As a former copy editor at two newspapers and a magazine, I was shocked and saddened to read about the copy desk changes at the Times. My shock turned to mirth, though, as I watched ridiculous errors getting through. Good, I thought. This will show them what a mistake it was.
The first day, two captions reading "gad" instead of "had" sent me into a fit of giggles. On Sunday, a headline about cash in urban China had, inexplicably, a comma at the end. "Hardly Anyone Is Using Cash in Urban China,". On Monday, in a story about California's affordable housing crisis, a new word was introduced, "abooming".
But as of yesterday, I am no longer laughing or groaning. I am upset and concerned about your ability to accurately report the news. In an article about genetic diseases in population subgroups, there was no evidence of copy editing. Cystic "fibrosiss" got a new spelling; "Sephardi" was used as an adjective (Sephardi is a noun; Sephardic is the adjective); and, while mentioning seven research physicians, only the Jewish doctor's ethnic background was identified. YIKES. Was he also black, gay, or in a wheelchair? Those are next.
Each of these errors, in spelling and judgment, was a copy editor's responsibility. You cannot turn over this responsibility to managing editors, assigning editors, writers, or the janitorial staff. Copy editing is an art, and requires a specific skill set that other professionals (clearly) do not have. Please, bring back your free-standing copy desk!
The first day, two captions reading "gad" instead of "had" sent me into a fit of giggles. On Sunday, a headline about cash in urban China had, inexplicably, a comma at the end. "Hardly Anyone Is Using Cash in Urban China,". On Monday, in a story about California's affordable housing crisis, a new word was introduced, "abooming".
But as of yesterday, I am no longer laughing or groaning. I am upset and concerned about your ability to accurately report the news. In an article about genetic diseases in population subgroups, there was no evidence of copy editing. Cystic "fibrosiss" got a new spelling; "Sephardi" was used as an adjective (Sephardi is a noun; Sephardic is the adjective); and, while mentioning seven research physicians, only the Jewish doctor's ethnic background was identified. YIKES. Was he also black, gay, or in a wheelchair? Those are next.
Each of these errors, in spelling and judgment, was a copy editor's responsibility. You cannot turn over this responsibility to managing editors, assigning editors, writers, or the janitorial staff. Copy editing is an art, and requires a specific skill set that other professionals (clearly) do not have. Please, bring back your free-standing copy desk!
9
From my years ago study of Hebrew, my understanding is that the plural of people who are Sephardic should be "sephardim."
1
"A newsroom initiative to help New York Times journalists build deeper ties with its audience."
The feature has been dark for a full week now. Just so you know, former Public Editors used to at least have the courtesy of notifying their audience when they were going on vacation and the feature was going dark. Just going dark without warning or explanation is hardly working in service of building deeper ties with your audience.
Dean Baquet tried this rationalization for dumping the Public Editor, who, according to all previously released information, did NOT answer to the Executive Editor, but ONLY to the Publisher. How do we square that information with Baquet's answer about defenestrating the PE position? "I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them."
It is very hard to avoid drawing the inference that Baquet was somehow involved in the decision to eliminate a position under whose questioning, non answers or lip service were the norm for Baquet.
Was Dean Baquet involved in the decision to eliminate that position? How did he come to be involved? Given his answer, please instruct the readers with whom you hope to deepen ties, "how do we submit questions to Baquet." How often will he "speak directly with them?" How regularly will he submit to questioning? How does Baquet plan to convince readers that this is not an elaborate dog and pony show?
The feature has been dark for a full week now. Just so you know, former Public Editors used to at least have the courtesy of notifying their audience when they were going on vacation and the feature was going dark. Just going dark without warning or explanation is hardly working in service of building deeper ties with your audience.
Dean Baquet tried this rationalization for dumping the Public Editor, who, according to all previously released information, did NOT answer to the Executive Editor, but ONLY to the Publisher. How do we square that information with Baquet's answer about defenestrating the PE position? "I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them."
It is very hard to avoid drawing the inference that Baquet was somehow involved in the decision to eliminate a position under whose questioning, non answers or lip service were the norm for Baquet.
Was Dean Baquet involved in the decision to eliminate that position? How did he come to be involved? Given his answer, please instruct the readers with whom you hope to deepen ties, "how do we submit questions to Baquet." How often will he "speak directly with them?" How regularly will he submit to questioning? How does Baquet plan to convince readers that this is not an elaborate dog and pony show?
6
If the Times is truly serious about this space, and its "mission," "The Reader Center is a newsroom initiative that is helping New York Times journalists build deeper ties with our audience," you might want to
1. Include this feature on the site map. The Times announced this "initiative" 43 days ago, which should have been sufficient time to figure out a place for it on the site map. Don't you have a whole IT department?
2. Offer updates or entries more often than once a week.
3. Otherwise we readers will think that this is a lip service papering over of eliminating the Public Editor.
4. Act like somebody, somewhere reads the comments, and react to them, some of which make trenchant points.
1. Include this feature on the site map. The Times announced this "initiative" 43 days ago, which should have been sufficient time to figure out a place for it on the site map. Don't you have a whole IT department?
2. Offer updates or entries more often than once a week.
3. Otherwise we readers will think that this is a lip service papering over of eliminating the Public Editor.
4. Act like somebody, somewhere reads the comments, and react to them, some of which make trenchant points.
8
Neither of my two comments have been published, so I'll try again.
My father taught all his children to read well before starting school. This was late 50s, early 60s. The final exam for our reading lessons was that we had to be able to read a paragraph from The New York Times. We didn't have to understand every word, but had to be able to sound each one out. I passed the test at 4 years old, when my father with great solemnity brought an edition of the paper back from a trip to New York (obviously, no national edition then). I will never forget that. It was his way of signaling how important it was to always be educated and informed by the paper of record, the greatest newspaper. I've read the Times ever since and this column leaves me heartsick and so disappointed. It's not even close to the ideal that I've always held it to be. Mr. Baquet, you're tone-deaf, and this PR-scripted spin couldn't be more discouraging to your subscribers.
My father taught all his children to read well before starting school. This was late 50s, early 60s. The final exam for our reading lessons was that we had to be able to read a paragraph from The New York Times. We didn't have to understand every word, but had to be able to sound each one out. I passed the test at 4 years old, when my father with great solemnity brought an edition of the paper back from a trip to New York (obviously, no national edition then). I will never forget that. It was his way of signaling how important it was to always be educated and informed by the paper of record, the greatest newspaper. I've read the Times ever since and this column leaves me heartsick and so disappointed. It's not even close to the ideal that I've always held it to be. Mr. Baquet, you're tone-deaf, and this PR-scripted spin couldn't be more discouraging to your subscribers.
11
"There was a time when a powerful centralized desk decided where stories were played in the newspaper."
Is 'played' supposed to be 'placed'? If so, what an ironic mistake for an executive editor's column on copy editor cutbacks.
Is 'played' supposed to be 'placed'? If so, what an ironic mistake for an executive editor's column on copy editor cutbacks.
5
Journalese, like "lede?"
2
From the Reader Center splash page:
Our readers respond to our latest On Sports column with how they followed — or diverged — from family in their sports fandoms.
Um, maybe a copy editor could tell you after which word the second em dash needs to be positioned? Just asking.
Our readers respond to our latest On Sports column with how they followed — or diverged — from family in their sports fandoms.
Um, maybe a copy editor could tell you after which word the second em dash needs to be positioned? Just asking.
10
I couldn't help noticing that this morning's print edition includes a front-page obituary with the cutaway: "Continued p. A1"
Was this problematic recursive function call a prank/protest by an employee commenting on the editorial changes?
Was this problematic recursive function call a prank/protest by an employee commenting on the editorial changes?
12
Having read many of the comments below, I must applaud and agree with those who observe that the Times is increasingly closing itself to readers’ opinions and questions. There are too many stories that for some reason do not have a comment tab attached, and the Times itself has informed me that individual contributors can refuse to allow comment. Then consider the paltry two columns a day afforded to letters to the editor and the closing of the Public Editor function. Editor Baquet’s reply re the latter is unconvincing and seems only to enforce readers’ belief that the Times’ conception of communication is one-way only, and that it considers itself above questioning by anyone. The Times pursues this course at its peril, for the less a newspaper engages with its readers the less relevant it becomes to them.
13
I think that the dismissal of Liz Spayd is a cause for concern.
Regarding the increased independence of reporters, it's effect might be more pronounced based on the place where the cuts take place. Respectfully, and it's been an issue for some time, the Times's apparent areas of strength lie with the Washington and International desks. The Sports desk was, at one time, outstanding, but over the last 15 years or so, has seen significant churn and sometimes erratic product. The Metro desk has been a longtime weakness and the urgent question is, can it improve without leadership.
Consider a couple of not too distant articles...Ginia Belafante concluding that Fairway went into bankruptcy because "New Yorkers demand quality" (??????) The real story was reported by Crain's and had to do with the last of the founding family selling to a hedge fund that snookered investers in an IPO and overloaded the company with debt.
Consider a recent article by Emma G. Fitzsimmons, et al, on the supposed real reasons for the incessant subway delays. The reporter completely relies on explanations by an MTA-provided apologist. A little thoughtful analysis might have revealed the need for more research before the article was published.
So, perhaps, the issue is not really spelling and grammatical issues, but something more profound that experienced editorial staff can cure.
Regarding the increased independence of reporters, it's effect might be more pronounced based on the place where the cuts take place. Respectfully, and it's been an issue for some time, the Times's apparent areas of strength lie with the Washington and International desks. The Sports desk was, at one time, outstanding, but over the last 15 years or so, has seen significant churn and sometimes erratic product. The Metro desk has been a longtime weakness and the urgent question is, can it improve without leadership.
Consider a couple of not too distant articles...Ginia Belafante concluding that Fairway went into bankruptcy because "New Yorkers demand quality" (??????) The real story was reported by Crain's and had to do with the last of the founding family selling to a hedge fund that snookered investers in an IPO and overloaded the company with debt.
Consider a recent article by Emma G. Fitzsimmons, et al, on the supposed real reasons for the incessant subway delays. The reporter completely relies on explanations by an MTA-provided apologist. A little thoughtful analysis might have revealed the need for more research before the article was published.
So, perhaps, the issue is not really spelling and grammatical issues, but something more profound that experienced editorial staff can cure.
9
Steve, since the Washington bureau "oversees" the Times' abysmal political coveage, and the national security beat reporters, led by Eric Schmitt, serve as an open, uncritical conduit for government functionaries to float ideas, almost always under cover of anonymity, such as the dangers of "premature withdrawal" from Afghanistan, I think calling it an area of strength is highly debatable. Oxmoron alert, when Schmitt, with Michael S Schmidt, reported in January 27, 2014, about Obama administration fears of "abandoning Afghanistan prematurely," it was ALREADY the longest active military engagement in US history.
Regarding sports, the Times has chosen feature writing over beat reporting, to the detriment of coverage, now almost totally useless.
Fairway, like a lot of others, ran off the financial rails by interpreting limited success as a signal for unlimited expansion. They already closed down their Suffolk store in Lake Grove. They went from half a dozen stores to an unsustainable seventeen way too fast. The hedge funders and IPO just exacerbated the problem that was there anyway.
Regarding sports, the Times has chosen feature writing over beat reporting, to the detriment of coverage, now almost totally useless.
Fairway, like a lot of others, ran off the financial rails by interpreting limited success as a signal for unlimited expansion. They already closed down their Suffolk store in Lake Grove. They went from half a dozen stores to an unsustainable seventeen way too fast. The hedge funders and IPO just exacerbated the problem that was there anyway.
1
"Ginia Belafante concluding that Fairway went into bankruptcy because 'New Yorkers demand quality' (??????)"
Bellafante often includes utterly subjective, unsubstantiated statements in her columns. My comments pointing them out have been rejected. How can the Times claim it values discussion and strong opinions when it acts thus?
Bellafante often includes utterly subjective, unsubstantiated statements in her columns. My comments pointing them out have been rejected. How can the Times claim it values discussion and strong opinions when it acts thus?
3
Mr. Baquet, in another scrolling, almost unreadable "news update" about the G-20 is a typical casual grant of anonymity by the Times, courtesy of Julie Hirschfeld Davis:
"The news was first reported by The Associated Press and confirmed by a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the agreement had not been officially announced."
Once, just once, I would love for a Times' correspondent to tell a source, "either go on the record or the story doesn't run." This is simple PR flackery for the benefit of Trump, trying to show gravitas with a limited truce in Syria. Why does the Times think it is a good idea to provide unpaid PR services for ANY administration, least of all this one?
Here is a perfect example where the Times, in Baquet's own words from October, 2014, "needs to limit it (anonymous sourcing) more than we do."
Does the Executive Editor care to try for a rebuttal?
"The news was first reported by The Associated Press and confirmed by a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the agreement had not been officially announced."
Once, just once, I would love for a Times' correspondent to tell a source, "either go on the record or the story doesn't run." This is simple PR flackery for the benefit of Trump, trying to show gravitas with a limited truce in Syria. Why does the Times think it is a good idea to provide unpaid PR services for ANY administration, least of all this one?
Here is a perfect example where the Times, in Baquet's own words from October, 2014, "needs to limit it (anonymous sourcing) more than we do."
Does the Executive Editor care to try for a rebuttal?
2
I think I understand what you are doing; trying to build in quality throughout the process of creating an article. This is very similar to what American manufacturing learned from the Japanese who proved that the way to achieve quality is to build it into each process and not trying to get quality by inspecting it in at the end. Your answers to reader comments were excellent.
John, I would suggest that you read this article by Michael Cieply, who spent 12 years at the Times as a correspondent and editor.
http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-f...
Given how much top down direction reporters get from editors (the opposite of Cieply's experience at the LA Times), perhaps "building in quality" would best be achieved by winnowing the number of backfield editors instead of copy editors? After all, since backfielders direct the reporters in furtherance of "the narrative," and "shape" the stories (as per Baquet), I would suggest that they are entirely too invested to perform both the fact checking and copy editing duties which are best performed by objective, disinterested professionals without any conflicts of their interests. Don't you agree?
http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-f...
Given how much top down direction reporters get from editors (the opposite of Cieply's experience at the LA Times), perhaps "building in quality" would best be achieved by winnowing the number of backfield editors instead of copy editors? After all, since backfielders direct the reporters in furtherance of "the narrative," and "shape" the stories (as per Baquet), I would suggest that they are entirely too invested to perform both the fact checking and copy editing duties which are best performed by objective, disinterested professionals without any conflicts of their interests. Don't you agree?
1
With the Times embarking on a new round of staff reduction, I suggest that it eliminate jobs that actually make life more difficult for readers. High on my list is the job of disguising print stories to make them hard to find in the online version of the Times. For example, recently I looked online for "When Jobs Put Sexes Together, Workers Cringe," by Claire Caine Miller. The online Times said it never heard of such a story, had no record of it, and proposed a long list of irrelevant alternatives. Eventually I entered the reporter's name in the search box, which produced this: "It’s Not Just Mike Pence. Americans Are Wary of Being Alone With the Opposite Sex." So reporters' and copy editors' jobs are at risk while some drone is being paid to write a headline that a] makes the story hard to find, b] misrepresents the story, which is focused on work not social situations and c] tacitly reveals the prejudice of the writer, who has clearly assumed, along with many other Gliberals, that's there's something abnormal about Mike Pence.
Ever since [and maybe before] Bill Keller whined "Wed didn't ask to be the paper of record!" the Times has embarrassed itself in this manner. Which Times IS the paper of record, anyway?
Please forward a copy of this to the journalists and editors whose jobs are now in danger. I'd be interested in their reactions.
Ever since [and maybe before] Bill Keller whined "Wed didn't ask to be the paper of record!" the Times has embarrassed itself in this manner. Which Times IS the paper of record, anyway?
Please forward a copy of this to the journalists and editors whose jobs are now in danger. I'd be interested in their reactions.
2
Over and over in the reader comments below, I'm seeing the same thing: that readers DON'T USE THE New York TIMES FOR VIDEO! We want to read, and we want to read well-written, well-edited journalism. Is anyone actually paying attention here? Are you noting that readers are far less concerned with the speed of your breaking the news than they are with how accurate and well-written it is? Can you see that readers have a healthy respect for the skills of copyeditors and the clarity they provide? Don't you know that most of your dedicated readers don't want the same thing from the NY that they can get elsewhere? I have been a Times reader for 50+ years, and a subscriber for a good many of those years. I now live abroad and subscribe to your online version. But for the first time, I am seriously weighing whether or not to continue my subscription. Isn't this the opposite effect of what you are intending? I want the Times to be the Times. I happily pay for that -- not something else! Please reconsider your direction.
