Please, NYT, spend your money and effort on actual journalism-more, deeper, better-researched and better-edited work, not on internet gimmicks. Your readers want text that is substantial. We want in-depth investigative reporting. We do not want videos, gimmicky news alerts, or efforts to push our reading in any particular direction. I really see no need for the position that Kinsey Wilson holds.
3
Kinsey Wilson was hired, apparently, as cutting edge digital futurist. His very job is to continually invest in new digital products. The hammer in search of a nail. New York Times: your readership does not WANT this. Mr Wilson may be a whiz at digital manipulation but this is not an expertise the NYT readers want. All those "would you like" options noted in Kinsey's response? Guess what - I can find what my favorite columnist just published all by myself. Save a story for later? How about I just go back to the paper when I have a moment to do so? Follow a topic I'm passionate about? Done and dusted. Mr. Baquet, Mr. Kinsey - we don't need or want this.
9
I'm with Nancy Reagan on this one: "Just say no."
6
Ms Spayd has demonstrates once again what's wrong with the Public Editor and Times management. First, Ms Spayd prints this vapid "Why'd You do That?" column as follow-up to an outpouring of criticism from Times readers simply permits a Times editor to reply, but refuses to criticize Times mgmt. Once again, Spayd just washes her hands of any and all criticism from readers.
As is typical of this PE, after printing a Friday column and this column, she and her assistant just head for home. Not a single reader comment posted for three days. No other Times column or article with a comments section shows such disregard for readers. Incredible that the readers representative can't be bothered to even post comments for days on end.
Last, the Friday column states that Spayd's assistant picks out a few comments from readers to bring to Spayd's attention, which she then addresses. Does that mean that the PE only reads a few emails a week, and only those that her assistant shows her?
Ignores readers criticism, refuses to criticize management, and, apparently, doesn't even read emails sent to her.
As is typical of this PE, after printing a Friday column and this column, she and her assistant just head for home. Not a single reader comment posted for three days. No other Times column or article with a comments section shows such disregard for readers. Incredible that the readers representative can't be bothered to even post comments for days on end.
Last, the Friday column states that Spayd's assistant picks out a few comments from readers to bring to Spayd's attention, which she then addresses. Does that mean that the PE only reads a few emails a week, and only those that her assistant shows her?
Ignores readers criticism, refuses to criticize management, and, apparently, doesn't even read emails sent to her.
10
Sean: "... after printing a Friday column and this column, she and her assistant just head for home. Not a single reader comment posted for three days."
That's just plain false:
21 comments dated, Friday, March 24, 2017:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/public-editor/friday-mailbag-photos-c...
3 comments dated, Friday, March 17, 2017:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/public-editor/friday-mailbag-where-ar...
48 comments dated Friday, March 10, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/public-editor/friday-mailbag-a-surpri...
If you are going to complain, please try to get your facts straight first.
That's just plain false:
21 comments dated, Friday, March 24, 2017:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/public-editor/friday-mailbag-photos-c...
3 comments dated, Friday, March 17, 2017:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/public-editor/friday-mailbag-where-ar...
48 comments dated Friday, March 10, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/public-editor/friday-mailbag-a-surpri...
If you are going to complain, please try to get your facts straight first.
What I'd like to see is a follow-up Why'd You Do That in which editors (not just Ms. Spayd) seriously and specifically ADDRESS the objections that readers express in their comments. And if the editors' follow-up answers are evasive, let them address the readers' challenges to those evasions.
You don't like it when a politician evades questions; why is it OK for an editor to evade them?
You don't like it when a politician evades questions; why is it OK for an editor to evade them?
11
“'Personalization' — Liz’s term for this, not ours — is a fraught concept, particularly at a time of heightened concern about how news is filtered and disseminated."
What a snarky comment. Kinsey Wilson completely lived _down- to my expectations of a Times editor.
If he treats a fellow Times employee like this, how concerned do you suppose he is about Times' subscribers and their concerns? Nil.
What a snarky comment. Kinsey Wilson completely lived _down- to my expectations of a Times editor.
If he treats a fellow Times employee like this, how concerned do you suppose he is about Times' subscribers and their concerns? Nil.
