Aren't pop-up adds tailored to the browsing history of the person reading the web page. Is there something Don and David would like to tell us?
PE: "... images of barely clad women ..."
Not to defend the ads, but the "bride" appears to be fully "clad" by modern standards. See the second photo in this Times Wedding Album:
Dresses Our Brides Have Worn
By CHARANNA ALEXANDER
APRIL 4, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/fashion/weddings/dresses-our-brides-h...
Not to defend the ads, but the "bride" appears to be fully "clad" by modern standards. See the second photo in this Times Wedding Album:
Dresses Our Brides Have Worn
By CHARANNA ALEXANDER
APRIL 4, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/fashion/weddings/dresses-our-brides-h...
1
PE: "... readers ... questioned the reporter’s understanding of basic Senate rules."
The PE's office is repeating another mistake. The US Constitution specifies that the Vice President breaks tied votes in the Senate, not a "Senate rule".
Perhaps everyone at the Times should be required to read the US Constitution.
Article I, Section 3:
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
The PE's office is repeating another mistake. The US Constitution specifies that the Vice President breaks tied votes in the Senate, not a "Senate rule".
Perhaps everyone at the Times should be required to read the US Constitution.
Article I, Section 3:
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
3
very gallant of mike tackett to take full responsibility for the mistake regarding pence. however, if the reporter had not made the mistake he would have nothing to take the blame for. odd that the reporter is not named or quoted.
Estimates are that 70 million people use ad blockers. With even "serious" sites like the NYT using so called programmatic ads that number will only be going higher. Time to find a different revenue model than half naked women on the front page.
6
A couple of questions, Ms Spayd. First, you have refused to answer the question of whether you actually read emails coming into the public editor's email, or whether you read only those emails that are "surfaced" for your attention by your assistant. Times readers deserve a response and a clarification. We are, after all, the people whom you are charged with representing to Times management.
Further, this "Friday Mailbag" includes a response to emails coming in from "conservative news outlets." You give the appearance, Ms Spayd, of paying inordinate deference to conservative media, including recently those generated from alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, but little attention to the concerns of those who are not conservative.
Please tell us why.
Last question: Why are you wasting space with a column on sports coverage when there are far more important topics for the Public Editor to cover? Is this more fluff in lieu of substance from the PE?
Further, this "Friday Mailbag" includes a response to emails coming in from "conservative news outlets." You give the appearance, Ms Spayd, of paying inordinate deference to conservative media, including recently those generated from alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, but little attention to the concerns of those who are not conservative.
Please tell us why.
Last question: Why are you wasting space with a column on sports coverage when there are far more important topics for the Public Editor to cover? Is this more fluff in lieu of substance from the PE?
3
The Met story was just another of the zillion Times "last resort" use of anonymous sourcing. So was the Pogrebin story linked to in the one in question here.
“If you’re not on the executive committee, you don’t know anything,” said a trustee, who insisted on anonymity because board members have been warned against speaking publicly. “You’re expected to work and give, but not to question what goes on.”
Most of the Board members are rich philanthropists. Do we think they would really be tossed aside if they went public in their criticism?
Times standards supposedly say "We resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation or personal attacks." What would remain of these two articles if those standards were ever upheld?
Do Times editors never learn to cast a skeptical eye on sources with an agenda seeking anonymous cover? Seemingly not.
“If you’re not on the executive committee, you don’t know anything,” said a trustee, who insisted on anonymity because board members have been warned against speaking publicly. “You’re expected to work and give, but not to question what goes on.”
Most of the Board members are rich philanthropists. Do we think they would really be tossed aside if they went public in their criticism?
Times standards supposedly say "We resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation or personal attacks." What would remain of these two articles if those standards were ever upheld?
Do Times editors never learn to cast a skeptical eye on sources with an agenda seeking anonymous cover? Seemingly not.
6
Quote from article: "... said a trustee, who insisted on anonymity because board members have been warned against speaking publicly."
That rationale has another problem -- it doesn't say who "warned" the trustee "against speaking publicly". That makes it a double-anony. :-)
Quote from article: 'Another trustee said, “Few people have spoken up in a meeting for about 40 years.”'
In addition to being vaguely sourced, that quote is absurd. How old would a trustee have to be to remember meetings from 40 years ago?
That rationale has another problem -- it doesn't say who "warned" the trustee "against speaking publicly". That makes it a double-anony. :-)
Quote from article: 'Another trustee said, “Few people have spoken up in a meeting for about 40 years.”'
In addition to being vaguely sourced, that quote is absurd. How old would a trustee have to be to remember meetings from 40 years ago?
2
There are a lot of old money New Yorkers who are multigenerational charitable board members. How old? Didn't Brooke Astor live to be 105?
1
"These embarrassing ads are called “programmatic” which means that computers and algorithms conduct the transactions between advertisers and publishers like The Times, rather than real people. This means the advertising department doesn’t see the ads until they’re up on the site."