23
With respect to your statement, ""I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them." How will readers submit questions to you? Through what forum? How often will you respond? And why is it 'healthier' for you to answer them and not a public editor? You are management, and your public editor was not. With everything you do in your job, how you will you fulfil this function in a consistent way? If I have a question today, where to I send it, and how long before I can expect an answer...if any?
13
I appreciate your responses, Mr. Baquet. However, embracing speed breeds an uptick in errors, no matter the industry. All you needed to say is that you’ve accepted the percentage increase of errors appearing in copy as an inevitable side-effect of producing work at a faster clip. You now risk feeding the fake news narrative with every error at a time when our nation needs you most. What risks you take for the unwinnable digital rat race.
4
Perhaps a copy editor would have helped prevent Baquet's responses from contradicting themselves or skirting around questions.
In the answer to Dixie Jordan's letter, Baquet said, "we didn't really need to do" any comprehensive statistical analysis, yet goes on to say that "we found that error rate did not go up". How do you know that if you didn't do an analysis?
The answer to the anonymous Chicago Tribune editor's question doesn't address the question at all. They wanted a comment on The Times' actions in relation to the unsteady ground of fake news, but Baquet shied away, blaring that The Times isn't fake news. Cop-out.
The answer to Lucy Rodriguez's question dances away from the heart as well. The Times' number of foreign/national bureaus or reporters doesn't increase the quality of the product (just as Baquet stated that the number of editors doesn't). Those individuals affect only a handful of the paper's parts. The copy editors affect the paper as a whole.
I could go on, but I'd rather voice my own concern, which hasn't been addressed in any of the coverage I've found:
I worry that copy editing will be placed on the back burner. With general "editors" performing multiple editing roles, the tedious minutiae of copy editing will quickly be relegated to the last, unfavorable task to check off as the clock is winding down, especially when The Times lacks those individuals with a calling to copy edit. How does The Times plan to prevent this?
In the answer to Dixie Jordan's letter, Baquet said, "we didn't really need to do" any comprehensive statistical analysis, yet goes on to say that "we found that error rate did not go up". How do you know that if you didn't do an analysis?
The answer to the anonymous Chicago Tribune editor's question doesn't address the question at all. They wanted a comment on The Times' actions in relation to the unsteady ground of fake news, but Baquet shied away, blaring that The Times isn't fake news. Cop-out.
The answer to Lucy Rodriguez's question dances away from the heart as well. The Times' number of foreign/national bureaus or reporters doesn't increase the quality of the product (just as Baquet stated that the number of editors doesn't). Those individuals affect only a handful of the paper's parts. The copy editors affect the paper as a whole.
I could go on, but I'd rather voice my own concern, which hasn't been addressed in any of the coverage I've found:
I worry that copy editing will be placed on the back burner. With general "editors" performing multiple editing roles, the tedious minutiae of copy editing will quickly be relegated to the last, unfavorable task to check off as the clock is winding down, especially when The Times lacks those individuals with a calling to copy edit. How does The Times plan to prevent this?
8
An observation, not a question: It seems like there are more typos in NYT stories as of late. Perhaps you DO need those copy editors. Today's piece on Henry James is an example: "As a teenage in Newport, R.I., he met the American artist John La Farge..." Teenage? Speaking as a long-time reader, your reporting is very much appreciated. Don't let it be undermined by shortchanging the editing/proofreading process.
15
OK, I'm replying to my own post, but here goes: Carefully read the FIRST sentence of the NYT story about Lena Dunham and her dog: "Lena Dunham wanted to her fans to know what had happened to her dog Lamby." I am saying this as a supporter of good journalism: Please get your house in order.
4
These questions, reasonable enough, answered in a reasonable tone, avoid the concerns voiced increasingly by readers, of the diminution of the Times.
My plaintive wish: Hire more reporters, and get out across the country with eyes open.
The Times has become incurious and seems increasingly timid.
I wish Baquet would speak in other than corporate bland-speak of quality and how to maintain it as this new model of journalism evolves or doesn't.
My plaintive wish: Hire more reporters, and get out across the country with eyes open.
The Times has become incurious and seems increasingly timid.
I wish Baquet would speak in other than corporate bland-speak of quality and how to maintain it as this new model of journalism evolves or doesn't.
2
In most mediums — advertising, retail signage, publications — grammar and punctuation errors seem rampant compared to years past. It's (or is it its'?) the new normal, but I expect a standard of flawlessness from the New York Times.
I disagree that copy editing is "low value." Your readers value the impeccable work your organization does, and that will not continue under the new staff structure.
I disagree that copy editing is "low value." Your readers value the impeccable work your organization does, and that will not continue under the new staff structure.
7
It's it's.
1
As a millennial, I suppose I am among the intended target audience of the daily 360 videos and expansions into multimedia content. But this is not why I subscribe. Thorough, well researched, well edited writing is the product your readers bought with their subscription--an escape from the sensationalist, spoon-fed, and often inaccurate news we see on TV and read from other news sources. I hope the quality of Times reporting does not falter under this change, and I hope the focus remains on the written word. That's your niche!
12
Over the past year I have lost faith in the New York Times to deliver a clear picture of what is going on in the world. As a former New Yorker and a person who appreciates the willing and excellent minds that the Times has at it's disposal I can't support cuts in editorial staff. This paper now includes as news the headlines of nightly variety shows. Give me the facts, well edited, well punctuation. Skip the rest.
6
Some of the changes make sense in the era of digital journalism, but let's be real: If the management of the Times really cared about its readers, they would not have eliminated the Public Editor.
They also would institute a more democratic system to encourage more subscribers to contribute comments by:
1) opening up more stories for comments
2) Stop the moderators from cherry picking which comments are allowed to be published
3) End the RIDICULOUS system of the green checked elite commenters whose comments are uploaded automatically and with no scrutiny. This really needs to go.
3) Publish comments more quickly (many times my comments appear 3 days after I have submitted them, 5 days after comments are opened and at the tail end of the thread...when no one is even reading or replying to them. Not very motivating...)
They also would institute a more democratic system to encourage more subscribers to contribute comments by:
1) opening up more stories for comments
2) Stop the moderators from cherry picking which comments are allowed to be published
3) End the RIDICULOUS system of the green checked elite commenters whose comments are uploaded automatically and with no scrutiny. This really needs to go.
3) Publish comments more quickly (many times my comments appear 3 days after I have submitted them, 5 days after comments are opened and at the tail end of the thread...when no one is even reading or replying to them. Not very motivating...)
10
Publishing comments in a more timely fashion would be a plus for those of us who want to participate in real time. Additionally there's got to be a better way to find a comment after it's been approved. As of now there is no easy way to access a comment without spending a lot of time and half the time the comments section freezes up in the process. (It kinda defeats the purpose of commenting on a comment if it can't be accessed readily.) Another plus would be the ability to access one's previous posts. At the WAPO I find that feature serves as a political diary and is a great way to track the twists and turns of complicated political stories. As for 'cherry picking' comments there are pluses and minuses. Some of my more impassioned political comments haven't been published, which was disappointing. On the other hand I appreciate not seeing the vitriol found on open forums with no moderators.
3
Is there such a thing as pro bono editorial services? I began seeing so many typos and other errors rarely seen in the past that I considered volunteering as a copy editor myself. Along with other annoying issues with the NYT, after many years online plus all the hard copies, I discontinued my subscription recently and signed on with WAPO. I'll miss certain op-ed folks, for sure, as well as some content, but the future of J is currently not here.
2
Speaking of editing. Would it be possible to provide an editing button option of 3 or 4 minutes duration as they do at the Washington Post? Nothing is more annoying as a frequent commenter to spot an error after posting. I've spoiled more than a few of my posts here by submitting a comment and then spotting one or two lousy errors that could easily be fixed if there were an edit option.
5
"If the Supreme Court issues a major ruling at 10 a.m., our readers expect to hear about it within minutes. And they’d like an analysis not too long afterward." -- This sums up so much of what is wrong with corporate-funded media today. An 'analysis' that is rushed in order to be 'first' is not an analysis; it's merely a kneejerk reaction.
8
I always tell people who rely on social media for their news to read The New York Times, because the Times has fact checkers and editors who will make sure there are as few errors as possible. No one wants to print retractions, but especially not the Times.
I wonder how many pairs of eyes saw this article before it was released for digitization.
I wonder how many pairs of eyes saw this article before it was released for digitization.
3
We all want the NYTimes to maintain a level of excellence, but let's not forget that it must stay afloat to do that! Journalism and media consumption is changing and the NYTimes needs to change with it to survive.
I have been reading the times daily since 1976. It is my first go-to each morning to understand what's happening in the world, with the Washington Post a distant second place. Regardless of what other readers may do, I will remain a subscriber to the Times until my last gasp.
Thanks!
Thanks!
I have a problem with Baquet's last query response.
"We are in fact providing extensive training to editors and others. We have created a team to train journalists for the future. And, yes, some copy editors have grabbed hold of the training and are learning new skills. But not all skills can be taught so easily. Our best video journalists have years of experience and training. They’ve dedicated their lives to it."
Buried in there is the kernel of the core dishonesty of Baquet's claim, in his own words. "Our best video journalists have years of experience and training. They've dedicated their lives to it." Couldn't, and shouldn't the same thing be said about the Times' copy editors? Yet their responsibility is being transferred to people who, by Baquet's own words, have dedicated their lives to doing...other things. What if it turns out that among the skills that can't be "taught so easily" turns out to be copy editing? What could possibly go wrong? (Lots of things!)
"We are in fact providing extensive training to editors and others. We have created a team to train journalists for the future. And, yes, some copy editors have grabbed hold of the training and are learning new skills. But not all skills can be taught so easily. Our best video journalists have years of experience and training. They’ve dedicated their lives to it."
Buried in there is the kernel of the core dishonesty of Baquet's claim, in his own words. "Our best video journalists have years of experience and training. They've dedicated their lives to it." Couldn't, and shouldn't the same thing be said about the Times' copy editors? Yet their responsibility is being transferred to people who, by Baquet's own words, have dedicated their lives to doing...other things. What if it turns out that among the skills that can't be "taught so easily" turns out to be copy editing? What could possibly go wrong? (Lots of things!)
9
Heh. For all their political progressiveness, Times readers sure are personally conservative.
I love this paper. I've been reading it daily for years. In fact, after the election, I stopped mooching off of my friend's digital subscription and got my own in spite of a tenuous financial situation.
After all, this is in response to the election, right? Things changed. Living up to your mission and meeting the demands of your readers has become a lot harder. It's like there's suddenly twice as much to report on.
Organizations need to be flexible, especially when there's so much social AND technological upheaval. As far as changes go, this one doesn't seem huge. It also seems like it'd be pretty easy to reverse. I mean, after all the drastic changes to the media landscape in the past fifteen years, the Times is still on top, probably even more so than where it was before. Without a doubt, it's (now) THE paper of America. Obviously, you're doing something right.
I'm echo the concerns of the top commenter albeit in a less dismissive way: I rarely watch the videos, and, while some of photo essays and multimedia pieces are a beautiful response to smart phone technology (pretty much my exclusive mode of consumption), I'd give them up in a heartbeat if they came at the expense of higher quality writing. I do love the graphics, though. They're an important way to communicate and also lend themselves to Twitter/meme-sharing.
Anyway, thanks for the Q&A. Happy to be a real subscriber.
I love this paper. I've been reading it daily for years. In fact, after the election, I stopped mooching off of my friend's digital subscription and got my own in spite of a tenuous financial situation.
After all, this is in response to the election, right? Things changed. Living up to your mission and meeting the demands of your readers has become a lot harder. It's like there's suddenly twice as much to report on.
Organizations need to be flexible, especially when there's so much social AND technological upheaval. As far as changes go, this one doesn't seem huge. It also seems like it'd be pretty easy to reverse. I mean, after all the drastic changes to the media landscape in the past fifteen years, the Times is still on top, probably even more so than where it was before. Without a doubt, it's (now) THE paper of America. Obviously, you're doing something right.
I'm echo the concerns of the top commenter albeit in a less dismissive way: I rarely watch the videos, and, while some of photo essays and multimedia pieces are a beautiful response to smart phone technology (pretty much my exclusive mode of consumption), I'd give them up in a heartbeat if they came at the expense of higher quality writing. I do love the graphics, though. They're an important way to communicate and also lend themselves to Twitter/meme-sharing.
Anyway, thanks for the Q&A. Happy to be a real subscriber.
1
What's with the pink gun? The image of it appalled me. Your post seems to have been written by a thoughtful, intelligent person. I ask again: what's with the gun?
I apologize for offending you. I didn't mean for it to be controversial just playful; it's a water pistol... but it sounds like it might be too small to see the distinguishing details. I'll change it.
1
I really doubt that people come on the NYT website to watch 2 minutes and marginally informative videos... Plenty of other media offer such service, some actually doing better than the NYT in this regard.
Deep, well researched, well written articles is what is supposed to differentiate the NYT from most other medias. If the NYT loses the focus on that, it will lose everything, including plenty of readers (while maybe winning a few watchers).
Deep, well researched, well written articles is what is supposed to differentiate the NYT from most other medias. If the NYT loses the focus on that, it will lose everything, including plenty of readers (while maybe winning a few watchers).
10
"I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them."
The Public Editor's role, however, wasn't to simply answer questions, but to be an impartial individual, outside of the process, that was able to be a voice for the reader when the Times, including leadership, held other views. Leadership can not hold this role.
The Public Editor's role, however, wasn't to simply answer questions, but to be an impartial individual, outside of the process, that was able to be a voice for the reader when the Times, including leadership, held other views. Leadership can not hold this role.
28
I come to the times not for speedy reporting, but for *correct* reporting. If you want to produce low effort half baked trash like everyone else then fine, but don't expect my subscription to continue if you do.
20
Dean Baquet, like the newspaper he oversees, makes a lot of claims:
"We have to streamline that system and move faster in the digital age. If the Supreme Court issues a major ruling at 10 a.m., our readers expect to hear about it within minutes. And they’d like an analysis not too long afterward. And maybe a video on the history of the case that led to the ruling. Or a multimedia analysis of what the ruling says about the court’s leanings so far."
What substantiation can he offer about what "our readers expect?" This reader wants no part of a video or multimedia analysis. I am content to wait until Linda Greenhouse thoroughly digests it and offers a WELL THOUGHT OUT ANALYSIS.
The idea that READERS want instant analysis is not credible.
In making these claims, Baquet is conceding a nearly unique niche that the Times occupies in journalism in order to rub elbows with the Buzzfeeds, CNNs and numerous dime-a-dozen outlets that are neither as reliable nor as interesting as the Times, until Baquet's future meets them on his way down.
"We have to streamline that system and move faster in the digital age. If the Supreme Court issues a major ruling at 10 a.m., our readers expect to hear about it within minutes. And they’d like an analysis not too long afterward. And maybe a video on the history of the case that led to the ruling. Or a multimedia analysis of what the ruling says about the court’s leanings so far."
What substantiation can he offer about what "our readers expect?" This reader wants no part of a video or multimedia analysis. I am content to wait until Linda Greenhouse thoroughly digests it and offers a WELL THOUGHT OUT ANALYSIS.
The idea that READERS want instant analysis is not credible.
In making these claims, Baquet is conceding a nearly unique niche that the Times occupies in journalism in order to rub elbows with the Buzzfeeds, CNNs and numerous dime-a-dozen outlets that are neither as reliable nor as interesting as the Times, until Baquet's future meets them on his way down.
20
I appreciate the explanations, but I don't think eliminating copy editor positions will improve the quality of journalism. Journalism is a profession under siege by the current administration, and The Times needs to do all it can to ensure accuracy and to prevent any fake news claims.
16
Good for you. I frequently bounce back and forth between the Times and the Washington Post. It seems that the Post is quicker off the mark on some D.C. stories. I'm eager to see how the staff shifts change the reporting.
1
As a millennial Times subscriber for the last 7 years I have never watched a video or a 360 Degree feature. I come here to read, to be informed by content whose basic factual correctness I don't have to second-guess. You are not a documentary firm. You are a daily newspaper. I also trusted you to be a place that's run by people who have some clue how to relate to your readers -- I certainly don't have confidence in that after this interview.
33
Seconding Ryan. I'm also a "millennial" and I've never understood why newspapers seems to be under the impression that all we want to consume is video. Like Ryan, I'm a longtime subscriber and I've barely watched NYT videos, and neither have most of my friends. We know they're great, but honestly we just can't be bothered to sit through clips, especially when they have ads, as they frequently do. We would much rather quickly skim through articles or read at our leisure. I'd love to see data on readers' supposed tilt toward video because with me and with many others I know, it just doesn't hold true.
3
When the NYTimes follows through with eliminating its entire copy desk, I will be cancelling my subscription. I hope other subscribers choose to do the same.