6
Wasn't this tried before with the "In Box" individualized news "Just For You"?
1
I still immensely dislike this idea. I already feel I am in "crazy house" world where the news doesn't match reality. This will make it worse. There's the problem of not keeping up with the times but even worse is making the wrong changes to keep up with the times. True quality is timeless. I fear the NYT is going to flush its value: good reporting on substantive topics, down the toilet--and that will be the end.
6
On a news site like the NYTimes I do not want the tunnel vision that customized selection of stories would bring.
What I don't want arevideos that auto-play and ads with movement or auto-play. In fact, I'm looking for most of my news as text plus selected images and I regard video as a low efficiency way to communicate news information (with some exceptions).
What I don't want arevideos that auto-play and ads with movement or auto-play. In fact, I'm looking for most of my news as text plus selected images and I regard video as a low efficiency way to communicate news information (with some exceptions).
19
What "values" does it tell us for the New York Times when it now chooses to debase itself in the pursuit of that 25-35 demographic who arrogantly believes it is "informed" of the events of our world via 140 character tweets.
8
"But, would you like to know when a favorite columnist just published his or her latest piece?"
No, No, a thousand times no. That's why I don't get news alerts on my mobile phone; when the piece appears, I'll find it when I'm ready. Since you're talking columnists, I've spent my newspaper reading life knowing on what days Breslin, Hamill, Kempton, Newfield, Collins, Lewis, Baker - I could name scores more - were being published.
Being - among other things - a sports and rock n roll fan, I like the surprise of a story (as in tomorrow's or Sunday's paper) about Jon Spencer and Cristina Martinez or learning that Tim Tebow was taking a shot at the Mets. And, I don't need everything now, now, now; newspapers have always meant to be read at the reader's leisure, not when some editor or IT macher thinks it should be.
No, No, a thousand times no. That's why I don't get news alerts on my mobile phone; when the piece appears, I'll find it when I'm ready. Since you're talking columnists, I've spent my newspaper reading life knowing on what days Breslin, Hamill, Kempton, Newfield, Collins, Lewis, Baker - I could name scores more - were being published.
Being - among other things - a sports and rock n roll fan, I like the surprise of a story (as in tomorrow's or Sunday's paper) about Jon Spencer and Cristina Martinez or learning that Tim Tebow was taking a shot at the Mets. And, I don't need everything now, now, now; newspapers have always meant to be read at the reader's leisure, not when some editor or IT macher thinks it should be.
14
Not that he is in any way close to my favorite, but Flat Earth Tommy Friedman has been emptying his recycle bin on Wednesdays and Sundays for well over a decade now.
Send us an alert when you have some new ideas blooded in on the opinion page...
Send us an alert when you have some new ideas blooded in on the opinion page...
1
Actually, I would have liked t been informed when the Beliefs column bit the dust. Peter Steinfels devoted his last two or three columns to a farewell to his readers. And Russell Baker's last column was a farewell - my mother clipped it from the print edition and sent it to me.
So why did Mark Oppenheimer slink off to some sort of elephant's graveyard? Was that deliberate?
So why did Mark Oppenheimer slink off to some sort of elephant's graveyard? Was that deliberate?
Sorry, I read "latest" as "last."
As for someone's latest piece, I know Paul Krugman's column appears Mondays and Fridays, and I have a feed app and NYT Alerts for other things.
As for someone's latest piece, I know Paul Krugman's column appears Mondays and Fridays, and I have a feed app and NYT Alerts for other things.
1
No, no, no. I get most of my NYT news and stories by scrolling through all the way down the website edition, looking at every division, at all the stories available. I discover things I never knew I was interested in, oftentimes to then follow up on the topic further. I may not look into a particular subheading for weeks, and then find something enormously interesting and very important to me. I do not want editors or web managers or anyone else to prejudge what they think I may be interested in. I want it all. "All the news that's fit to print." That's why I read the Times, because everything is there. I'm very unhappy to hear about this direction the Times is considering.
12
Come on, we all know that the objective of "personalization" is to sell more targeted ads.
16
I'd like to see a response to the "individual preferences" concept that was written by a senior news editor.
