the slapdash White House sews strife, chaos and cruelty." This is what happens when spell-checker replaces humans. I guess we'll just have to get used to it.
14
Phil Corbett, the keeper of the Times' stylebook, used to have a very useful blog on grammar and usage, called After Deadline. It was a weekly Tuesday must read for me, and others. About once a month he would accumulate errors under the rubric "When Spell-Check Can't Help." This has consistently trended to the worse. Sadly, and wrongheadedly, Corbett put After Deadline out to pasture about a year ago. It is needed, now more than ever. Just by dint of its necessity, don't expect it to rise, Lazarus-like.
6
Agreed - but predictive text is vicious; I recently tried to type 'aubergine' - couldn't do it.... it was 'corrected'; I was re-directed to either Aborigine or Auvergne; and I had spelled it correctly - I had to insist on my word.
Who on earth or at the NYT has time for that? OK it was in an email - but.......wild!
Who on earth or at the NYT has time for that? OK it was in an email - but.......wild!
4
"Right now, there are more editors in the newsroom than reporters, photographers, and other journalists in the field."
Got it.
That statement says it all.
Got it.
That statement says it all.
8
Yes, it says more than may have been intended.
Change must - and will- happen. In your business, everyone wants to be an 'editor.' Retain the good ones a cut the rubber stampers. Demand higher quality from the reporting staff and sure that have and understand the Style Book. For the most part. NYT needs copy (line) editors that correct typos and factual errors, not the superior beings who may change the flavor of a piece. Please be cautious with those cuts, perhaps send more editors back into the field, and don't change the basic tone of The Times. And at least for the digital edition (Website?) Forty-eight hours should be the maximum life span. Feature articles that hang around for a week or more become tiresome and seem to be little more than filler. And please. never mess with the Food Section. Ever! Thanks.
3
Whatever changes you make to the system, I hope they're done with all deliberate speed. In the fake news and gaslighting, you can't be too careful with the facts.
2
Like it or not, New York Times, you are in the language business. I am baffled at the decision to prioritize visual content over stories, even more than you already do. I am heartsick that the work of dedicated copy editors is being devalued. Language that sparkles gets the idea across.
33
I fear the Times will simply tell the reporters they need to be their own copy editors now, as if it's as easy as sweeping a floor - or, in the new system, ...to be there own coy editors like its as easily as.... You get the idea.
8
I don't really need the language to sparkle. I'd just like the stories to be error free. Copy editors are the last line of defense there, and dropping like flies.
I have been very impressed with the thorough, thoughtful coverage of the first two weeks of the Trump administration. It has been unique in the nation. But going forward it seem likely that the demise of the Times' heralded editing system will bring the end of this excellent in-depth coverage of U.S. politics just when we need it most.
12
Please can we have going forward never again.
1
I worry less about the quality of the final copy and more about the fact that in our work places, we are becoming more isolated as individuals. In addition to the job losses incurred in the field, the "digital divide" means something quite different in this context: It means fewer opportunities to collaborate with another human being; could be some on some days, we only talk to a screen.
8
No wonder the whole paper reads like it is the editorial page.
3
The number of editors and the process doesn't concern me at all. What bothers me is the radical decline in the basics of news coverage. Sorry to nay say all the new methods, but the old inverted pyramid method of writing a story has enormous value (and yes, you can fit reporting a "statement" is a lie at the top). It tells the reader what happened, with no need to wade through tons of extraneous material, annoying ads, graphics inserted to show somebody learned a new program, etc., to get to the news point. Basically, there is something of value (even,I suggest, commercial value) to Front Page -style journalism. Where have you gone Hildy Johnson, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you?
6
Editing, apparently, should begin with the public editor. If the editing is "impeccable" - by definition, flawless - why think about going to a new model??? Words matter, and should not be used without some thought.