14
I no longer feel guilty about not subscribing. I know how much my copybrethren (more often copysistren) contribute. And any publication that doesn't value that doesn't deserve to considered a paper of record. And you can keep your recipes, too.
14
While I applaud Mr. Baquet for addressing these matters, the intricacies are probably of interest to a very small percentage of readers. By concentrating on such technical matters, this forum avoids the far more fundamental issues about the integrity of the newspaper that were regularly addressed in the now terminated Public Editor's column.
I have no reason to doubt Mr. Baquet's intentions or integrity, but in the role of senior management, he is not in a position where he should even be expected to be completely objective. That's not his role. Moreover, the overwhelming responsibilities of his position cannot possibly allow for more than a fraction of the attention that the Public Editor would give to matters raised about issues of journalistic integrity.
We readers have suffered a great loss by the eradication of the primary vehicle through which we were able to express our deep concerns to the paper's management. I for one, do not buy the reasons given for eliminating the Public Editor, and, in fact, I think the reasoning was an insult to the intelligence of many readers.
Those of us who sought to have our voices heard through the Public Editor are regular, loyal readers, or we would probably not even be involved with such expressions. Eliminating the Public Editor accomplished no more than sparing the Paper's management from hearing and having to respond to really heartfealt comments from readers.
I have no reason to doubt Mr. Baquet's intentions or integrity, but in the role of senior management, he is not in a position where he should even be expected to be completely objective. That's not his role. Moreover, the overwhelming responsibilities of his position cannot possibly allow for more than a fraction of the attention that the Public Editor would give to matters raised about issues of journalistic integrity.
We readers have suffered a great loss by the eradication of the primary vehicle through which we were able to express our deep concerns to the paper's management. I for one, do not buy the reasons given for eliminating the Public Editor, and, in fact, I think the reasoning was an insult to the intelligence of many readers.
Those of us who sought to have our voices heard through the Public Editor are regular, loyal readers, or we would probably not even be involved with such expressions. Eliminating the Public Editor accomplished no more than sparing the Paper's management from hearing and having to respond to really heartfealt comments from readers.
30
Why does the NYT monitor readers in the comment section? The WSJ trusts its readers and allows them uncensored replies. Therefore I have to question if the NYT really believes in freedom of speech from its readers?
10
I'm so glad the NYT monitors the comments. I read the comments on the WSJ & other papers and the Times comments are much more substantive and civil. Please don't change this. It adds to the value of this paper that I can read monitored thoughtful comments with a variety of opinions without the nastiness I see on other media sites.
2
It doesn't. I've had multiple comments rejected that were on point, coherent and contained no personal attacks or obscenity. What they did was criticize the NYT's journalism or (I assume) express a conservative viewpoint a bit too sharply for the taste of the comment moderators.
The only reason I'm writing this now is that I've just had two more comments rejected that were completely inoffensive, but pointed to an example of gross bias in the NYT's reporting on President Trump (for whom, by the way, I did not vote). I can't write to the public editor since her position has been eliminated -- not that that would have done any good, since all of the august individuals holding that post habitually stonewalled critical letters. So, like Diogenes, hoping to find an honest man (or woman) at the NYT, I was looking for the name of the standards editor (not easy to find). Somehow, I ended up here.
I've wasted too much time carrying a lamp through this web site, searching for integrity. Why can't I just accept that "it is what it is"? It's the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy, that I cannot bear.
The only reason I'm writing this now is that I've just had two more comments rejected that were completely inoffensive, but pointed to an example of gross bias in the NYT's reporting on President Trump (for whom, by the way, I did not vote). I can't write to the public editor since her position has been eliminated -- not that that would have done any good, since all of the august individuals holding that post habitually stonewalled critical letters. So, like Diogenes, hoping to find an honest man (or woman) at the NYT, I was looking for the name of the standards editor (not easy to find). Somehow, I ended up here.
I've wasted too much time carrying a lamp through this web site, searching for integrity. Why can't I just accept that "it is what it is"? It's the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy, that I cannot bear.
Is this an error? DB writes:
"But quality cannot be measured by the size of the editing staff. " Well, that is what is at issue, isn't it? If I were editing, I would suggest the assertion be amended to read: "But quality cannot be measured only by the size of the editing staff. "
But maybe I am the "only" one who would opt for the addition of "only."
"But quality cannot be measured by the size of the editing staff. " Well, that is what is at issue, isn't it? If I were editing, I would suggest the assertion be amended to read: "But quality cannot be measured only by the size of the editing staff. "
But maybe I am the "only" one who would opt for the addition of "only."
13
I was a Times copy editor in the days of Ted Bernstein, Lew Jordan, Abe Rosenthal, et al. I vividly remember the almost immediate response from the "bull pen" if I missed a grammatical error, faulty punctuation, or misspelled word. Today, I'm still an avid Times reader, and one who cringes when encountering simple editing errors in almost story. Yes, in this age of Twitter and the 24-hour news cycle, very few people pay attention to grammar and other details. Still, the Times of those days set a high standard that made it special and the paper of record--I can't help but mourn the loss.
33
"...one who cringes when encountering simple editing errors in almost story."
Hear the ghost of Abe screaming: should read "almost EVERY story."
Hear the ghost of Abe screaming: should read "almost EVERY story."
2
My sons, 19 and 21, perceive ALL news sites, including the Times, as slick, sensationalistic and prone to not reporting the truth. My protests otherwise won't sway them. They see Trump plastered in the lead left each day -- and note that policy is often below the fold. They aren't stupid millennials, they are highly bright kids who are voracious readers. They see news organizations pandering for eyeballs and dollars.
As a long-time NYT subscriber, and a former executive for the Asbury Park Press when it was still family-owned, I was initially stunned that the boys have so little respect for newspapers. Upon reflection, i am now less so. These publicly-traded companies have done it to themselves; their financial health is their main concern -- and even the kids know it.
As a long-time NYT subscriber, and a former executive for the Asbury Park Press when it was still family-owned, I was initially stunned that the boys have so little respect for newspapers. Upon reflection, i am now less so. These publicly-traded companies have done it to themselves; their financial health is their main concern -- and even the kids know it.
10
Reliability is the key to what I read. I don't want to read the subject again unless there is a significant change; given this I depend on the NYTimes and WSJ. I would like to see are articles that temper the reliability with Editor Count. Expectations are then set from the beginning. Simple articles have peer review. Somewhat substantive articles that are timely have an editor review. Socially relevant and substantive have two editors. And so on up to an appropriate number. If it is part of the process and adds value then show us the value...
3
While Mr. Banquet claims that the reduction in central copy editing is not driven by financial concerns, he admits that the resources saved will be plowed into additional reporters, etc. I for one would be prepared to pay a bit more for a NY Times that both hired more reporters and maintained a strong central editing function. Everyone understands the need to modernize how editing works, but the reduction in resources threatens the quality of the publication that so many of us love. Finally, please bring back the Public Editor function--it was an important and unique role that highlighted the paper's commitment to self-scrutiny and continuous improvement.
11
I get totally annoyed when I see a "light" item in the centre space and real news squeezed to the left margin. I come to the Times for indepth focus on important matters not fluff pieces "above the fold".
16
And here is another media dinosaur mindlessly doing the very same thing but with a different set of excuses. Journalism is dead:
https://theringer.com/fox-sports-mtv-news-vocativ-layoffs-pivot-to-video...
https://theringer.com/fox-sports-mtv-news-vocativ-layoffs-pivot-to-video...
4
How, in Gawd's name did the concept of Editing become a foreign Concept with the New York Times? Without proper editing; grammar, structure, narrative and topic- you have nothing bet a bunch of words strung together. How did the Times lose the most basic of Publishing tenets? When the Public Editor's position was eliminated for a so-called "Community policing" strategy (let anonymous commenters monitor each other and a computer based Moderator system), the Times opened up the proverbial floodgates of idiotic, sophomoric discourse typically found on Reddit, Disqus and others.
The quality of the comments has decreased substantially in just one month. The New York Times was the Gold Standard for getting one's comments published- now, every utterance is published. Many of the old sages have ceased to offer relevant commentary because they have been crowded out by the clacking- noise. Please New York Times- get back to basics.
The quality of the comments has decreased substantially in just one month. The New York Times was the Gold Standard for getting one's comments published- now, every utterance is published. Many of the old sages have ceased to offer relevant commentary because they have been crowded out by the clacking- noise. Please New York Times- get back to basics.
17
not EVERY comment is published.
they still block most educated liberals.
the NYT's censors now permit endless Trumpisms because that fits their biz agenda.
I'll screengrab this to prove it was never published....
they still block most educated liberals.
the NYT's censors now permit endless Trumpisms because that fits their biz agenda.
I'll screengrab this to prove it was never published....
Witness this:
"she or he works closely with an editor we call a “backfielder.” After the story is written, it goes to a free-standing group of editors who read it for style, language, accuracy. "
There is no consistency. If "editors who read it," then why not "editor whom we call a 'backfielder.'" Not knowing the correct choice is mot a valid excuse.
I see screaming solecisms all the time in the NYT, most often who-whom mistakes. How about hiring only grammar competent employees? Not rocket science. How about off loading the job to quick reading, quick thinking, competent sticklers who can commit to a five minute turn around. (Me, me, me)
"she or he works closely with an editor we call a “backfielder.” After the story is written, it goes to a free-standing group of editors who read it for style, language, accuracy. "
There is no consistency. If "editors who read it," then why not "editor whom we call a 'backfielder.'" Not knowing the correct choice is mot a valid excuse.
I see screaming solecisms all the time in the NYT, most often who-whom mistakes. How about hiring only grammar competent employees? Not rocket science. How about off loading the job to quick reading, quick thinking, competent sticklers who can commit to a five minute turn around. (Me, me, me)
9
You certainly hit a nerve in mentioning who-whom mistakes which constantly occur in the Times and which are maddening. Recently, a digital edition of an article announced that officials "lay" low (present tense), though the subsequent print edition correctly used the word "lie." We need more end better-trained copy editors, not fewer.
I remember the NYT when A. M. Rosenthal was editor. The reports were straight down the middle, No bias, just straight news. The NYT made a point of not letting their personal opinion creep into the news.
Back then Bill Keller was reporting from Moscow and I looked forward to his columns which were so great and full of news.
Maybe it is the age we live in, but somehow the ability of newspaper to write without bias or letting their own views show, has vanished. Newspapers cannot be trusted to give you just the facts without letting their personal opinion color it.
Somehow the NYT has lost its luster. Some of the articles which appear in the NYT are so laced with personal that I don't even bother to read them. Why won't the NYT go back to being the great paper it was under Rosenthal.? What happened at the NYT to turn it into just another biased tabloid? I suspect it is the fault of the editor.
Back then Bill Keller was reporting from Moscow and I looked forward to his columns which were so great and full of news.
Maybe it is the age we live in, but somehow the ability of newspaper to write without bias or letting their own views show, has vanished. Newspapers cannot be trusted to give you just the facts without letting their personal opinion color it.
Somehow the NYT has lost its luster. Some of the articles which appear in the NYT are so laced with personal that I don't even bother to read them. Why won't the NYT go back to being the great paper it was under Rosenthal.? What happened at the NYT to turn it into just another biased tabloid? I suspect it is the fault of the editor.
22
I remember them being Very Pro-Israel back then; almost like a mouthpiece for that government.
The best..... already FRIDAY BRIEFING headline on the NYT at 4:45 on Thur. Hmmm....already copywriting issues.
5
Copy writing is not copywriting, and neither one of them is copy editing.
I had asked if the NYTimes would be hiring from outside of its insude track hiring pool. The world is changing -- a platitude that goes back to, well, Plato. Why don't I get a sense that the NYTimes is representing me or my views? Sure, I'm a Hispanic woman, but I disagree with about 99% of what you write and have got the credibility of a UCLA master's in film. I got the MFA for you, really, so that you would not think I'm the cleaning lady.
4
Sorry about the typo. I was writing while trying to hang on to my signal.
The NYT already publishes distressingly many sentences with grammatical errors. I'm very disappointed to learn this is likely to worsen.
11
absolutely... it hard to get through the day's "Top Stories" ( which one might naively have thought were MORE carefully edited) without encountering typos, grammatical errors, and poorly constructed (ambiguous and/or misleading) sentences. Given that fixes to the online edition can be done much more easily, rapidly, and cheaply (I am a believer in using the serial comma!) than in print, it is a mystery to me why such errors often persist for days. The Real NY Times (in the print only days) usually got things right by the 2nd edition.
I notice he dodged the question about whether he considered taking a salary cut.
37
It seems the editing at the NYT has the main objective to ensure as many negatives on Trump as possible. How does this square with the golden rule to "present the news and nothing but the news."
3
The pedantic, over-written, speculative, non-sourced writing (so-called) in the NYT will never change unless the paper's bean counters finally understand what real journalism is.
Real journalism sells. That's why bean counters care - or should care.
The NYT needs to use the AP model if it ever wants to be taken seriously as a source of balanced journalism.
The Times abolished the role of "public editor" because it realized its standards were, and are, sorely lacking. The public humiliation took its toll on the newspaper's columns that are rife with non-sourced material.
Now, we have the top editor "answering" purely self-serving softball questions from "readers."
Real journalism sells. That's why bean counters care - or should care.
The NYT needs to use the AP model if it ever wants to be taken seriously as a source of balanced journalism.
The Times abolished the role of "public editor" because it realized its standards were, and are, sorely lacking. The public humiliation took its toll on the newspaper's columns that are rife with non-sourced material.
Now, we have the top editor "answering" purely self-serving softball questions from "readers."
17
Is speed really that important? There is twitter for that, don't be faster than twitter, be better! You're a daily newspaper, that should be enough. Could there maybe be a purely *daily* version with higher standards?
8
I appreciate the enormous amount of effort that goes into editing your paper, in print or on-line. I am a very satisfied reader with only one quibble about a relatively inconsequential grammatical error: the use of an apostrophe in "it's" when it is used in the possessive. Need I point out that the apostrophe is a substitute for "i", as in "it is". (Smile) Julie King
7
the decline in the editorial quality is already evident. The move to try to become "chatty" and "cool" is negatively affecting the journalism.
16
I continue to ask why the executives did not take salary/bonus cuts to keep the copy editors in place. And Mr Basquet's poor excuse: journalism is changing. Pursuit of the facts, deep digging, fact checking all require both reporters and editors. You may have more journalists and investigative reporters than ever before, but having more doesn't mean having the best. And what about your new revenue streams? Charging for access to the Food archive? As a lifelong New Yorker and Times reader, I am extremely disappointed in the NYTimes in its present iteration. And in you, Mr Basquet.
11
I commend you on taking the tough decisions to prolong the life of print. Everything is a trade-off. I work with newspapers in Australia and New Zealand and the copy editing process still holds many newsrooms back. I am a recent subscriber to the NYT - and loving it.
1
Unfortunately, the copy editors haven't being their job for some time now. Every day I see numerous examples in headlines, summaries, photo captions and stories using "who" when the objective "whom" is correct. It may seem picayune, but for me at least it indicates a lowering of the paper's high standards.
7
The first line of your comment confirms the utility of, in your case absent, copy editors. "...the copy editors haven't being their job for some time now?"
11
that's just 'modern' usage... driven by automated spelling 'correctors'. brought to us by the engineers at Google and Microsoft and Apple. Engineers traditionally are lousy spellers and worse writers (read any technical manuals?), but they're calling the shots. A serious newspaper or book publisher who counts on spell checking/correcting software to do the job of copy editors will disappoint readers. Lousy writing, bad spelling, and poor grammar make reading a harder task and obscure the information readers seek.]
Surely I am not alone in questioning Mr. banquet's motives. Replacing excellence in journalism with video/interactive features?
In the year 2017, these features are a dime a dozen. We PAY to READ the one and only NYT! It ain't broke - don't try to fix it. But I've already asked politely... to no avail. So bring on the dog and pony show! Meanwhile cancel our subscription. On to the Washington Post.
In the year 2017, these features are a dime a dozen. We PAY to READ the one and only NYT! It ain't broke - don't try to fix it. But I've already asked politely... to no avail. So bring on the dog and pony show! Meanwhile cancel our subscription. On to the Washington Post.
18
The Supreme Court example doesn't seem a good one for demonstrating the need for speed: cases are on the Court's docket for months and the brilliant Linda Greenhouse will have spent months (even years, following a case through lower courts) analyzing the issues and the oral testimony, and be well prepared to read a ruling and write a swift news piece. So yes, she might not need three or four eyes but that's due to extensive preparation time. Many other types of breaking news (say, 911) DO require layers of reporters and editors, all with experience, knowledge and judgement to get it right - not just the fastest. And then, the paper needs the Public Editor to review the process and be a critic of and provide insight into the process used by the of reporters, editors AND management -- you can't do that objectively yourself.