So is there a reason why the Times feels like it must go along with not seeing ads until they're, um, busting out all over? The Times seems blissfully unaware that it can set the parameters for ads in its own digital space.
As for not knowing the rules surrounding the Vice President's role as a $enate tiebreaker, only one editor was there to take ownership? Did the story get by a copy editor? My brother has done that for 40 years at the Baltimore Sun, and I guarantee he would have caught the mistake. Let's go back to Spayd's column of early February about the coming brave new world of Times editing, and how many fewer eyes will sçan a story. Can we say that this was an entirely foreseeable consequence of a benighted business decision? As I said then, view editing not as a cost without tangible benefit; see editing as an investment in quality assurance protecting the Times' reputation. That can actually be seen as an asset line on a balance sheet, often labeled as "good will." The Times willingly destroys its own reputation and concomitant "good will." Just stop that, OK?
So is there a reason why the Times feels like it must go along with not seeing ads until they're, um, busting out all over? The Times seems blissfully unaware that it can set the parameters for ads in its own digital space.
As for not knowing the rules surrounding the Vice President's role as a $enate tiebreaker, only one editor was there to take ownership? Did the story get by a copy editor? My brother has done that for 40 years at the Baltimore Sun, and I guarantee he would have caught the mistake. Let's go back to Spayd's column of early February about the coming brave new world of Times editing, and how many fewer eyes will sçan a story. Can we say that this was an entirely foreseeable consequence of a benighted business decision? As I said then, view editing not as a cost without tangible benefit; see editing as an investment in quality assurance protecting the Times' reputation. That can actually be seen as an asset line on a balance sheet, often labeled as "good will." The Times willingly destroys its own reputation and concomitant "good will." Just stop that, OK?
5
Maybe the Times should put one of its excellent investigative reporters on this banner ad problem. Get the crew who cracked the medical coding system.
Surely they can get to the bottom of why "programmatic" advertisers are unable to write algorithms that align with Times publication standards. The lede could point out the Orwellian flavor of "programmatic," that would be a nice touch.
Surely they can get to the bottom of why "programmatic" advertisers are unable to write algorithms that align with Times publication standards. The lede could point out the Orwellian flavor of "programmatic," that would be a nice touch.
3
The handling of the politics story regarding the VP's vote in the Senate was simply appalling all the way around. Let me count the ways:
1) It is INEXCUSABLE that a Washington correspondent for the NYTimes not understand the role of the Vice President in the Senate. The reporter is ignorant of US constitution/government basics. Why should I believe anything he writes dealing with government/legislation?
2) The reaction of his boss, deputy bureau chief Tackett, essentially dismissing it as 'my bad" is also utterly UNACCEPTABLE. He's a manager in the Washington office of what is supposed to be one of the premier US newspapers. He didn't catch the error? It should have leaped off the page at him. More ignorance.
3) The PE's reaction, 'a civics lesson for all...' is also unacceptable. She should have taken them to task for not knowing/understanding 5th grade US history. It's not something to laugh off. It's really pathetic.
1) It is INEXCUSABLE that a Washington correspondent for the NYTimes not understand the role of the Vice President in the Senate. The reporter is ignorant of US constitution/government basics. Why should I believe anything he writes dealing with government/legislation?
2) The reaction of his boss, deputy bureau chief Tackett, essentially dismissing it as 'my bad" is also utterly UNACCEPTABLE. He's a manager in the Washington office of what is supposed to be one of the premier US newspapers. He didn't catch the error? It should have leaped off the page at him. More ignorance.
3) The PE's reaction, 'a civics lesson for all...' is also unacceptable. She should have taken them to task for not knowing/understanding 5th grade US history. It's not something to laugh off. It's really pathetic.
6
What about the use of the verb "swept" in the piece about Pence? It has a negative connotation compared to, let us say, "entered". I write this not as a fan of Mike Pence (I loathe most of his policies) but as a fan of the NYT (I love most of its reporting).
No coverage here about the appalling Eduardo Porter article which buys into the wishful magic thinking that climate can be fixed by making things worse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/business/economy/geoengineering-clima... "To Curb Global Warming, Science Fiction May Become Fact" Eduardo Porter, April 4, 2017
He's worried sick - as he should be, and as I am - by climate inaction, but the "solutions" posed by popular geoengineering wishful thinking and other futurism excuses (we'll all get rich and we can fix it then, hooey!) and idealism about nuclear (yes, we need nuclear, but people are afraid of it and it costs a bundle, let alone we're way behind with it even it was practical) and carbon capture (way expensive, and pilot projects aren't going well, just think of the volume) are not helping.
For a skilled review of the problem, here: "Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad: You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse" http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
RayPierre (the author, "hacking" and "barking mad" nails it in a nutshell) is a well respected climate scientist.