11
As I said earlier in a response to the BIG Reorg. of the Times, start at the bottom. The Times will always need human proofreaders as long as they have reporters who cannot spell or who violate, yes violate, the style book. I am sure someone critiques yesterday's editions with a red pen. I, a poor speller, have noted the ever increasing number of copy errors in the paper. That alone makes the paper look unreliable!
I like the idea that the editor who assigns a story gets first cut at editing. He/she owns the story. The chain of editing, if dedicated to stories they own, will be the most dedicated to getting it to the presses. Add one or two super editors to make sure that the chain is responsible and you have a good editorial process. Brains and ownership will get you well processed stories.
And by the way, bring back the Week in Review, an annotated and, if necessary, explained summary of the week's events and forecast of future events of note. Perhaps the editors should be responsible for writing this section--maintain and improve their chops. (See the the Berkshire Eagle of the 50's and 60's.) There can be no doubt that the customer base needs this service. It points them to what the NYT considers essential public knowledge. The section was/could be the core of the paper's educational mission. Ain't no one else doin' it!
I like the idea that the editor who assigns a story gets first cut at editing. He/she owns the story. The chain of editing, if dedicated to stories they own, will be the most dedicated to getting it to the presses. Add one or two super editors to make sure that the chain is responsible and you have a good editorial process. Brains and ownership will get you well processed stories.
And by the way, bring back the Week in Review, an annotated and, if necessary, explained summary of the week's events and forecast of future events of note. Perhaps the editors should be responsible for writing this section--maintain and improve their chops. (See the the Berkshire Eagle of the 50's and 60's.) There can be no doubt that the customer base needs this service. It points them to what the NYT considers essential public knowledge. The section was/could be the core of the paper's educational mission. Ain't no one else doin' it!
5
What about AI tools to find mistakes? Does NY Times use them?
1
Several readers pointed out MoDo using "sew" instead of the proper "sow" in her column today. Phil Corbett, in his late, lamented After Deadline blog, used to run a monthly compendium under the rubric "When Spell-Check Can't Help."
Do you know of a better AI tool?
Do you know of a better AI tool?
2
Please do not continue on this path.
I subscribe to this newspaper for its accuracy, not its ability to compete with fake news, Twitter, and other media drivel for "timeliness".
As a teacher I rely on you for the accuracy I have come to expect. I have countless times responded to one of my students who pulls out their phone with a 'timely' article or 'trend' with the response of "When I see it in the NY Times - then I will believe it."
I also show students the print version of your Corrections section on page two as the goal of journalism. Corrections that include making sure even a 1 letter misspelling of someone's name gets corrected is something to truly be proud of.
I realize that the only successful business model nowadays is change for the sake of change, but I am willing to bet that many of your readers see it the same way I do.
I subscribe to this newspaper for its accuracy, not its ability to compete with fake news, Twitter, and other media drivel for "timeliness".
As a teacher I rely on you for the accuracy I have come to expect. I have countless times responded to one of my students who pulls out their phone with a 'timely' article or 'trend' with the response of "When I see it in the NY Times - then I will believe it."
I also show students the print version of your Corrections section on page two as the goal of journalism. Corrections that include making sure even a 1 letter misspelling of someone's name gets corrected is something to truly be proud of.
I realize that the only successful business model nowadays is change for the sake of change, but I am willing to bet that many of your readers see it the same way I do.
28
I'd love editors to ask themselves what questions the reader might have and then ask the writer to, if he/she can, answer them in the article. I can't tell you how many times I have logical questions provoked by the information given, but the writer leaves out that information or even acknowledge that the question can't yet be answered.
For the sake of clarity, concision and better reporting in general, and as a favor to your end user, the reader, please ask all editors to do this.
For the sake of clarity, concision and better reporting in general, and as a favor to your end user, the reader, please ask all editors to do this.
9
After watching the damage done in the downsizing of a regional newspaper, I would suggest the Times management visit a few regionals and look at the problems the loss of editors to lower payroll has created for these papers.