9
Linda Greenhouse has not been the Supreme Court reporter for several years. She does have an opinion column that discusses legal issues.
In any event, Supreme Court opinions can be extremely long, with many separate opinions from the justices, and it takes time to read them. A short article summarizing the decision may not take long, but a thoughtful analysis based on what the Court actually wrote -- not canned ideas -- may take longer.
The need for speed is overrated. The SCOTUS blog is bound to have the fastest, most detailed immediate response because that is all it covers. Cable fills in other gaps.
In any event, Supreme Court opinions can be extremely long, with many separate opinions from the justices, and it takes time to read them. A short article summarizing the decision may not take long, but a thoughtful analysis based on what the Court actually wrote -- not canned ideas -- may take longer.
The need for speed is overrated. The SCOTUS blog is bound to have the fastest, most detailed immediate response because that is all it covers. Cable fills in other gaps.
5
Adam Liptak is the current SC beat reporter, though Greenhouse's analyses on the Opinion page are most welcome.
Just remember that Anthony Lewis started the beat, and his tenure produced one of the great books about the Supreme Court's workings and the handling of a single, landmark case, "Gideon's Trumpet."
The "need for speed" is purely restricted to Dean Baquet's mind.
Just remember that Anthony Lewis started the beat, and his tenure produced one of the great books about the Supreme Court's workings and the handling of a single, landmark case, "Gideon's Trumpet."
The "need for speed" is purely restricted to Dean Baquet's mind.
2
I do agree with the woman who told Mr. Baquet that she would rather pay more for her subscription than see quality decline. If it's a few bucks more per month, so would I. My worst fear is the lack of copy editors leads to comparisons with tabloid sites like Breitbart, which, frankly, could care less about the accuracy of their reporting.
7
The most appalling part of this, is "everyone else is doing it, we should too". Have you read the Wall Street Journal recently?
11
When the Times began reporting that candidate Trump was "lying" about various things, I had a terrific sense of culture shock. The Times I grew up with did not try to judge the news for me while reporting the facts.
I have been ill at ease ever since.
I have been ill at ease ever since.
8
@David Branner: What would you like a provable falsehood to be called, other than a "lie"? It's not "judging" to call a lie a lie - it's honest reporting.
If Trump didn't lie so much, maybe it wouldn't have become such a massive issue. The sheer quantity of Trump's lies coalesce into a major character flaw. I want to know EVERY lie he's feeding his followers (even as he castigates MSM as "fake").
If Trump didn't lie so much, maybe it wouldn't have become such a massive issue. The sheer quantity of Trump's lies coalesce into a major character flaw. I want to know EVERY lie he's feeding his followers (even as he castigates MSM as "fake").
12
Let's all remember that Jimmy Carter was called out for lying, too. He, remember, famously said, "I will never lie to you."
Nonetheless, that was an isolated incident. We now have a president who's behavior veers to the pathological. And, that, unfortunately, is newsworthy!
Nonetheless, that was an isolated incident. We now have a president who's behavior veers to the pathological. And, that, unfortunately, is newsworthy!
1
There should be a click-on link after every article to report corrections. The current (useless) process of calling a toll free number that is almost impossible to locate- is seemingly meant to avoid accountability.
20
I was with friends over the fourth who are also avid readers of the Times and we all commented on the grammatical mistakes and typos that we found this week in the Times copy. I have not followed the details of how copy editing is going to be organized going forward but if this week is an indication, the Times is going to experience the same quality declines that we have seen in other publications. It is truly a sad day!
14
Here's what Mr. Baquet's final statement should have said:
Our best copy editors have years of experience and training. They’ve dedicated their lives to it. This is a time when newspapers think anyone can learn to be a copy editor, until we learn the obvious fallacy of that notion. The Times will lose its place as a great editorial institution until it puts copy editing back in the hands of copy editors.
Also, I have concerns with a couple of his responses:
"We are not eliminating copy editing. Many of the people who read copy at The Times are former copy editors."
Is he saying that he is going to throw copy editing responsibilities on non–copy editor staff who are probably already overburdened? If so, that is never a good idea. Although said staff may have been copy editors in the past, that is presumably not their current focus, and quality somewhere will suffer as a result.
"Almost everyone else — including The Wall Street Journal — changed their editing system long ago to eliminate the centralized copy desk. To be honest, we’re behind on this change."
“Everyone else is doing it" is not a good reason. I and many others from outside the New York area chose the Times because of their commitment to accuracy and editorial quality. If the quality goes down, there will really be no reason for us to keep subscribing, and we will take our money to local papers.
Our best copy editors have years of experience and training. They’ve dedicated their lives to it. This is a time when newspapers think anyone can learn to be a copy editor, until we learn the obvious fallacy of that notion. The Times will lose its place as a great editorial institution until it puts copy editing back in the hands of copy editors.
Also, I have concerns with a couple of his responses:
"We are not eliminating copy editing. Many of the people who read copy at The Times are former copy editors."
Is he saying that he is going to throw copy editing responsibilities on non–copy editor staff who are probably already overburdened? If so, that is never a good idea. Although said staff may have been copy editors in the past, that is presumably not their current focus, and quality somewhere will suffer as a result.
"Almost everyone else — including The Wall Street Journal — changed their editing system long ago to eliminate the centralized copy desk. To be honest, we’re behind on this change."
“Everyone else is doing it" is not a good reason. I and many others from outside the New York area chose the Times because of their commitment to accuracy and editorial quality. If the quality goes down, there will really be no reason for us to keep subscribing, and we will take our money to local papers.
18
Are you saying that your previous system was always unnecessarily redundant, that those 3d and 4th editors never added anything to the process? I spend a great deal of money on the NY Times. I'm a print subscriber and I'm starting to feel like a bit of a fool. But I expect the best from you. Your explanation for reducing the oversight process sounds very weak to me, especially at a time when it is so important that you get it right, when your entire industry is under assault, when every error is grounds for calling you "fake." Doesn't make sense to this reader.
26
"If the Supreme Court issues a major ruling at 10 a.m., our readers expect to hear about it within minutes."
Your job isn't just to give the people what they want. Your primary job is to uphold journalistic standards. In this case, if readers expect a detailed story within minutes of a major SCOTUS ruling, you need to thwart their expectations and make them wait for as long as it takes to provide a high quality, accurate one.
***
Q: "I understand that this was a financial issue. Did higher level employees such as yourself consider taking salary cuts?"
A: "This is actually not primarily a financial issue — we are mostly shifting resources, not cutting them."
Well, then, did you consider "shifting resources" from yourself and other higher level employees to other areas? You completely dodged this question.
Your job isn't just to give the people what they want. Your primary job is to uphold journalistic standards. In this case, if readers expect a detailed story within minutes of a major SCOTUS ruling, you need to thwart their expectations and make them wait for as long as it takes to provide a high quality, accurate one.
***
Q: "I understand that this was a financial issue. Did higher level employees such as yourself consider taking salary cuts?"
A: "This is actually not primarily a financial issue — we are mostly shifting resources, not cutting them."
Well, then, did you consider "shifting resources" from yourself and other higher level employees to other areas? You completely dodged this question.
28
Here's a question that wasn't answered:
Dear Mr. Baquet,
Why did you eliminate the Public Editor?
This gives the impression that the Times is trying to avoid being criticized for its errors and its implicit biases.
It sends the wrong message to readership and the world of journalism.
It puts the phrase “All the news that’s fit to print” in a new, unflattering light.
Best,
The world of concerned citizens
Dear Mr. Baquet,
Why did you eliminate the Public Editor?
This gives the impression that the Times is trying to avoid being criticized for its errors and its implicit biases.
It sends the wrong message to readership and the world of journalism.
It puts the phrase “All the news that’s fit to print” in a new, unflattering light.
Best,
The world of concerned citizens
44
And even with the public editor in place how did the NYT still believe Hillary was going to win the election by 80 percent even the morning of the election. NYT is SO out of touch!
6
Not by 80%, but with an 80% likelihood. Not the same. Both turned out to be wrong.
6
Yes: I am still waiting for the retraction and mea culpa on that ABSURD and completely wrong (color) graph that the NYT ran on the front page for weeks leading to election day, predicting HRC's landslide. Many people I know did not bother to vote because they believed that graph. Fake news indeed. I think the NYT needs to write about this enormous error candidly and explain how they are going to prevent the same kind of error going forward.
5
Canning copyeditors is widespread among newspapers and other such publications. Executives, whose main reading is PowerPoint presentations, don't know or care about copyediting other than seeing it as a cost center. By cutting back on the copyediting function, they can reduce overhead with an acceptable decrement in quality most customers won't notice. It's like when a hotel chain stops putting mints on pillow. In responding to its explanations, don't know whether I should praise the Times for bothering to explain or condemn it for being disingenuous.
By the way, above I erroneously used the term "newspaper." That's so 20th century. What I meant was a platform agnostic provider of multimedia reality--based content.
By the way, above I erroneously used the term "newspaper." That's so 20th century. What I meant was a platform agnostic provider of multimedia reality--based content.
17
I subscribed shortly after Inauguration Day, and I'm on this site constantly. I think the overall incidence of errors in the NYT online is less than other news sites I read. There's no reason to think your standards can't be maintained, and in fact, they're key to your credibility online. Any editor you keep or hire needs to not only rise to the challenge but embrace it.
3
"Editing is vital to The Times. It separates us from the competition. It is one of the reasons readers trust our information. And it elevates our language."
Hmmm. Not so much these days.
Mr. Baquet was at the helm when the Times decided that it was correct in denying its readership a peak at the Danish Muhammad satirical cartoons or the Charlie Hebdo Islamic satire, which resulted in the slaughter of that periodical's editorial board in Paris.
Mr. Baquet remained at the helm during the election year coverage which, almost daily, ran favorable Hillary stories and projected her the winner-right up until the time she did not. The Times, pre-"resistance", kinda apologized for that one.
More recently, the Times has embarked on, as part of the resistance, the goal of ensuring that a bit of anti-Trump hysteria creeps into hard news front page pieces.
And who can forget the editorial decision-making which found it appropriate to publish "This Week In Hate," a screed aimed at millions of "deplorables" who supposedly reveled in their "racism" while voting for Trump.
That column went away soon after four black teens tortured a man wearing a Trump t-shirt.
Anyway, my favorite editorial decision was the one in which the Times thought it a good idea to publish a graph depicting which Jewish areas might pressure their congressional reps to vote against the Iranian nuclear deal.
Mr. Baquet, the Times needs more qualified editors, not less.
Hmmm. Not so much these days.
Mr. Baquet was at the helm when the Times decided that it was correct in denying its readership a peak at the Danish Muhammad satirical cartoons or the Charlie Hebdo Islamic satire, which resulted in the slaughter of that periodical's editorial board in Paris.
Mr. Baquet remained at the helm during the election year coverage which, almost daily, ran favorable Hillary stories and projected her the winner-right up until the time she did not. The Times, pre-"resistance", kinda apologized for that one.
More recently, the Times has embarked on, as part of the resistance, the goal of ensuring that a bit of anti-Trump hysteria creeps into hard news front page pieces.
And who can forget the editorial decision-making which found it appropriate to publish "This Week In Hate," a screed aimed at millions of "deplorables" who supposedly reveled in their "racism" while voting for Trump.
That column went away soon after four black teens tortured a man wearing a Trump t-shirt.
Anyway, my favorite editorial decision was the one in which the Times thought it a good idea to publish a graph depicting which Jewish areas might pressure their congressional reps to vote against the Iranian nuclear deal.
Mr. Baquet, the Times needs more qualified editors, not less.
16
fewer
2
Not to nitpick, but your comment could use some copy editing:
"projected her the winner-right up until the time she did not"--"Did not" what--"did not winner"? Try "projected her as the winner, right up until she lost."
"The Times, pre-'resistance',"--put that comma back inside the quotation marks!
"Mr. Baquet, the Times needs more qualified editors, not less." = "Mr. Baquet, The Times needs more qualified editors, not FEWER."
"projected her the winner-right up until the time she did not"--"Did not" what--"did not winner"? Try "projected her as the winner, right up until she lost."
"The Times, pre-'resistance',"--put that comma back inside the quotation marks!
"Mr. Baquet, the Times needs more qualified editors, not less." = "Mr. Baquet, The Times needs more qualified editors, not FEWER."
3
You musta been in my class when the public school teacher corrected one of my esteemed fellow students thusly:
How you gonna go anywhere if you "aks" a question instead of saying "ask."
As remember it, the student took exception to the correction, in a most extreme fashion, and punched the teacher. As to which I did not approve, because,
We need more teachers, not less
I mean, fewer.
How you gonna go anywhere if you "aks" a question instead of saying "ask."
As remember it, the student took exception to the correction, in a most extreme fashion, and punched the teacher. As to which I did not approve, because,
We need more teachers, not less
I mean, fewer.
1
I agree with your new, slimmer "word processor" model simply bescuse you need speed and you want journalists that get things "right" at initial copy. Regrettably, the paper is the last bastion of great newspapers and you need to find and maintain profitability.
1
Why do you consistently use the phrase "move faster" instead of "move more quickly"? You've used it twice here and it crops up more frequently in NYT stories these days. That is a number one dumbo grammatical error that kids in grade school are chided about, and that your copy editors should fix. But increasingly, little errors like "a couple" instead of "a couple of" are creeping in. Why? Have you jettisoned the vaunted NYT style book AND The Chicago Manual of Style?
More importantly, why have you stopped responding to reader queries? When I freelanced for you (very regularly) I got taken to the woodshed if I did not respond immediately to a reader query, even if I was on a punishing deadline. The queries I've sent in have received no such respect, not even an acknowledgement.
And finally, why should your "readers" demand videos about breaking news? We have tv stations for that. Seems a huge waste of resources.
(I challenge you to post this. Nothing I contribute ever is these days!)
More importantly, why have you stopped responding to reader queries? When I freelanced for you (very regularly) I got taken to the woodshed if I did not respond immediately to a reader query, even if I was on a punishing deadline. The queries I've sent in have received no such respect, not even an acknowledgement.
And finally, why should your "readers" demand videos about breaking news? We have tv stations for that. Seems a huge waste of resources.
(I challenge you to post this. Nothing I contribute ever is these days!)
26
What exactly is the grammatical problem with "move faster"?
6
Verbs are modified by adverbs, not adjectives. Totally elementary rule.
Have you ever read Orwell's Politics and the English Language? More people should, IMO, including NYT top management. Clarity is important.
Have you ever read Orwell's Politics and the English Language? More people should, IMO, including NYT top management. Clarity is important.
1
AnnNYC. Many words are both adjectives and adverbs. Have you looked up "fast" anytime recently?
The first line of this paragraph in the obituary of Denys Johnson-Davies, A translator of Arab Writers, had me scratching my head:
"“I lived in a Nissan hut with Arabs,” he told the United Arab Emirates publication Gulf News in 2010."
Pray, what is a "Nissan hut"? A structure built by the Japanese automaker?
When I read that reference to a "Nissan hut" I immediately thought that this probably wouldn't have happened if the NYTimes was still using its old copy-editing system.
I spotted this error yesterday and it's still there today. The structure in question is called a "Nissen hut," known as a "Quonset hut" in the United States.
"“I lived in a Nissan hut with Arabs,” he told the United Arab Emirates publication Gulf News in 2010."
Pray, what is a "Nissan hut"? A structure built by the Japanese automaker?
When I read that reference to a "Nissan hut" I immediately thought that this probably wouldn't have happened if the NYTimes was still using its old copy-editing system.
I spotted this error yesterday and it's still there today. The structure in question is called a "Nissen hut," known as a "Quonset hut" in the United States.
22
Remember when the NYTimes Editorial Board pledged support for Bush's was against Iraq, despite their journalists reporting on how false all justification was? Dean Baquet would make that mistake again given the opportunity.
2
Please no. The more editors - the better. I have always had confidence in the New York Times. You have a special role in this country. We look to you for the truth. You are doing exactly what the Metropolitan Opera has done.....streamlined and "modernized" its productions in the name of keeping up with the times.....and look what is happening to the Met. The same will befall you. Please keep that confidence we have in you....don't thin it out! Who cares about "the first to bring you the news" and later have to retract parts of it. I can wait....as long as I know its the truth.
10
Not a single question regarding the obvious left-wing "get Trump" bias in the news pages of The New York Times. It was just a few weeks ago ago when the front webpage had stories on the non-story of Trump colluding with the Russians.
This column provides further proof regarding the egregious bias found in every section of The Times.
This column provides further proof regarding the egregious bias found in every section of The Times.
6
Regarding elimination of the Public Editor:
"I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them."
So are you planning REGULAR Q&A with the readers then, Mr. Baquet? How about you provide your e-mail address so we can query you directly on matters of journalistic integrity? The one findable in the Times' website, [email protected] generates a delivery failure notice, and has for years.