It's obvious that "the executive vice president of product and technology and editor for innovation and strategy" has a vested interest in describing future efforts in the best possible light.
It's obvious that "the executive vice president of product and technology and editor for innovation and strategy" has a vested interest in describing future efforts in the best possible light.
12
OK, Kinsey Wilson, you make the claim that your only aim is to improve the Times' reading experience for your subscribers, and that you do so with reader input.
If that was indeed true, please explain these two related pieces from Margaret Sullivan from over three years ago, about the Times' vaunted "digital redesign," known to some of us, with apologies to Don Maclean, as "the day the commenting functionality died."
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/times-designers-are-mo...®ion=Body
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/after-the-times-redesi...®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=search&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Mr. Wilson should be compelled to read all 1368 comments on the two blog posts, and explain how, when Sullivan said, channeling NYT management, that "changes were possible," how it is that, with specific bug reports on board, precisely ZERO changes have been made?
If that was indeed true, please explain these two related pieces from Margaret Sullivan from over three years ago, about the Times' vaunted "digital redesign," known to some of us, with apologies to Don Maclean, as "the day the commenting functionality died."
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/times-designers-are-mo...®ion=Body
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/after-the-times-redesi...®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=search&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Mr. Wilson should be compelled to read all 1368 comments on the two blog posts, and explain how, when Sullivan said, channeling NYT management, that "changes were possible," how it is that, with specific bug reports on board, precisely ZERO changes have been made?
8
"The efforts Liz wrote about are in the very early stages of development. But, it is important to note that this does not signal any change in our editorial values or in our understanding of what readers have long told us they cherish about The New York Times."
These sentences seem to be oxymoronic! Why develop the "efforts" at all?
I stand by my opinion that the most important "editorial values" are curating the news - in the sense of choosing and presenting stories that are most significant in the editors' (not the readers'} view of the world. Readers will find stories they are "passionate about" without assistance. Embedded links, RSS feeds, and email work well for individualizing content without destroying the integrity of the paper as a whole. (Improvements to the search function would help a lot.)
The only change I would very much like to see is a filter that allows me to remove all robotic content, e.g., "Recommended for You," "What You Need to Know About...." and such. Algorithms will never keep up with my peripatetic reading habits.
These sentences seem to be oxymoronic! Why develop the "efforts" at all?
I stand by my opinion that the most important "editorial values" are curating the news - in the sense of choosing and presenting stories that are most significant in the editors' (not the readers'} view of the world. Readers will find stories they are "passionate about" without assistance. Embedded links, RSS feeds, and email work well for individualizing content without destroying the integrity of the paper as a whole. (Improvements to the search function would help a lot.)
The only change I would very much like to see is a filter that allows me to remove all robotic content, e.g., "Recommended for You," "What You Need to Know About...." and such. Algorithms will never keep up with my peripatetic reading habits.
9
We may not comment much to this easing back to "testing" talk, but we are certainly watching. If tailoring the great New York Times to be a news source for people 18 to 25 is the plan, you will have a disaster on your hands. Those young people become more mature daily, time passes, and like the rest of us, they will want and need the depth of knowledge that real journalism can bring, not the picture-story just-for-me stuff that was enough on Facebook. And choosing that narrow a demographic while clearly pushing away the rest of us is not likely to benefit you, either. Picture the NYT with just the millennial cohort subscribing and you'll see what I mean.
Beyond that, the nation needs a source of information that is for us all, insofar as it can be, that we share and see together and can trust enough to find common ground for some consensus again. The Vietnam War really ended when Cronkite told the truth about it and people listened who didn't want to hear, didn't want to believe--but believed anyway. I know that now the NYT is a lightning rod for those who would divide us, who would make a little America just for themselves. But don't help them do it. If you have a mission, it is not to please millennials, or me. But to be a trusted source of news--that we need more than want sometimes--that's your mission, in my view. If it isn't, you're already gone.