Many stories go straight from the the reporter to the online edition with no editing and the mistakes are obvious to anyone with any background in the subject matter under discussion, from concepts being expressed to names and yes, even punctuation. I would assume a good back fielder, besides addressing the basic problems of a given story, also can identify the flaws of a piece written by someone with no previous experience in the subject of the story. A (very) minor example is a reporter with no experience in firearms writing a story about someone with a semiautomatic handgun and labeling it an "automatic" because some cop interviewed called them such.
That same review process by those with extensive experience at the foreign section applies as they are in a position to offer a similar level of quality control on a city piece with international connections written by a local reporter.
Six editors? Maybe not, but one editor shouldn't be an option either. It's the Times and the expectation is that it is correct the first time — few ever read the "corrections" published a day later.
Many stories go straight from the the reporter to the online edition with no editing and the mistakes are obvious to anyone with any background in the subject matter under discussion, from concepts being expressed to names and yes, even punctuation. I would assume a good back fielder, besides addressing the basic problems of a given story, also can identify the flaws of a piece written by someone with no previous experience in the subject of the story. A (very) minor example is a reporter with no experience in firearms writing a story about someone with a semiautomatic handgun and labeling it an "automatic" because some cop interviewed called them such.
That same review process by those with extensive experience at the foreign section applies as they are in a position to offer a similar level of quality control on a city piece with international connections written by a local reporter.
Six editors? Maybe not, but one editor shouldn't be an option either. It's the Times and the expectation is that it is correct the first time — few ever read the "corrections" published a day later.
12
PLEASE please continue to maintain high standards! I already noted two errors in an online story this week - unusual, and I hope a rarity.
7
More editing is not necessarily better editing. Long-time readers realize that NYTimes news budgets are tight .. but story quality is really going down. To wit --
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/with-a-saw-and-a-big-budget-...®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
This is NOT unique. Most auto fans know that Big 3 convertibles are contracted out, to firms such as -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Specialty_Cars
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/travel/shanghai-shikumen-architecture...
This is also NOT unique. Shanghai housing conversions have been going on, for TWENTY years.
And the nickel-bag political "theorizing" involved is just junior high school. The Chinese Communist Party is like most buyers -- the cheaper, the better. They don't give a rip about "communal spaces."
Probably the worst article since the series on NCAA funding. Or the TV reviews of 2000-2010.
More editing is not necessarily better editing.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/with-a-saw-and-a-big-budget-...®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
This is NOT unique. Most auto fans know that Big 3 convertibles are contracted out, to firms such as -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Specialty_Cars
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/travel/shanghai-shikumen-architecture...
This is also NOT unique. Shanghai housing conversions have been going on, for TWENTY years.
And the nickel-bag political "theorizing" involved is just junior high school. The Chinese Communist Party is like most buyers -- the cheaper, the better. They don't give a rip about "communal spaces."
Probably the worst article since the series on NCAA funding. Or the TV reviews of 2000-2010.
More editing is not necessarily better editing.
One of the more disturbing elements of the Times' reportorial cycle is the way they manage risk. It doesn't appear that the Times' does.
But the most disturbing of all is their failure to recognize 'risk" at all, even when it is staring at the editors from the page that they are reading.
That, perhaps, was the most inexcusable element of the Times' coverage of the 2016 election. The writers and editors had attached the political hopes and dreams to a candidate who managed to blow an election that was hers to lose.
Bias does cloud the judgement, and the NY Times's newsroom, editors, columnists and management have embraced bias to the exclusion of reality.
But the most disturbing of all is their failure to recognize 'risk" at all, even when it is staring at the editors from the page that they are reading.
That, perhaps, was the most inexcusable element of the Times' coverage of the 2016 election. The writers and editors had attached the political hopes and dreams to a candidate who managed to blow an election that was hers to lose.
Bias does cloud the judgement, and the NY Times's newsroom, editors, columnists and management have embraced bias to the exclusion of reality.
4
Once again, we see Liz Spayd doing PR while stumping for a gig as a line editor.