The idea that the Executive Editor answering questions from readers might be equivalent to an objective internal critic with years of journalistic experience is, quite simply, not credible.
"I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them."
So are you planning REGULAR Q&A with the readers then, Mr. Baquet? How about you provide your e-mail address so we can query you directly on matters of journalistic integrity? The one findable in the Times' website, [email protected] generates a delivery failure notice, and has for years.
The idea that the Executive Editor answering questions from readers might be equivalent to an objective internal critic with years of journalistic experience is, quite simply, not credible.
14
I am very surprised that editors are used in crafting and actually writing stories, and that there are then multiple levels of editing. I suppose this makes sense for Watergate-type stories but this seems to apply to all news stories. Of course a second set of eyes should fact check and analyze for grammar and structural errors but there is more going on here.
What qualifications, if any, do reporters bring to the table if articles must be co-written with editors? I guess we will find out but it is becoming clear now. For example, a recent article about a train derailment in Manhattan revealed the exact location in the fifth paragraph. Even the greenest reporter should know to include basic information at the start of the article. Maybe I should subscribe to Scholastic News instead.
What qualifications, if any, do reporters bring to the table if articles must be co-written with editors? I guess we will find out but it is becoming clear now. For example, a recent article about a train derailment in Manhattan revealed the exact location in the fifth paragraph. Even the greenest reporter should know to include basic information at the start of the article. Maybe I should subscribe to Scholastic News instead.
3
Lynn in DC, it comes with the Times quite peculiar internal culture.
This article by 12 year NYT veteran Michael Cieply explains how editors have their thumbs in pretty much every story, to assure conformity with the masthead determined "narrative."
http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-f...
It is a real eye-opener. It explains how the political coverage can be so abysmal. And the last two political editors, Richard Stevenson and Carolyn Ryan were rewarded for overseeing appalling coverage with substantial promotions.
This article by 12 year NYT veteran Michael Cieply explains how editors have their thumbs in pretty much every story, to assure conformity with the masthead determined "narrative."
http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-f...
It is a real eye-opener. It explains how the political coverage can be so abysmal. And the last two political editors, Richard Stevenson and Carolyn Ryan were rewarded for overseeing appalling coverage with substantial promotions.
1
I am another subscriber who simple goes past the video stories. I want to read the news. I have little appetite for your watered down, hyper-edited videos which are more style than substance.
34
One difference I have noticed; BBC seems to have a story on their digital website much sooner than NYT. My assumption was the NYT was double and triple checking the accuracy a story. But in comparison, I never found a conflict of facts in reporting, or should I say a difference in facts, only a difference in style.
3
We shall see. Please stop with the automatic videos. These are annoying, take up screen space on a tablet, and run the battery down. I want to read not watch a video repeat over and over. The Met video was on the page for two irritating days. Please....no more Glitter News videos. Many of your readers use tablets with small screens. Get your editors to figure out how to make that better. Go look at the Guardian. They do this format well.
23
Many readers have already stated most of my thoughts. I’ll just leave it by pointing out the abundance of “there is” and “there are” sentences in this Q&A. Lazy writing that a copy editor is supposed to fix without thinking unless there is a strong reason to leave it.
7
Since rising eminence A.G. Sulzberger is the driving force behind the dramatic changes, when is he going to emerge from the shadows and subject himself to Reader Center scrutiny? Mr. Baquet is a good sport to be the designated spear catcher, but the overarching direction of The Times also ought to be addressed candidly at an even higher level. Longtime readers have legitimate concerns.
7
"Updates: Trump Still Has Doubts on Russian Meddling" is the text of a link currently on the home page. But how can the New York Times possibly know what a politician thinks, feels, or believes? Wouldn't it be better to state only that he _claims_ to have doubts?
8
Will there be a change in responsibilities for the writing and editing of heads and
captions?
captions?
5
The Times became a` ideology machine.Your support of HRC got us Trump .Your reporting is biased and you need to return to reporting the news and balance your editorial opinion page get a Krauthamer or Wills to write an occasional piece.
6
They weren't the only newspaper in the world to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Most did.
5
Unlike so many commenters here, I have no issue with the Gray Lady getting a digital dye job. Let's face it, we traditional print readers aren't getting any younger, and the Times must look forward, well forward, to set a course for possible profit growth, however small it may be in comparison to the heyday of classified ad windfalls. I understand the need for expeditions reporting to fill the every-growing maw of online/mobile demand. Indeed, as a Sunday-only print subscriber who long ago planted the Times as his home page, I welcome it. And I trust that Mr. Baquet and his staff — stand-along copy desk nor no — will continue to deliver quality, well-researched, well-edited, vital journalism, in whatever form. I will continue to trust them while remaining vigilant in my attention to blatant factual errors or egregious bias. Onward.
2
As an avid and loyal NYT reader for 55 years, I too want to stay current. I value your push into the electronic media, and have (reluctantly) embraced my Electronic Edition on my iPad. My allergies are less intense without breathing in the ink from the print version.
What I do not understand is that through all of these changes the number of "Corrections" seems to have exponentially increased, despite the availability of source verification electronically. SpellCheck and GrammarCheck do not seem to catch all of the mistypes, but I am more concerned with getting the facts right so you can stay above the Fake News fault line.
Cutting editing functions may only make the speling worze and facts less factual.
What I do not understand is that through all of these changes the number of "Corrections" seems to have exponentially increased, despite the availability of source verification electronically. SpellCheck and GrammarCheck do not seem to catch all of the mistypes, but I am more concerned with getting the facts right so you can stay above the Fake News fault line.
Cutting editing functions may only make the speling worze and facts less factual.
6
As many in this comment section have correctly deduced, the move away from professional copy desks by the Times and every other newspaper in this country is – Mr. Baquet's explanations aside – is an economic move: A move to appease stockholders. I understand the current economics. I just wish Mr. Baquet would have come out and explained them to his readers rather than attempt to defend them.
I spent 42 years as a staff writer and editor at four major American daily newspapers and I can tell readers this: good copy desks are a major difference between average newspapers and great newspapers.
At the mediocre dailies at which I worked, the desk hands were young, recent J-school grads who took copy editing jobs in hopes of moving on to writing and reporting careers. But, copy went through enough of these young eyes to help the process.
The first great newspaper at which I worked – The Boston Globe – featured professional, dedicated, experienced copy editors, slot editors and backfield editors. They could turn the weakest copy into wonderful journalism. Dang, they were impressive.
Now retired, I still love the Times. I respect the Times. I scour the Times. But portraying the way journalism has changed from a get-it-right philosophy too one of get-it-first in order to keep up with bloggers as a positive thing is disheartening and dangerous.
Bloggers should be emulating the Times, not the other way around.
I spent 42 years as a staff writer and editor at four major American daily newspapers and I can tell readers this: good copy desks are a major difference between average newspapers and great newspapers.
At the mediocre dailies at which I worked, the desk hands were young, recent J-school grads who took copy editing jobs in hopes of moving on to writing and reporting careers. But, copy went through enough of these young eyes to help the process.
The first great newspaper at which I worked – The Boston Globe – featured professional, dedicated, experienced copy editors, slot editors and backfield editors. They could turn the weakest copy into wonderful journalism. Dang, they were impressive.
Now retired, I still love the Times. I respect the Times. I scour the Times. But portraying the way journalism has changed from a get-it-right philosophy too one of get-it-first in order to keep up with bloggers as a positive thing is disheartening and dangerous.
Bloggers should be emulating the Times, not the other way around.
31
When asked whether the day-to-day quality of the content would be reduces, Mr. Baquet did not answer the question. Of course it is an invidious question. If the quality will reduce then it is clear management is sacrificing quality in order to compete in the world of instant undigested news, rumor, innuendo and alt., whereas if the quality will remain,then there is the further question of why the Times has for all of these years been stuffed to the gills with copy editors who are surplus to requirements. The fact that in order to avoid either outcome Mr. Baquet punted does not augur well for the future of the newspaper.
1
Then there's this http://freebeacon.com/politics/new-york-times-falls-for-parody-north-kor... which, sadly, seems to be endemic. If it were me, I'd be upgrading editorial staff to those with critical-thinking skills.
2
Haste makes waste.
You are different: keep it that way.
The typos and grammatical errors are unsettling coming from you.
We need your voice to expose the malfeasance (and far worse) and to speak truth to power. Continue to be that example of facts-based, civilized discourse.
Stand with the people. Survive, but strive to serve, not, primarily, to profit. Stay independent. Claim your excellence.
Patriotism, honesty, and reason will prevail!
You are different: keep it that way.
The typos and grammatical errors are unsettling coming from you.
We need your voice to expose the malfeasance (and far worse) and to speak truth to power. Continue to be that example of facts-based, civilized discourse.
Stand with the people. Survive, but strive to serve, not, primarily, to profit. Stay independent. Claim your excellence.
Patriotism, honesty, and reason will prevail!
5
No videos, more newsprint. You will lose subscribers if your quality starts to wane even more than it has in the past several years (typos, corrections, etc).
and yes, more facts and less narrative please.
and yes, more facts and less narrative please.
7
Good Q and A. While we're talking about changes, I do wish there was a way I could get the print edition! (zip code 22485). But if the only fallback is to pay the small fee for web access, I'll gladly take that!
1
From the story on Kamala Harris: "Ms. Harris has worked behind to scenes to curb any temptation to be overzealous in the inquiry." That's what your purge is doing, sir.
6
That is the kind of writing that got crossed out in first year English composition.
So now instead of just being able to read through it, we'll also get to listen to it while watching videos. If Mr. Baquet thinks this isn't being noticed, well, it is. We are seeing more and more of this sloppiness in Section A, along with brazen editorial creep. Some of the garbled syntax and wrong word choice over the last few years is really amazing to see in print, suggesting too little editing is already the norm. This is unnecessary. The Internet has created a tremendous new market for the Times, which should be seized upon by management to uphold standards rather than dilute them. The Times will never be all things to all people, but sticking with immaculate journalism is what sets it apart. Compromise that and no collection of shiny social media features will arrest a downward slide.
So now instead of just being able to read through it, we'll also get to listen to it while watching videos. If Mr. Baquet thinks this isn't being noticed, well, it is. We are seeing more and more of this sloppiness in Section A, along with brazen editorial creep. Some of the garbled syntax and wrong word choice over the last few years is really amazing to see in print, suggesting too little editing is already the norm. This is unnecessary. The Internet has created a tremendous new market for the Times, which should be seized upon by management to uphold standards rather than dilute them. The Times will never be all things to all people, but sticking with immaculate journalism is what sets it apart. Compromise that and no collection of shiny social media features will arrest a downward slide.
3
And and
And another great newspaper bites the dust. Mr. Baquet, your plan for changes won't work, and the editorial hierarchy of the Times knows it. Oh, and no thanks for making good on Trump's claim that "The Times is failing." Those of us who have spent our careers as newspaper reporters, editors, columnists and, god bless their cranky hides, copy editors, shudder when we hear our otherwise respected leaders obfuscate grim reality with the kind of transparent warnings Dean Baquet offers here.
And another great newspaper bites the dust. Mr. Baquet, your plan for changes won't work, and the editorial hierarchy of the Times knows it. Oh, and no thanks for making good on Trump's claim that "The Times is failing." Those of us who have spent our careers as newspaper reporters, editors, columnists and, god bless their cranky hides, copy editors, shudder when we hear our otherwise respected leaders obfuscate grim reality with the kind of transparent warnings Dean Baquet offers here.
2
Some days, reading the paper, I think that the NYT has been published with little or no copy editing. So many errors! I was surprised one day to find myself feeling personally ashamed of the Gray Lady, our national newspaper of record.
It is used as a teaching tool for our children; it represents this country to the world. Please acknowledge the decrease in its quality with humility and do what needs to be done to fix it.
It is used as a teaching tool for our children; it represents this country to the world. Please acknowledge the decrease in its quality with humility and do what needs to be done to fix it.
4
It seems that Dean Baquet, with the obvious assent of Junior Sulzburger, has chosen backfielders over copy editors.
With that context, I offer this article from Michael Cieply, who spent 12 years at the Times, as a correspondent and editor. http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-f...
Cieply is well positioned to contrast the reporter driven, bottom up journalism of the LA Times versus the editor driven, top down journalism of the NY Times. Cieply states that backfielders and upper level editors task reporters with assignments designed to further "the narrative" that the editors set.
Choosing backfielders, who "shape and assign" stories over copy editors, who check for accuracy in writing, and who fact check as well, is a pretty strong confirmation of Cieply's thesis. If backfelders are "shaping" the story, and they are part of determining "the narrative," isn't their ability to fact check subject to obvious conflict of interest?
Mr. Baquet, if you have the best reporters in the world, why are they not encouraged to dig up their own stories?
With that context, I offer this article from Michael Cieply, who spent 12 years at the Times, as a correspondent and editor. http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-f...
Cieply is well positioned to contrast the reporter driven, bottom up journalism of the LA Times versus the editor driven, top down journalism of the NY Times. Cieply states that backfielders and upper level editors task reporters with assignments designed to further "the narrative" that the editors set.
Choosing backfielders, who "shape and assign" stories over copy editors, who check for accuracy in writing, and who fact check as well, is a pretty strong confirmation of Cieply's thesis. If backfelders are "shaping" the story, and they are part of determining "the narrative," isn't their ability to fact check subject to obvious conflict of interest?
Mr. Baquet, if you have the best reporters in the world, why are they not encouraged to dig up their own stories?
3
Yeah, that was quite brazen/lazy/telling.
It's pretty hard not to see this as just more dumbing down of the media, which is truly terrifying. The New York Times has long been a quantum leap above the rest of journalism in America, but I've noticed its tone slowly change to be more casual and chatty and less rigorous, and while the reporting tends to be objective, the choice of stories that are run seem to cater more and more to an affluent, liberal "Upper West Side" type audience, rather than to the general public. This makes it hard for me to trust what I read in the Times, not becuase it's untrue, but because of the implicit selection bias of what's chosen as newsworthy. Of course the Times would never admit to dumbing itself down; that would inevitably be couched in the type of language used here. I would much rather get my news a little bit later than real time, and know that it has been carefully edited and rigorously checked. I'd rather have good writing than videos and multimedia presentations. The internet is full of half-baked news videos. The Times is supposed to set the standard for substance. You should stick to the written word, and you should do it better than everyone else, as you always have. Your budget problems will certainly not be solved by shortchanging quality and driving serious readers away.
7
In October, 2014, Margaret Sullivan queried Dean Baquet about the proliferation of articles with anonymous sourcing. About this, Sullivan wrote, and quoted Baquet: "Mr. Baquet said that, until that point, he had not spoken forcefully to department heads about the practice but that he intended to do so at their next meeting. He said that the use of confidential sources is sometimes necessary and important. 'They’re never going to go away,' he said, 'but we need to limit it more than we do.'"
Given the reality that there is much more anonymous sourcing in the Times than was present in 2014, here are questions for Baquet to answer:
"Did you ever speak 'forcefully' to department heads?"
"How do you square that proliferation with an actual written policy that 'anonymity is granted as a last resort?'"
"Why have you been unwilling or unable to 'limit it more than we do?'"
Given the reality that there is much more anonymous sourcing in the Times than was present in 2014, here are questions for Baquet to answer:
"Did you ever speak 'forcefully' to department heads?"
"How do you square that proliferation with an actual written policy that 'anonymity is granted as a last resort?'"
"Why have you been unwilling or unable to 'limit it more than we do?'"
6
I read the Times for accurate reporting and sharp analysis. Speed is secondary (one can always get quick, often erroneous, stories elsewhere).
I do not read it for things moving around on the page, for the latest celebrity gossip, or for personal "can this marriage be saved" stories.
You say you will hire more reporters: good!
I do not read it for things moving around on the page, for the latest celebrity gossip, or for personal "can this marriage be saved" stories.
You say you will hire more reporters: good!
4
Please provide everyone at the NYT a globe. And a page about Magellan.
It appears they all now have only flat wall maps. For matters affecting multiple countries, continents, islands, oceans, they keep saying ACROSS the world. Upgrade their understanding so they say AROUND the world.
It appears they all now have only flat wall maps. For matters affecting multiple countries, continents, islands, oceans, they keep saying ACROSS the world. Upgrade their understanding so they say AROUND the world.
3
Really? That's what you're concerned about?
3
It would be a good idea to do the statistical analysis on whether this change is successful, in terms of how many corrections, on average, the Times has to issue for each story that is published? The fact that you say that no analysis is needed is extremely worrying - as much as you say that this is about "shifting" resources, and not cutting them, it is clear from the plan you have announced that fewer resources will be put into checking the factual accuracy and grammatical consistency of stories before they are published. I would personally prefer that the Times publish a story minutes after another news organization, but have the entire story written correctly. Otherwise, you're just like any other news organization.