I have it from a friend more skilled than myself that the conference Mr. Porter was a fringe group of enthusiasts and the "research" wasn't properly vetted. Mr. Porter reported their conclusions without sourcing them properly, as if they were fact.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/business/economy/geoengineering-clima... "To Curb Global Warming, Science Fiction May Become Fact" Eduardo Porter, April 4, 2017
He's worried sick - as he should be, and as I am - by climate inaction, but the "solutions" posed by popular geoengineering wishful thinking and other futurism excuses (we'll all get rich and we can fix it then, hooey!) and idealism about nuclear (yes, we need nuclear, but people are afraid of it and it costs a bundle, let alone we're way behind with it even it was practical) and carbon capture (way expensive, and pilot projects aren't going well, just think of the volume) are not helping.
For a skilled review of the problem, here: "Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad: You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse" http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
RayPierre (the author, "hacking" and "barking mad" nails it in a nutshell) is a well respected climate scientist.
I have it from a friend more skilled than myself that the conference Mr. Porter was a fringe group of enthusiasts and the "research" wasn't properly vetted. Mr. Porter reported their conclusions without sourcing them properly, as if they were fact.
5
The public editor has swept out some of the debris in the corners of the paper, but surely there are some more significant issues with Times coverage (lack of coverage) than a few misplaced ads and poor word choices?!??
6
The advertising department doesn't see the ads until they're up on the site. How are you sure it is only a few misplaced ads? By design, no one knows what is in the ad pipeline.
5
Hi Lynn: I don't know how many ads were involved or how pernicious they may be. I simply think the Public Editor is dwelling upon minutiae here, and in fact most of the time, and not upon the execution of the very important mission of the New York Times as an informative and in-depth purveyor of important news.
1
The error regarding Pence's function is significant because it looks like he will be called on often to perform this task. (And NOW maybe some readers are reminded that there is more to the federal government than the presidency, and why it's important to vote in those down-ticket races, not just for 'the first black president' or against Trump or to cast a third-party protest vote.) The reporter's slip is therefore distressing; it's vital that readers understand what hath the ballot box wrought, and, in a House so evenly split, just how much de facto power the eminence grise Pence stands to wield. The popular understanding of civics is deficient as it is, without casual readers stumbling on an error in the NYT and possibly internalizing it.
8
If Thomas Campbell had been running this greatest of cultural institutions -- in my mind, superior even to the Louvre and the British Museum -- as it should have been run, I think no one would have minded that he had a relationship with a female employee.
But anyone who's visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art in recent years has sensed that things haven't been going well. Between the Met Breuer, an unnecessary expense given that New York City boasts the Guggenheim, the Whitney, and MOMA; silly new signage ("Masterpieces of Native American Art"; well, what else would the Met show? The worst?); even a decline in the quality of sandwich and hors d'oeuvres offerings in the American Wing and the balcony; as well as guards often clustered about talking to one another -- a sure sign of dysfunction at the top -- it's obvious that something's afoot.
Mr. Campbell was probably a good tapestry curator, and his boyish, British good looks might have suited some of the Trustees; but he had no experience running an institution -- any at all, let alone the biggest and most complex cultural institution in the country.
(Let's just hope that the Trustees do not select, this time, someone like the Brooklyn Museum's Arnold Lehman or its new head. This once splendid museum has become a glorified community center, its great works of art stored to make way for hip-hop displays, craft shows, and desperately jumbled "blue" exhibits. No wonder attendance has been down.)
But anyone who's visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art in recent years has sensed that things haven't been going well. Between the Met Breuer, an unnecessary expense given that New York City boasts the Guggenheim, the Whitney, and MOMA; silly new signage ("Masterpieces of Native American Art"; well, what else would the Met show? The worst?); even a decline in the quality of sandwich and hors d'oeuvres offerings in the American Wing and the balcony; as well as guards often clustered about talking to one another -- a sure sign of dysfunction at the top -- it's obvious that something's afoot.
Mr. Campbell was probably a good tapestry curator, and his boyish, British good looks might have suited some of the Trustees; but he had no experience running an institution -- any at all, let alone the biggest and most complex cultural institution in the country.
(Let's just hope that the Trustees do not select, this time, someone like the Brooklyn Museum's Arnold Lehman or its new head. This once splendid museum has become a glorified community center, its great works of art stored to make way for hip-hop displays, craft shows, and desperately jumbled "blue" exhibits. No wonder attendance has been down.)
3
As far as the museum piece goes, what struck me was not the issue of the tabloid nature of some of the writing in the article, but the underlying issue of incompetence that routinely crops up in articles about museums of this size. They have all had their scandals with directors and boards, for different reasons. What is it about high-end museum culture that makes it such a victim of the Peter Principle? Why aren't boards hiring the right people? That, to me, is where the story lies. The failure starts at the top, with aging, entrenched, wealthy board members who don't know squit from squat.
9
Keeping abreast of all the news that's fit to print.
10