This column has absolutely nothing to do with the public editor's responsibilities. which are to represent readers' concerns and take their complaints to Times management.
Once again, we see Liz Spayd completely ignore all of the bitter complaints about Times reporting, instead simply claiming that, "THE NEW YORK TIMES has a reputation for impeccable editing." It doesn't, and if Liz Spayd had been paying any attention at all to what readers have been telling her, she would know it.
Stop with the PR, Ms Spayd. It's not your job.
This column has absolutely nothing to do with the public editor's responsibilities. which are to represent readers' concerns and take their complaints to Times management.
Once again, we see Liz Spayd completely ignore all of the bitter complaints about Times reporting, instead simply claiming that, "THE NEW YORK TIMES has a reputation for impeccable editing." It doesn't, and if Liz Spayd had been paying any attention at all to what readers have been telling her, she would know it.
Stop with the PR, Ms Spayd. It's not your job.
22
What an incredibly myopic view of the public editor's role. By letting us see inside the guts of the paper, we readers have a better understanding of how the news gets to us. I like understanding how the Times works and how it is confronting the challenges currently affecting all of media. These changes, by the way, are sure to affect the stories we read--and how we read them--going forward. So no, this kind of column is not PR for the paper; it is actuallt serving us, the paper's readers.
4
Sean: Your comment ignores knowledge of one of the basics of a newspaper, that editors must take responsibility of the words that appear on line or in print. Newspapers are not television -- thank God -- and rely on words that are accurate, exact. Liz Spayd's column was not PR; it was an explanation of the basic work of newspapers in today's world and how it is likely to change.
The Times edits every headline, every story, every (pretentious) word to align with it's left-liberal, ultra-elite paradigm.
Please, don't continue the self-serving PE echo chamber of constantly reminding us in EVERY PE column about the "untouchable" storied history of the paper. You now print so many absolutely trivial stories, i.e., see all the Super Bowl nonsense features.
And your new audio...worthless.
Please, don't continue the self-serving PE echo chamber of constantly reminding us in EVERY PE column about the "untouchable" storied history of the paper. You now print so many absolutely trivial stories, i.e., see all the Super Bowl nonsense features.
And your new audio...worthless.
1
Risks? It depends on how much value The Times places on credibility. Which, over the long run, determines the bedrock level of trust. Or lack thereof.
If the readers are going to be turned into de facto copy editors -- "editsourcing," as it were -- the question they'll be asking themselves more and more is: If something is so obviously incorrect that even we notice it, then how many other things are wrong that aren't so easily detectable?
Or, if The Times drops the ball with increasing frequency on the relatively easy stuff, then what about, as with articles built on anonymous sources, information that is published TOTALLY on trust and can't be verified independently? Should we have less and less faith in that, too?
Dean Baquet, the executive editor, has stated that he wants The Times's writing to become more relaxed. Here's hoping that this doesn't turn out to be a synonym for sloppy.
If the readers are going to be turned into de facto copy editors -- "editsourcing," as it were -- the question they'll be asking themselves more and more is: If something is so obviously incorrect that even we notice it, then how many other things are wrong that aren't so easily detectable?
Or, if The Times drops the ball with increasing frequency on the relatively easy stuff, then what about, as with articles built on anonymous sources, information that is published TOTALLY on trust and can't be verified independently? Should we have less and less faith in that, too?
Dean Baquet, the executive editor, has stated that he wants The Times's writing to become more relaxed. Here's hoping that this doesn't turn out to be a synonym for sloppy.
14
"More relaxed." Two thoughts:
1. I am reminded of the line from a TV show where one of the character says that if so-and-so's soldiers were any more relaxed, they'd have to be poured into their uniforms.
2. "More relaxed" is not a viable defense for a libel lawsuit, I suspect. I guess Mr. Baquet will find out. (Don't worry, his golden parachute will take him to safety, nomatterwhat).
1. I am reminded of the line from a TV show where one of the character says that if so-and-so's soldiers were any more relaxed, they'd have to be poured into their uniforms.