Beyond that, the nation needs a source of information that is for us all, insofar as it can be, that we share and see together and can trust enough to find common ground for some consensus again. The Vietnam War really ended when Cronkite told the truth about it and people listened who didn't want to hear, didn't want to believe--but believed anyway. I know that now the NYT is a lightning rod for those who would divide us, who would make a little America just for themselves. But don't help them do it. If you have a mission, it is not to please millennials, or me. But to be a trusted source of news--that we need more than want sometimes--that's your mission, in my view. If it isn't, you're already gone.
10
If you study marketing, in all endeavors--from movies to Broadway to sports to television to products--, it's ALL about Millennials. Here in Chicago, Marshall Field never realized that; same with Sears, et al.
Your (and my) demographic can "look to the future through the rear-view mirror" and "remember," but the financial future of the Times isn't based on subscriptions, it's based on advertisers. See what happened to all of the once-great magazines that failed to change with the times.
as with ALL other aspects of the twenty-first century that have TRANSFORMED the world, so shall the NYT.
Your (and my) demographic can "look to the future through the rear-view mirror" and "remember," but the financial future of the Times isn't based on subscriptions, it's based on advertisers. See what happened to all of the once-great magazines that failed to change with the times.
as with ALL other aspects of the twenty-first century that have TRANSFORMED the world, so shall the NYT.
1
Take a look at shows on Broadway, actually, and you'll see Sunset Boulevard; Beautiful: the Carole King Musical; Million Dollar Quartet (the one with the young Johnny Cash and his pals); The Glass Menagerie; A Bronx Tale (1960s New York mobs), and such. The audiences are not particularly youths of America, though I'm sure some young adults attend. Actually, life does also include lots of people over 25. Money is not mainly in the hands of the kids, either, even if money really is your only concern.
Take a look at Target and others who have dropped their bases to cater to their bosses' favorite picks for hot young consumers. Now we have near-empty Targets with slashed inventories trying to sell Amy's Frozen Organic Gluten-Free health pizzas to Minnesotans and Oklahomans, a short walk to Nowheresville if ever there was one. But they aren't alone. They don't stock the simplest things that middle-class people simply need and want. Sinking like a stone. Not listening to what your actual customer base tells you goes in that direction every time.
Your belief that change is good, even if that means destroying classic value, a great and unique product, is short-sighted. Sure, change for the better is possible. But as the "new improved!" Trump care fiasco shows, jumping into change and throwing out the better part is not smart, not at all. No one wins at that.
Take a look at Target and others who have dropped their bases to cater to their bosses' favorite picks for hot young consumers. Now we have near-empty Targets with slashed inventories trying to sell Amy's Frozen Organic Gluten-Free health pizzas to Minnesotans and Oklahomans, a short walk to Nowheresville if ever there was one. But they aren't alone. They don't stock the simplest things that middle-class people simply need and want. Sinking like a stone. Not listening to what your actual customer base tells you goes in that direction every time.
Your belief that change is good, even if that means destroying classic value, a great and unique product, is short-sighted. Sure, change for the better is possible. But as the "new improved!" Trump care fiasco shows, jumping into change and throwing out the better part is not smart, not at all. No one wins at that.
7
SmileyBurnette, I have a dilemma about hitting the Recommend button under your post. It's pretty good as an explanation, but I hate to think it's meant as a justification.
I don't have much hope for this effort. Amazon has a complete record of my book purchases & sends me notes about books I've already read &/or topics outside my interests just because I've ordered books as presents. If they can't tailor very well in a narrow band of interest, I don't see how The Times can hope to treat a broad range.
9
The Times already "pushes" far too much of its content while burying important bits of information, like corrections and acknowledgement of rewrites, where few will ever see them.
14
Ms Spayd, instead of simply putting out a "Why'd you do that?" column, why not actually, you know, advocate for readers? Why simply regurgitate the remarks of the Times VP in charge of this awful plan? You have certainly received now hundreds of complaints from readers. Do you disagree with their criticisms?
Or is it that you simply refuse to take issue with anything that Times management does?
Or is it that you simply refuse to take issue with anything that Times management does?
23
Ms. Spayd may know more than we do about how far her bosses will tolerate a troublemaker.
1
Wow, Liz, Kinsey Wilson threw you under the bus, then backed up over you for good measure, stating that your characterization of "personalization" was not what they were proposing.
16
Sounds good to me.
1