Anecdotally, it seems that there are more corrections being issued on stories than I have seen in the past, particularly of the sort of errors that proper copy editing would catch - misspelled names, incorrect titles, out-of-date information about companies. This is to say nothing of the related issue of unlisted changes that are made to online articles and their headlines over time, a practice which I strongly disagree with, since it implies that I should have to re-read articles.
It doesn't seem that the management of the Times is considering these issues well or thoroughly. Readers expect that any changes being made will result in a better product, and many of us struggle to see how this will make the Times better, only faster.
Anecdotally, it seems that there are more corrections being issued on stories than I have seen in the past, particularly of the sort of errors that proper copy editing would catch - misspelled names, incorrect titles, out-of-date information about companies. This is to say nothing of the related issue of unlisted changes that are made to online articles and their headlines over time, a practice which I strongly disagree with, since it implies that I should have to re-read articles.
It doesn't seem that the management of the Times is considering these issues well or thoroughly. Readers expect that any changes being made will result in a better product, and many of us struggle to see how this will make the Times better, only faster.
3
I have noticed an big increase in simple grammatical errors in the past week or two. I have also noticed increases in unsupported "facts" and the omission of details which would make better stories. Your policy is failing.
8
Agreed, we need to keep a close eye on quality. Most importantly, the quality of story selection, framing and reporting.
The independent copy desk didn't protect us from the fiasco of coverage last election that helped get us Trump.
I don't know if these new changes will lead to true improvements but I'm willing to let them try. Rock on NYTimes.
The independent copy desk didn't protect us from the fiasco of coverage last election that helped get us Trump.
I don't know if these new changes will lead to true improvements but I'm willing to let them try. Rock on NYTimes.
Please instruct both reporters and editors at all levels to distinguish between the words "take" and "bring"! Although "take" seems to have disappeared from most people's and publications' vocabulary, I find it particularly distressing to read in the Times, such lines as "When I bring my daughter to school, ..." There is an implied directional difference between "take" and "bring" that used to be observed, but now has has all but disappeared.
5
"When I bring my daughter to school, ..."
That's correct. The parent and child are moving in the direction of the school.
That's correct. The parent and child are moving in the direction of the school.
2
Have you ever thought of giving generous discounts and/or free digital subscriptions to folks in poorer areas of the country who may not have access to credible news sources? It seems like that would be money well spent. An investment, if you will, in a long term cultivation of a more intellectually curious readership.
2
As long as we are complaining, I think the headline writers need to get a grip on reality - I find the headlines are often misleading.
And secondly, I don't know what happened to the traditional "V" structure of news stories - heavy on info towards the front, and dwindling as you go on. It seems like all the stories are in narrative form, often with very important information buried - in fact, I find myself starting to read most NYT articles around the fourth or fifth paragraph, in order to skip all the touchy feely stuff and get to the facts. What happened to just the facts, ma'am, type journalism?
And secondly, I don't know what happened to the traditional "V" structure of news stories - heavy on info towards the front, and dwindling as you go on. It seems like all the stories are in narrative form, often with very important information buried - in fact, I find myself starting to read most NYT articles around the fourth or fifth paragraph, in order to skip all the touchy feely stuff and get to the facts. What happened to just the facts, ma'am, type journalism?
40
You're speaking of the same people — copy editors are often the ones who write the headlines.
And as for the second issue, if you're reading a story in narrative form, it's a feature, not a breaking news story, and doesn't have to adhere to inverted pyramid format as rigidly, or at all. Obviously some things might still slip through, though.
And as for the second issue, if you're reading a story in narrative form, it's a feature, not a breaking news story, and doesn't have to adhere to inverted pyramid format as rigidly, or at all. Obviously some things might still slip through, though.
1
This post is right on the money. I find myself scanning the beginning of stories for the same reason on this site as well as others. Good Lord, get to the point!! Also what's with this fascination with video? More analysis? God help us!! That's the last thing we need. I need to trim back my media diet and save some dough.
2
The thing I was worried about reading this article was that the times would hire more "reporters" to write click bait style headlines for articles with no substance. I realize that that kind of headline works for blogs that rely on advertising, but I expect higher quality from a paper I am paying for. Overall, the Times focuses far too much on emotional stories and social reporting of dubious value. News is a list of facts attached to a headline that accurately describes those facts. The emotional appeals should be quarantined in the opinion section and clearly marked as such so I don't have to waste any time reading them.
4
We need more copyeditors with keen eyes on the stories and sharp alert meters that catch potential problems wth accuracy. We also need editors who know the language well and can work on grammar, punctuation, spelling, and flow. This, it appears, is an endangered species. Please reconsider....
15
How much would the NYT save if they shut down the opinion section/pages?
17
no! yikes, no :)
The decline in copy editing and fact checking is already noticeable in the Times. This change is supposed to make it better?
17
I care a lot about there being correct grammar, word usage and spelling in the Times but that's been getting worse steadily. Twenty years ago I would look hard for any errors in the paper NYT because asking my teen-age daughter how she would correct them was the main way she would pay attention to my gammar suggestions. Now something like the recent headline about Senators LAYING Low.....leaps out, no search required. So no matter who is editing, you need some experts on these matters.
17
I agree. Sentence structure is abysmal. Whole stories are told in one looong paragraph with incorrect punctuation. It seems as though the editor's editors don't know basic grammar.
2
Mr. Baquet,
As you state, "[t]he goal, of course, is to have no typos or structural errors — and certainly, no more than we have today. While we are eliminating the free-standing copy desk, we are not eliminating copy editing. The main news desks will have increased numbers of editors so they can make sure that The Times remains the best-edited news organization in the world."
Lofty sentiments. However, when the second sentence of an article on Rodin carries the cringeworthy phrase "cast in marble," one has to suspect that the writer's background - not to mention that of all those layers of editors - must be as hollow as one of the sculptor's bronzes.
Speaking as a reader of some five decades, I do expect a little better of the Times when it comes to assigning appropriate writers. This ranks well below rookie-grade, and unfortunately it's not even funny.
As you state, "[t]he goal, of course, is to have no typos or structural errors — and certainly, no more than we have today. While we are eliminating the free-standing copy desk, we are not eliminating copy editing. The main news desks will have increased numbers of editors so they can make sure that The Times remains the best-edited news organization in the world."
Lofty sentiments. However, when the second sentence of an article on Rodin carries the cringeworthy phrase "cast in marble," one has to suspect that the writer's background - not to mention that of all those layers of editors - must be as hollow as one of the sculptor's bronzes.
Speaking as a reader of some five decades, I do expect a little better of the Times when it comes to assigning appropriate writers. This ranks well below rookie-grade, and unfortunately it's not even funny.
36
Just in the last week I've seen grammatical errors and typos that Times editors previously would have caught. Maybe there should be a public comment section specifically for language, letting your readers sound off when you abuse the Mother Tongue.
24
The Standards Editor, Phil Corbett, used to run a blog once a week, called After Deadline. It was a rundown of stylistic and grammar points, often raised by readers, It had a vibrant comments section.
It was discontinued a year or so ago.
It was discontinued a year or so ago.
6
Who among us actually asked for or wanted video and 360 degree features? They strike me as out-of-touch-with-the-readership decisions made so that editors can tell their bosses they're "integrating technology" or something else equally buzzword-y.
They're gimmicks and take away from the reasons I read NYT in the first place.
Egregious typos and factual mistakes are a huge distraction from what is actually important.
They're gimmicks and take away from the reasons I read NYT in the first place.
Egregious typos and factual mistakes are a huge distraction from what is actually important.
64
I think it's valuable to experiment with new technologies and see how they can improve the readers' experience. Sometimes, experiments fail.
To cease innovating is to die.
To cease innovating is to die.
Not me, love 'em...
all grammatical errors are a distraction, true
all grammatical errors are a distraction, true
Yes, yes, yes. If I wanted flashy, superficial videos I'd turn on the TV.
3
Wow! Those were A LOT of questions! I think it makes sense to restructure the newspaper to ensure the news reporting is fast enough to be timely. Three and four editors sounds like an excessive amount of editing. At the same time, I value the accuracy that comes from regular fact-checking.
1
Credibility erodes in direct proportion to the number of errors published in print or online. Crowdsourcing an increasing amount of the editing process hardly inspires confidence in a loyal readership that cares about details.
Rather than sugarcoat this choice by the current Times management, why not just call it what it is? Dumbing down.
Rather than sugarcoat this choice by the current Times management, why not just call it what it is? Dumbing down.
17
This is disingenuous. He says the newspaper will still copy edit, but the copy editing will be done by people who have many other duties. Having been both an editor and a copy editor, I can tell you that it's impossible to see the big picture and the small picture at the same time. And not every assigning editor is capable of copy editing. Copy editing, by its nature, needs to be done as a separate task if it is to be done accurately. Bring back the copy editors.
53
I agree, Wondering. I spent 35 years in daily newspapers, doing a variety of newsroom jobs. "Backfield" editing (as the Times calls it) and copy editing are two different skills. It's not unusual that someone who is excellent at one is not so good at the other. I realize the Times can attract the industry's top people, but I believe they will find that the person who can do both jobs well is rare. I'm actually sure they already know this, but have decided that all of the work will get done well enough. I hope that is true.
When i see/read the new additional reporters i'll believe your words. Which sound more like a marketing ploy than a journalistic concern. Sorry 'bout that.
But i still miss david carr.
But i still miss david carr.
11
I don't know about all of the other sentiments, whether more or fewer copy editors will take the Times into the 21st century, whether print will survive much longer [hey, we are all here on digital], more reporters v. copy editors. And what is the difference between an editor and a copy editor?
One thing I do know: I too miss David Carr. What would he have said about Donny Trump; the mind reels.
One thing I do know: I too miss David Carr. What would he have said about Donny Trump; the mind reels.
1
I will never forgive Carr for his vicious disparagement of the fired Jill Abramson, which he did by granting anonymity to sources IN THE TIMES' OWN NEWSROOM.
I held no brief for Abramson, but the Times' own standards read "we resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation and personal attacks." Carr's coverage of the Abramson firing, on his own and with Ravi Somaiya, violated all three dicta.
So Abramson was a difficult boss to work for. Have none of the 2013 generation of Times' employees heard nothing of the rule of Abe Rosenthal?
I held no brief for Abramson, but the Times' own standards read "we resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation and personal attacks." Carr's coverage of the Abramson firing, on his own and with Ravi Somaiya, violated all three dicta.
So Abramson was a difficult boss to work for. Have none of the 2013 generation of Times' employees heard nothing of the rule of Abe Rosenthal?
What about author bias that is obvious in the articles? The solution for bringing the masses back to believing the MSM is to get back to "just the facts, ma'am." Have the editors remove all judgmental descriptions (e.g. 'draconian health care bill') unless those judgments are directly attributed to a source. It must be clear that the author of a news article has no in-bound bias on the story.
12
How true.
For the record, I saw two copy mistakes this past week -- the first one I don't recall what it was, but the second one was a period before the next sentence, so there were two periods in a row separated by a space. .Perhaps I'm just seeing copy errors now that I'm looking for them.
4
The errors are rife. There was a ridiculous error in New York Today just yesterday:
"On this week in 1971...."
I pointed it out in the comments. They didn't bother to correct it. Either people are too busy to attend to such things, or worse, they simply don't care.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/nyregion/new-york-today-gluten-free-n...
You'll forgive me for being dubious about how the Times is going to work smarter with fewer people when there are already many problems.
"On this week in 1971...."
I pointed it out in the comments. They didn't bother to correct it. Either people are too busy to attend to such things, or worse, they simply don't care.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/nyregion/new-york-today-gluten-free-n...
You'll forgive me for being dubious about how the Times is going to work smarter with fewer people when there are already many problems.
I pay for quality journalism and read primarily on my phone. I have never watched video from the Times on any of my devices. No stats reported for article vs video views, would have been nice to see the numbers.
14
I don't read the Times because I need instant gratification or instant analysis. I can look at other media to see the "hot topic" of the moment and then I have always been willing to wait for the Times to produce the in-depth and detailed analysis and reporting that make it valuable. Increasing audio and/or visual formats will not provide a useful tool for me in an environment where I can't or don't want to wear a headset or earbud. The rush to produce a story without the time to process it is what makes other news outlets less worthy and less valued. Fewer eyes means less processing, less verification.
Another reader commented that more reporters aren't needed and I agree. Better vetting, fact-checking, verification of sources and sound editing are what make The Times my preferred choice, not knee-jerk "fast-food" journalism.
Another reader commented that more reporters aren't needed and I agree. Better vetting, fact-checking, verification of sources and sound editing are what make The Times my preferred choice, not knee-jerk "fast-food" journalism.
22
THese comments say it all as far as I'm concerned. I can wait for an indepth article, knowing it has been carefully written and carefully checked before going public. If the TImes feels it must compete with "instant news" - publish a news brief with the caveat, "full story to come." A newspaper, whether online or hard copy. MUST fill in the many gaps left by the instant news that is all too often not accurate or complete. A hastily written and published news item is dangerous for our understanding of an issue, and ultimately, for our democracy. We can get all that other hoopla of videos etc. elsewhere if we REALLY want it.
7
I'd like to suggest making your reporters and news commentators take a mandatory course in proper grammar, punctuation, and usage. I know each story, no matter how fast it needs to be published in the digital Times, will be checked for these matters, but sometimes errors slip in. I cringe whenever I see incorrect grammar, incorrect agreement of subject and predicate, incorrect use of pronouns, and other errors that someone like me, who long ago took an invaluable grammar course in college, would not make. I learned from a master, whose fist-pounding rule was "The verb To Be does not take an object" and other memorable rules of grammar. And I started my career as a copy editor for a book publishing company, then spent the next 30 years as a manuscript editor and, later, publisher, but I always revered the rules of grammar, as I thought the Times did. But your standards have been slipping in the last 5 years or so, and I wonder if the new crop of reporters has a good enough grounding in the standards the Times has always valued.
7
Dear Mr. Banquet,
I have subscribed to the NYT for many years, and I will continue to.
Thank you for this very helpful and thorough piece. May I ask, did YOU write every answer posted in this story, or did someone, who is very familiar with your voice and opinions do it?
I have subscribed to the NYT for many years, and I will continue to.
Thank you for this very helpful and thorough piece. May I ask, did YOU write every answer posted in this story, or did someone, who is very familiar with your voice and opinions do it?
5
The most important thing to me: that The New York Times survives as a healthy, relevant media organization.
Like many others, I, too, have noticed in recent times an increase in grammatical and style errors. This is regrettable, and I'm sure that the elimination of a freestanding copy desk will exacerbate the problem.
But sometimes hard choices must be made. The Times is not a charitable organization, and it does not have infinite resources. My bottom line is that management is doing the right thing in a changed landscape to streamline for efficiency and in favor of having more reporters doing more journalism.
Viva La Times!
Like many others, I, too, have noticed in recent times an increase in grammatical and style errors. This is regrettable, and I'm sure that the elimination of a freestanding copy desk will exacerbate the problem.
But sometimes hard choices must be made. The Times is not a charitable organization, and it does not have infinite resources. My bottom line is that management is doing the right thing in a changed landscape to streamline for efficiency and in favor of having more reporters doing more journalism.
Viva La Times!
2
I'm willing to give the NYT the benefit of the doubt. The goal is to get more reporters in the field, which is important. Having fewer layers of copy editors makes sense to me. I was once a copy editor, and usually I was the only one editing an article. If the Times has two editors reading articles, that's one more than most papers. Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but a graphic may explain the change by showing (before the change and after) how many editors read a story before it goes online or into print.
2
It seems to me that all videos here should also have a story in words. If the story would be too trivial or boring for publication that might provide editors with an important clue.
9
This looks like a race to the bottom. Don't join it--there already are too many contenders and all of them will lose.
6
I am near 70 years of age. When in high school, I was a school newspaper editor and attended the Coumbia Student Journalism Meetings at Columbia each Spring. That was in the mid 1960's. Journalism was the 4th estate. That was before the Government had educated protests against their Vietnam War policies.
Then, they initiated a change in the Draft laws to exclude student of Teaching. That was how Hippies entered the education field; they destroyed education, which is what the government wanted, and now, there are masses of ignorance that can barely read. Now, illegal wars go on for decades with not real protest.
The invention of the I-phone, hailed as a work of genius, has kept people trapped in the space between their hand and eyes. Sesame Street was protested against by educators as a way to force learning via the 30 second commercial format. Eductors said that student would be unable to discern when faced with commercials on tv, This created the Consumer Age.
Educators protested the hand held calculator. We learn math to learn problem solving not just numbers totaled.