2. "More relaxed" is not a viable defense for a libel lawsuit, I suspect. I guess Mr. Baquet will find out. (Don't worry, his golden parachute will take him to safety, nomatterwhat).
1
For me, alarm bells are ringing.
I do not, for a minute, think the Times needs fewer editors. They need better ones, who will not countenance the current culture of finding any rationalization for bypassing the Times' known standards.
Emblematically, on Groundhog Day, Liz Spayd ran her 2d piece in 9 weeks questioning disclosure of possible conflicts of interest in outside opinion pieces. For the Neal Katyal piece, Op-ed Editor Jim Dao admitted that the "required" questions for an outside opinion piece writer were never asked, for which failure Dao held both the line editor and the writer blameless. Nor did Dao, the supervisory editor, make sure that the standards were upheld before publication. The excuse, "on tight deadline," is now a hardy perennial in the garden of Times' excuses. So it didn't matter how many eyes were on the Katyal piece, because when standards are not upheld, they effectively don't exist.
This is especially true in the continuing flood tide of anonymous sourcing in the Times. I was quoted in a Margaret Sullivan AnonyWatch piece about a story telling how NY State Legislators economize during their time in Albany, and legally pocket their excess food and lodging per diem allowances. A legislator was granted anonymity because "she didn't want to be known as a penny pincher." After Jill Abramson was fired, David Carr granted anonymity to sources in the Times' newsroom to disparage her. In this piece there's an anonymous source from the newsroom, yet again.
I do not, for a minute, think the Times needs fewer editors. They need better ones, who will not countenance the current culture of finding any rationalization for bypassing the Times' known standards.
Emblematically, on Groundhog Day, Liz Spayd ran her 2d piece in 9 weeks questioning disclosure of possible conflicts of interest in outside opinion pieces. For the Neal Katyal piece, Op-ed Editor Jim Dao admitted that the "required" questions for an outside opinion piece writer were never asked, for which failure Dao held both the line editor and the writer blameless. Nor did Dao, the supervisory editor, make sure that the standards were upheld before publication. The excuse, "on tight deadline," is now a hardy perennial in the garden of Times' excuses. So it didn't matter how many eyes were on the Katyal piece, because when standards are not upheld, they effectively don't exist.
This is especially true in the continuing flood tide of anonymous sourcing in the Times. I was quoted in a Margaret Sullivan AnonyWatch piece about a story telling how NY State Legislators economize during their time in Albany, and legally pocket their excess food and lodging per diem allowances. A legislator was granted anonymity because "she didn't want to be known as a penny pincher." After Jill Abramson was fired, David Carr granted anonymity to sources in the Times' newsroom to disparage her. In this piece there's an anonymous source from the newsroom, yet again.
4
To some extent the need for numerous layers of editing is also related to the skill and dedication of those involved. Would reporters or first-look folks review their work more carefully, if they knew there were fewer sets of eyes between their work and publication?
As a pastor, I never let publications go out from the churches I served without personally proof reading/editing. In one place, over time the work of the person producing the work improved. She told me that I made her better at her job. Yet, in another church the originator seemed to take the attitude that since I and the associate pastor would look at her work, she didn't need to be so careful. Her work came to me with more typos, grammatical errors, and inaccuracies over time.
Obviously a church's publications cannot compare to those of the busy and respected New York Times. That said, it will be interesting, I imagine, to see how/if changes in the process influence the work of those still involved.
As a pastor, I never let publications go out from the churches I served without personally proof reading/editing. In one place, over time the work of the person producing the work improved. She told me that I made her better at her job. Yet, in another church the originator seemed to take the attitude that since I and the associate pastor would look at her work, she didn't need to be so careful. Her work came to me with more typos, grammatical errors, and inaccuracies over time.
Obviously a church's publications cannot compare to those of the busy and respected New York Times. That said, it will be interesting, I imagine, to see how/if changes in the process influence the work of those still involved.
16