Journalism has not changed. The journalists have changed. Keep th eolder writers and editors and kick out those who cannot spell or use grammar correctly. Stop cow-towing to the decadence of our times. Push reading and writing, save handwriting, save us from a torrent of idiocy, please, and keep the format that you are using; you mirror the Newspaper that employs you. Do not be fooled.
Then, they initiated a change in the Draft laws to exclude student of Teaching. That was how Hippies entered the education field; they destroyed education, which is what the government wanted, and now, there are masses of ignorance that can barely read. Now, illegal wars go on for decades with not real protest.
The invention of the I-phone, hailed as a work of genius, has kept people trapped in the space between their hand and eyes. Sesame Street was protested against by educators as a way to force learning via the 30 second commercial format. Eductors said that student would be unable to discern when faced with commercials on tv, This created the Consumer Age.
Educators protested the hand held calculator. We learn math to learn problem solving not just numbers totaled.
Journalism has not changed. The journalists have changed. Keep th eolder writers and editors and kick out those who cannot spell or use grammar correctly. Stop cow-towing to the decadence of our times. Push reading and writing, save handwriting, save us from a torrent of idiocy, please, and keep the format that you are using; you mirror the Newspaper that employs you. Do not be fooled.
5
Pretty disappointing answers, or should I say non-answers.
Most of the questions were dogded, glossed over, or given answers that obfuscated the reality that 50 people were being fired to save money (if it's not about saving money, why not keep these copy editors and hire the additional reporters as well?).
Also:
"In fact, we are the only paper with such an elaborate system of editing."
1. Did you ever stop to think that maybe this level of editing is why people subscribe to your paper? It can't really be the Paper of Record if it's littered with errors.
2. You have something that your competition doesn't have, and so now you're going to get rid of it. Bravo.
Looks like my paper will now be the Washington Post.
Most of the questions were dogded, glossed over, or given answers that obfuscated the reality that 50 people were being fired to save money (if it's not about saving money, why not keep these copy editors and hire the additional reporters as well?).
Also:
"In fact, we are the only paper with such an elaborate system of editing."
1. Did you ever stop to think that maybe this level of editing is why people subscribe to your paper? It can't really be the Paper of Record if it's littered with errors.
2. You have something that your competition doesn't have, and so now you're going to get rid of it. Bravo.
Looks like my paper will now be the Washington Post.
21
Think twice.
1. Ownership issue.
2. Terrible, nasty comment sections.
1. Ownership issue.
2. Terrible, nasty comment sections.
2
Regarding the Public Editor's role, you write: "I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them." It may be good, Mr. B. but it's no substitute for the Public Editor.
Forgive me, but this sounds uncannily like the WH trying to bypass the media wherever possible. The Public Editors were able (some better than others) to fill a critical role, where warranted. Self-criticism can't be relied on from anyone, let alone a person in authority.
Forgive me, but this sounds uncannily like the WH trying to bypass the media wherever possible. The Public Editors were able (some better than others) to fill a critical role, where warranted. Self-criticism can't be relied on from anyone, let alone a person in authority.
55
@mancuroc: Exactly!
And while Baquet says "I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions" he absolutely isn't interested in answering the one about cutting his salary - which proves your point that self-criticism can't be relied on from a person in authority!
And while Baquet says "I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions" he absolutely isn't interested in answering the one about cutting his salary - which proves your point that self-criticism can't be relied on from a person in authority!
1
I agree that the role of Public Editor should return to the Times if only that readers have a resource. Moreover, if there are recurring or systemic problems, then management has a resource from which to correct those problems of which they would otherwise be caught unaware. Bring it back.
3
Dean Baquet ,
The main problem with the Times is your bias.The public editor needed to be eliminated because it exposed you as a reporter with an agenda.
Why give a soapbox to Qatar without a chance to rebuke him.Qatar is a supporter of Hamas and their TV channel is full of anti US leanings.
The main problem with the Times is your bias.The public editor needed to be eliminated because it exposed you as a reporter with an agenda.
Why give a soapbox to Qatar without a chance to rebuke him.Qatar is a supporter of Hamas and their TV channel is full of anti US leanings.
1
The number of errors and typos in the NY Times goes up by the month. I have worked as a copy editor on books and for law firms, and the errors just about jump off the page at me, day after day.
About videos, let me say that I HATE the instant-play videos on the Times - the rapid-cut editing is a visual assault in some (behind-the-scenes-at-the-ballet, for instance!); in others the lack of context and absence of captions are infuriating. Do it well, or don't do it.
The Public Editor job needs to be revived & filled, and this article is a good example of why a Public Editor is necessary - including Mr. Baquet's failure to answer the direct question of whether he considered cutting his own salary. How hard is it to ANSWER THE QUESTION, Dean? Very, I think!
Finally, there is the move away from hard news (such as coverage of what happens in NYC, for which I look to the NY Daily news), and toward what I consider "filler" material, such as most of the Style Section.
If you're trying to tilt the newspaper toward the hyper-rich, congratulations, because that's how it reads. I don't care about trendy shops, and $5 million-and-up apartments are fantasy for most of us. The glossy, heavy Style Magazine is the FIRST thing I toss out.
NYC (and Manhattan in particular) is undergoing what someone has termed "demographic cleansing" - making NYC unaffordable for ordinary working people - but I'm sorry the NY Times, in its "fluff" coverage, is such an avid participant in this process.
About videos, let me say that I HATE the instant-play videos on the Times - the rapid-cut editing is a visual assault in some (behind-the-scenes-at-the-ballet, for instance!); in others the lack of context and absence of captions are infuriating. Do it well, or don't do it.
The Public Editor job needs to be revived & filled, and this article is a good example of why a Public Editor is necessary - including Mr. Baquet's failure to answer the direct question of whether he considered cutting his own salary. How hard is it to ANSWER THE QUESTION, Dean? Very, I think!
Finally, there is the move away from hard news (such as coverage of what happens in NYC, for which I look to the NY Daily news), and toward what I consider "filler" material, such as most of the Style Section.
If you're trying to tilt the newspaper toward the hyper-rich, congratulations, because that's how it reads. I don't care about trendy shops, and $5 million-and-up apartments are fantasy for most of us. The glossy, heavy Style Magazine is the FIRST thing I toss out.
NYC (and Manhattan in particular) is undergoing what someone has termed "demographic cleansing" - making NYC unaffordable for ordinary working people - but I'm sorry the NY Times, in its "fluff" coverage, is such an avid participant in this process.
92
Agreed!
4
L,
Hear, hear!!!!
agree wholeheartedly
Hear, hear!!!!
agree wholeheartedly
1
I already find typos and grammatical errors in the online version of the Times every day. Cannot imagine that this change will result in fewer errors. The concern should not be avoiding more errors but rather reducing the already absurd number that persist. How they want to structure it- independent desk vs. none- is up to them, but they should definitely not reduce the number of editors. If anything, they should be hiring more!!!
39
Thanks for all these comments. I offer a couple of replies.
You state repeatedly that you want to fire editors in order to hire more reporters. I don't WANT more reporters! You produce far more than a person can read already. The quality of your written output is paramount to me - not video, not interactive doohickeys, not 360° things that I can't properly see on my screen. Print. The thoughtful well-composed well- edited written word is what makes the Times valuable.
Second, you state that it's better to have you reacting directly to the readers, rather than having an independent Public Editor. This is, frankly, nonsense. It's the fox guarding the hens. You dumped the role that would have been most useful in critiquing your actions first, thereby making it easier for you to gut the editing staff now. It's all a bit too strongman dictator-ish for my taste.
You state repeatedly that you want to fire editors in order to hire more reporters. I don't WANT more reporters! You produce far more than a person can read already. The quality of your written output is paramount to me - not video, not interactive doohickeys, not 360° things that I can't properly see on my screen. Print. The thoughtful well-composed well- edited written word is what makes the Times valuable.
Second, you state that it's better to have you reacting directly to the readers, rather than having an independent Public Editor. This is, frankly, nonsense. It's the fox guarding the hens. You dumped the role that would have been most useful in critiquing your actions first, thereby making it easier for you to gut the editing staff now. It's all a bit too strongman dictator-ish for my taste.
76
The failing New York Times. Sad.
14
I am not convinced that I am hearing valid reasoning, or clever excuses. Another commenter mentioned "cost-cutting" and "running scared". I am inclined to lean toward his version until I hear something more substantial........
16
Senior management should cut their compensation to stay in the same boat with the folks they tried to force out. Otherwise, it feels like the ending scenes of Titanic! Everyone runs for their own lives!
8
We do not want news "within minutes and analysis not too long afterward."
We want to understand. Deeply.
“I write entirely to find out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see and what it means. What I want and what I fear.”
Leave the tweeting, lasers and glowing white teeth to Fox and Friends.
We want to understand. Deeply.
“I write entirely to find out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see and what it means. What I want and what I fear.”
Leave the tweeting, lasers and glowing white teeth to Fox and Friends.
41
my thought exactly. i am sick of these pseudo know-it-alls telling me what i want.
1
I urge the Times to focus on its core strength, journalism, and cut the fluff. The Times, can't and shouldn't be all things to all people and trying to be simply dilutes your strength. Too much style, food, TV, and such. While I am a print subscriber, I spent a lot of time each day reading on my phone where it is near impossible to avoid the fluff.
41
I think that it is easier to focus on exactly what you want to read when reading the digital version. You can click straight on the section you want and read only that. Also, if you want to track the news specifically about, say, a particular country, simply enter it into the search bar each morning. And an ad blocker gets rid of the interruption of advertisements. I never thought I would say this, but the print version is now superfluous to me.
3
David,
With the mobile app you can select the sections you most want to see. You can sign up for email newsletters put out by sections you care about. Google News might allow you to get to the Times stories you want faster without the distraction of the fluff. You can also create alerts in Google for stories that interest you.
I know the paper has to make money and appeal to a wide range of readers, but I, too, am sick of the lavish style, food, and real estate sections. We didn't need the "Watching" section, but I guess covering streaming video is cheap.
I hate that every day there's a "Smart Living" feature that links to recycled old stories, pieces that read like Lifehacker at its weakest, and offer suggestions from Sweethome and The Wirecutter, the product blogs the Times bought last year. The danger of a conflict of interest was obvious.
With the mobile app you can select the sections you most want to see. You can sign up for email newsletters put out by sections you care about. Google News might allow you to get to the Times stories you want faster without the distraction of the fluff. You can also create alerts in Google for stories that interest you.
I know the paper has to make money and appeal to a wide range of readers, but I, too, am sick of the lavish style, food, and real estate sections. We didn't need the "Watching" section, but I guess covering streaming video is cheap.
I hate that every day there's a "Smart Living" feature that links to recycled old stories, pieces that read like Lifehacker at its weakest, and offer suggestions from Sweethome and The Wirecutter, the product blogs the Times bought last year. The danger of a conflict of interest was obvious.
1
Too much TV. Your readers read.
47
Case in point: There is a typo on the Trump-Putin video running right now. Will have to find yourself. :) It's a main production item for the newsroom today, is my assumption. Scary, from the New York Times.
[[The Times will use the savings from these cuts to bring in more reporters and other journalists who can build a report that acknowledges the changing world of journalism.]]
OK, so you've finally called them "cuts," which I think is what mattered to the editors themselves and to others in your newsroom.
OK, so you've finally called them "cuts," which I think is what mattered to the editors themselves and to others in your newsroom.
13
In my question to Mr. Baquet I posited the idea that his canning of the public editor and a large reduction in copy editor positions were linked. My question, unsurprisingly, wasn't picked by The Times for Baquet to answer. See, I like to think my question gets at "the soul & heart" of The New York Times and not to just the paper's technological peripheries. It's like writing with a ballpoint vs a fountain pen. Just something cool about knowing The Times was ( once?) a feisty and tough enough organization to have people, not computers, watch over her work, just to insure she got it as close to right as humanly possible. That's an art only people like copy editors & public editors can do.
26
If only the Times journalists were as honest and circumspect as many of these Comments' writers. I recently cancelled by subscription because there's no longer enough quality in the Times. After I sent the cancellation email the Times sent me three printed letters asking for payment. Finally they sent yet another letter (by mail) telling me they received my cancellation and please pay for the two print copies of the paper I'd been sent. Did they ever simply reply by email to my email, and then update my payment obligation on the website? No wonder they're in trouble financially, if they can't figure out how to do the simplest things by email. For reasons of nostalgia I'm sorry to be without the Times. But the walk to the local library to read it periodically will do me good.
14
I've never been much for Times videos but decided to give them a try. I just finished watching some.
What they are is a vehicle for Goldman Sachs ads. There us one at the beginning if every video I saw.
And the videos themselves are often simplistic at best. One I saw had the director of Wonder Woman describing a scene from the movie as I watched it. The one phrase I remember is "homage to Superman."
Some of these videos have 3, 4, or even 5 people named as the creators.
This is not why I come to the Times.
What they are is a vehicle for Goldman Sachs ads. There us one at the beginning if every video I saw.
And the videos themselves are often simplistic at best. One I saw had the director of Wonder Woman describing a scene from the movie as I watched it. The one phrase I remember is "homage to Superman."
Some of these videos have 3, 4, or even 5 people named as the creators.
This is not why I come to the Times.
88
I don't like the videos and I don't watch them. I do understand the Times desire for them, however, since they are another medium for advertising revenue that the Times, and other papers, desperately needs. If, in order to pay for high quality reporting and analysis, I have to put up with the videos which pay for what I read the Times for, then I'm ok with that.
5
Some of those videos are superb!
1
OMG you are so right about that! I thought the same and therefore never look!
Sorry, Mr. Baquet, but this sounds as vague and smoke-screens as any politician avoiding addressing what is really happening. You seem to repeat yourself over and over again, as if that will make things more clear or palatable, but it seems obvious that this is merely cost-cutting and that the Times is running scared. To that end, you are choosing to go for some kind of speed over level-headedness and perhaps accuracy. And you jump right over the whole issue of whether or not video is actually that important in a newspaper, be it print or virtual. Perhaps your institutional research reveals something that lights a fire underneath, but I can honestly tell you that I almost NEVER look at the videos on the Times' website. I want to READ. I can get those videos anywhere else, and the ones that are house-produced aren't worth what you are investing in them. You're all going down a slippery slope here, and if you look at the comments, a lot of your readers aren't swallowing the reason for it.
93
Every day, I read comments from readers asking the Times to please cover more stories, to do more investigative journalism, to uncover the mis-deeds of our political oligarchy. So the Times hears these demands, & hires more journalists. In order to do so, it claims it must cut a layer of copy editors. The equation: more journalists = fewer copy editors.
But who determines this equation? Owners. How much are they willing to spend on the people who actually do the core work of producing the paper's content? Apparently, not much.
What most people wonder is, if both journalists & copy editors are important, why doesn't management/ownership take cuts in order to retain lower-tier employees in their key jobs?
But they don't. How odd! Everyone, from journalists & copy editors, to management & owners would like to keep their incomes!
But someone has to go. We're sorry, but it's a dog-eat-dog world.
So management pits the journalists against the copy desk, while those who take the most profits out of a business, yet produce the least amount of its product, get to stay & drain it.
In capitalism, the bottom line is: make a profit for the owners. They are the most important, the top of the food chain. Never mind that they don't actually produce the content everyone agrees is so vital to preserving democracy. We live in an age when nothing survives if it's not monetized to the max so that owners can live well.
Every American worker has seen this sorry tale over & over again.
But who determines this equation? Owners. How much are they willing to spend on the people who actually do the core work of producing the paper's content? Apparently, not much.
What most people wonder is, if both journalists & copy editors are important, why doesn't management/ownership take cuts in order to retain lower-tier employees in their key jobs?
But they don't. How odd! Everyone, from journalists & copy editors, to management & owners would like to keep their incomes!
But someone has to go. We're sorry, but it's a dog-eat-dog world.
So management pits the journalists against the copy desk, while those who take the most profits out of a business, yet produce the least amount of its product, get to stay & drain it.
In capitalism, the bottom line is: make a profit for the owners. They are the most important, the top of the food chain. Never mind that they don't actually produce the content everyone agrees is so vital to preserving democracy. We live in an age when nothing survives if it's not monetized to the max so that owners can live well.
Every American worker has seen this sorry tale over & over again.
45
Yes, capitalism is designed to make a profit for the owners. Profits are the bottom line. Profits for the owners are essential to the well-being of employees. Without profits, not just some, but all, of the jobs and wages disappear. Without profits, no one has a salary. Owners don't "produce the least amount of its product," they produce all of the product, as without their capital the output is zero. Employees are essential too, as without them the capital couldn't be put to work, but employees don't share in losses and bashing owners and capitalists for risking their money in the business and maybe making profits is wrongheaded. It is their money and their decision as to what to do with it - pay higher salaries or keep it for themselves - and they suffer the consequences of that decision if the employees feel shortchanged. Wise employers make sure their employees are relatively satisfied, and wise employees hope their employer makes obscene profits and becomes filthy rich.
The Journalists duty is to strictly adhere to the correct forms and uses of language as that is our only defense from dogmatic politicians and mendacious use of the Press. You can say anything but if one has to use correct grammar the deficiencies of anything you say are more clear and mendacity more easily seen.
The answer to a readership whom is less well educated and apparently ignorant of the fact of how important correct language use is is not to pander to that deficiency.
The answer to a readership whom is less well educated and apparently ignorant of the fact of how important correct language use is is not to pander to that deficiency.
5
"within minutes", "analysis not too long afterward", "video on the history of the case", and "multimedia analysis" are exactly the kind of things I look elsewhere for. I come to the Times (constantly, mind you) for thoroughness. If the Times is going to do what the rest of the internet does, it will have to do it that much better. So far, I find the Times's non-text and breaking news features significantly worse that at other outlets like Vox and the Atlantic. And please, for the love of god, stop shoving the moronic briefings and podcasts in my face. Build an opt-out feature into my profile settings so I can permanently sift away the kind of content (which the administration seems to be hot for recently) that doesn't interest me or that is done much better elsewhere.
36
Good luck, NYT. This is a gold standard, world-class organization and brand.
It seems almost funny that the Trump brand is even bigger, but it is yet possible for the old grey mare to go 'round the track a few more times before the WaPo takes over.
As much as i loath the personal bias/opinion-style of current 'news reportage' much of the general interest reportage remains world-leading.
Wish you well, but.
It seems almost funny that the Trump brand is even bigger, but it is yet possible for the old grey mare to go 'round the track a few more times before the WaPo takes over.
As much as i loath the personal bias/opinion-style of current 'news reportage' much of the general interest reportage remains world-leading.
Wish you well, but.
3
In the long run, it is us, the readers, who will judge the effectiveness of this new plan.
9
I find it humorous that the editor implies that although 'not anyone' can become a photographer or videographer, apparently anyone can be a copy editor.
His reasoning is suspect also because if the paper wants to post news more quickly, all it has to do is do it. I.e. the reporter posts it and it's cleaned up later. Or the assignment editor reads it and posts it and then the copy is gone over more thoroughly (this apparently already happens).
One thing that makes the Times' webpage stand out is the quality of the headline writing. Don't tell me assignment editors can spend time both scrutinizing stories for holes and then turn their attention to writing clever headlines for a variety of media (print, web, mobile, etc.)
His reasoning is suspect also because if the paper wants to post news more quickly, all it has to do is do it. I.e. the reporter posts it and it's cleaned up later. Or the assignment editor reads it and posts it and then the copy is gone over more thoroughly (this apparently already happens).
One thing that makes the Times' webpage stand out is the quality of the headline writing. Don't tell me assignment editors can spend time both scrutinizing stories for holes and then turn their attention to writing clever headlines for a variety of media (print, web, mobile, etc.)
29
I recently emailed a reporter who was one week off on the date of Eids al Fitr. Since the article ran eight days after Eids, a knowledgeable editor should have caught that error, but clearly there was not such an editor for that piece. A further reduction in editors does not bode well for the factually accuracy of the NYT on issues both large and small.
BTW, the reporter never responded.
BTW, the reporter never responded.
24
Thank you for correcting (albeit, very very quietly) the bogus but often repeated claim that "All 17 national security agencies have unanimously agreed that Russia meddled in the election..."
There were only 4 agencies that provided input and not all of them completely agreed with the assessment.
There were only 4 agencies that provided input and not all of them completely agreed with the assessment.
8
As a long time digital subscriber, I have come to rely on the NYT for breaking news the way some people rely on CNN or Fox. I had never stopped to think about the seismic shift this rush to accommodate readers like me must have had on staffing assignments. I appreciate the thoughtful analysis here and will look forward to continued accurate up-to-the-minute reporting.
10
My problem with the Times news section (the opinion pages are another story) has nothing to do with the reporting and editing of stories, all generally excellent, but on the stories it chooses to tell.
Certainly there are real events occurring around the world with significant ramifications that must be covered. And I get that the NYT wants to publish articles on events it's readers want to hear about - it's a business after all.
But there are a disproportionate number of stories on certain topics that I suspect are serving top editors or managers agenda.
Just to take four examples:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Climate change
Transgender rights
Discrimination against Muslims in America
My point is that even when nothing monumental is happening, the Times will find stories to write about several times a week on each of these topics.
What I would like to know who is making those decisions and how are they made?
Certainly there are real events occurring around the world with significant ramifications that must be covered. And I get that the NYT wants to publish articles on events it's readers want to hear about - it's a business after all.
But there are a disproportionate number of stories on certain topics that I suspect are serving top editors or managers agenda.
Just to take four examples:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Climate change
Transgender rights
Discrimination against Muslims in America
My point is that even when nothing monumental is happening, the Times will find stories to write about several times a week on each of these topics.
What I would like to know who is making those decisions and how are they made?
20
I would add that the Times obsession with Trump helped propel him to the presidency, and too often focuses on trivial matters.
10
Except that virtually all of the topics listed are on-going and it's not unreasonable to regularly update these events on a regular basis. That's what national papers do and what local papers cannot do. Perhaps you might be better off with another paper, "Junior Scholastic," for instance.
1
Those issues get lots of coverage because they are IMPORTANT
And they're NOT the top in the list of story counts - just the ones you seem to focus on for reasons of. dare I suggest bigotry on a reader's part?
One who is offended by Muslims. Jews/Palestinians/Israel. the LGBT 'agenda' mythos ( my LGBT friends and acquaintances tell me their 'agenda' is to be treated as what they are and secretly have been for millennia - just other human beings - using the old Kinsey<sp?> studies, one out of every 10 of your neighbors is gay . They're just tired of living in closets, just like Jews and Muslims who changed the family name so they might hide from bigotry.
The articles that have caught MY eyes are the countless lies and insults told by Donald Trump, where the lede hasn't been The President lied again in his early-morning "tweets" - this time (for example) denying the growing popularity of a morning talk show, and claiming one host came to one of his parties "bleeding from a facelift."
As usual, he chose the female half of the pair to accuse of "bleeding", and needing to improve her looks.
...
I'm somewhat sure you would call THIS bigotry - an error because it is directed at one person, who has shown himself the nastiest, most ignorant and destructive monomaniac ever to hold the post, not an afine of humanity.
And they're NOT the top in the list of story counts - just the ones you seem to focus on for reasons of. dare I suggest bigotry on a reader's part?
One who is offended by Muslims. Jews/Palestinians/Israel. the LGBT 'agenda' mythos ( my LGBT friends and acquaintances tell me their 'agenda' is to be treated as what they are and secretly have been for millennia - just other human beings - using the old Kinsey<sp?> studies, one out of every 10 of your neighbors is gay . They're just tired of living in closets, just like Jews and Muslims who changed the family name so they might hide from bigotry.
The articles that have caught MY eyes are the countless lies and insults told by Donald Trump, where the lede hasn't been The President lied again in his early-morning "tweets" - this time (for example) denying the growing popularity of a morning talk show, and claiming one host came to one of his parties "bleeding from a facelift."
As usual, he chose the female half of the pair to accuse of "bleeding", and needing to improve her looks.
...
I'm somewhat sure you would call THIS bigotry - an error because it is directed at one person, who has shown himself the nastiest, most ignorant and destructive monomaniac ever to hold the post, not an afine of humanity.
I have been a subscriber to the Times for many years. I cannot think what it would mean to live without it. There are two issues, however, concerning the Times and journalism in general. At the bedrock of these issues is trust, and confidence.
Like many Americans I am skeptical of the news media, of politicians, of celebrities, of reportage in general. On the other hand, we counter that skepticism with a degree of faith brought on by our historical relationship with these very same conduits. What other choice do we have?
Over recent years that faith has been shaken. Whatever your political or social perspective, you cannot fail to be dismayed by the media coverage of events like the UVA rape, the various black and white shootings, the presidential election and Trump related "news."
Your article here reads like a finely crafted disclaimer to a cost cutting move. A critic would say: if you not longer care about the veracity of your reporting, why worry about the style?
Like many Americans I am skeptical of the news media, of politicians, of celebrities, of reportage in general. On the other hand, we counter that skepticism with a degree of faith brought on by our historical relationship with these very same conduits. What other choice do we have?
Over recent years that faith has been shaken. Whatever your political or social perspective, you cannot fail to be dismayed by the media coverage of events like the UVA rape, the various black and white shootings, the presidential election and Trump related "news."
Your article here reads like a finely crafted disclaimer to a cost cutting move. A critic would say: if you not longer care about the veracity of your reporting, why worry about the style?
17
I expect accuracy and clarity from the NYT, not speed. This is simply budget cutting where the money always is - the people. As the number of writers and investigators shrink and their competence decreases along with salaries so will the quality of NYT journalism.
45
If you're going to talk about the Times's marvelous editorial judgment, how did a series like "Couch" run as long as it did?
It was a parade of columns by narcissistic, immature therapists and psychiatrists who appeared to be blatantly violating the confidentiality and/or privilege of their clients and patients, not to mention tarnishing the image of their field. More than once I asked The Public Editor to interview ethics experts about it and write a column.
I don't even know where to report the errors I see. There used to be an "After Deadline" column, but the editor would never provide an email address for readers despite my requests in the comments section.
Don't kid yourself. You're not that reader-friendly.
It was a parade of columns by narcissistic, immature therapists and psychiatrists who appeared to be blatantly violating the confidentiality and/or privilege of their clients and patients, not to mention tarnishing the image of their field. More than once I asked The Public Editor to interview ethics experts about it and write a column.
I don't even know where to report the errors I see. There used to be an "After Deadline" column, but the editor would never provide an email address for readers despite my requests in the comments section.
Don't kid yourself. You're not that reader-friendly.
30
I miss "Couch." Introspection and reflection are not the same as narcissism.
1
As a professional author (fiction and non-fiction, including several local newspapers here in central NJ), I have a sort of love/hate relationship with editors. I know my work will not be published without going through an editing process, but as the creator of the work, I would prefer my words to be rendered in the paper the way I submitted the article.
I, for one, look forward to the NYT approach to editing and I am more than willing to give you a chance. I first read the NYT as a teenager in high school when my father brought his copy home from the city every day and I well remember those heavy Sunday editions. As I have lived around the country and in Europe through my life, I read the NYT whenever I could. For many years now, I have read only the online edition. The NYT is the only paper for which I am willing to pay a fee for online access. It does seem that there are fewer stories than there were several decades ago, although I could be wrong.
I would rather the NYT change to keep up with new world order and new technologies than die because they would not adapt.
I, for one, look forward to the NYT approach to editing and I am more than willing to give you a chance. I first read the NYT as a teenager in high school when my father brought his copy home from the city every day and I well remember those heavy Sunday editions. As I have lived around the country and in Europe through my life, I read the NYT whenever I could. For many years now, I have read only the online edition. The NYT is the only paper for which I am willing to pay a fee for online access. It does seem that there are fewer stories than there were several decades ago, although I could be wrong.
I would rather the NYT change to keep up with new world order and new technologies than die because they would not adapt.
5
Baquet just said essentially the same thing over and over. Not convincing.
69
He could use a good editor.
1
The emphasis of this change seems to be on the need for speed. Personally, I'd rather see the Times 'print' accurate, in-depth stories, than to be the first one on the block to shout out what's happening. The basics of who-what-when-where-why seems to get lost in the rush, leaving the reader feeling like there is more to the story.
33
While high quality copy editing is an important concern I would much rather see Dean Baquet's views on the obligation the NYT has to discuss editorial policies with its readership. The one time the subject was broached in print Public Editor Magaret Sullivan airly dismissed the propsect with a nod to senior executives who didn't want to get "bogged down" in discussions of editorial policy with readers. This reader would very much like to get "bogged down" on the most important decision making process the newspaper makes. During the 2016 election we got a pretty good look at the editorial policy of the NYT towards the Trump candidacy -- a rare peak behind the curtain. For years I have been agitating for some engagement from the NYT on its evident editorial policy on China reporting -- 95% negative from what I can see -- right down to the photo editors' selection of accompanying photos to set the appropriate mood which have almost become a parody of themselves -- in China it's always grim, overcast and grimy. No question there is much negative news to print on China but where the NYT failed its readers over the last 5 years or so is in providing them even a modicum of balance on the country the US must better understand over the next 20 years. Mr. Basquet what is your view first on discussions of editorial policy in general and 2nd on the antagonism towards China any content review of your coverage over the past 5 years would reveal? It seems purposeful. Is it deserved?
9
The NYT has sold its soul, as have so many others, all for the sake of adjusting to a world where we don't want to wait a nano-second for anything, including news. Now there are many grammar errors in your reporting and your op-eds. The NYT repeats the same articles in your digital edition, day after day. A few items may change, but many remain. Where is the freshness? (Same thing happens with other online publications.) And PS, Mr. Baquet, you never did answer that question about whether you had considered lowering your own compensation packages in order to afford the copy editors. Sad to say, but the Times has lost its stature. Now I look to weekly magazines for in-depth reporting, and the Daily News for what's happening on the street. (And your Sunday edition is filled with ads for things from shops that most of us can't afford. RIP, NYT.
26
What a bunch of corporate double-speak. If a politician were uttering these words The Times would take that person to the proverbial woodshed. The Times, like other newspapers, seems to be slow slide to mediocrity just at the time we need serious, well-edited journalism the most.
83
I've been reading the NYT since 1959. I also computerized a major publisher in 1980. Word processors pick up and correct typos and grammatical errors. What the NYT has been trying to do is become 90% digital, selling pay-per-click ads that interrupt the flow of reading since the ad after every paragraph is distracting. The writing has suffered because of the "I" stories -- I was walking down the street of war-torn Syria when I realized ..., although the "I" began years ago. The NYT used to be just news, not news about a journalist. More, weekend news to Monday is half week-old articles except when we have a G20 Summit or Trumpism. The NYT is supposed to be factual, compressed, no "I's," and insightful. When I worked as a freelance writer, the work involved investigation, research, writing, checking for spelling and potentially defamatory remarks, and, finally, flow, a/k/a readability. One still uses those tools but the word processor and search engines (for fact checking) do a great deal of the shoe work. When I computerized that publisher, editors kept sabotaging it, afraid of their jobs. And perhaps the most important person does IT, setting up metatags, SEOs, bots to optimize Internet reach and thus pay-per-click value. Next to him is the Trumpism: the Twitter at 3 a.m. or when he, as usual, moves from the teleprompter to a bipolar rant. Trump reports bring us downward in a country woefully undereducated. The NYT used to represent the intellect's morning spur.
16
I agree that the first-person point of view stories can get tiresome, but you are incorrect that word processing systems catch all errors. Even the After Deadline column, which discussed grammar and style errors in the Times, had a recurring feature: "When Spell-Check Can't Help."
https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/when-spell-check-cant...
https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/when-spell-check-cant...
7
Not trying to be cute or clever, but this comment could have used a lot of editing. As a reader, I found myself wading through it like a flooded basement.
5
This is the proverbial "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" scenario. The NYT needs a public editor to be what the excellent Margaret Sullivan called "a burr in the side of the powers that be..." for both management and star reporters alike. While Sullivan's replacement seemed not up to the task a new replacement should have been found. I predict in several years or less there will be another Jayson Blair type scandal here. The NYT will take a hit and the far right will use whatever slipped past the more scarce editors as proof that it is "fake news". Also Mr. Banquet, if someone asks you if top management took pay cuts to keep others employed - and you put that question out there for readers to see - you ought to consider giving a direct answer the question. A lot of side stepping and dodging here - that doesn't inspire confidence.
105
The Times has played catchup for decades and the Publisher has acknowledged the print edition is fading mainly due to lack of ads.You remember the Help Wanted Section on Sundays? So,while they have to try new approaches,they are vulnerable without a Public Editor to internal bias.Readers should closely watch the new Editing system and tell the Publisher when it is not working well.
3
the NYT is necessary to our democracy. you have a vital role to fill.
please keep that in mind every day as you make changes.
please keep that in mind every day as you make changes.
12
To keep up in the digital age without sacrificing quality, you should be hiring more (and more experienced!) editors at every level, not cutting some! The Times needed a public editor, for example, because of poor higher editorial judgment that prompted reader outcry. You keep having layoffs and waves of buyouts that are eliminating the most seasoned layers of the newsroom. Now you're cutting back on the watchdogs that could serve as a check on the inexperienced. Why not just give on being the paper of record?
30
Baquet keeps talking about video. Perhaps strangely, I am here because I like to read articles. I don't care about video "content" (I'm under 40). Stick to writing; it is your core product. Devoting resources to video is taking away from what you're good at.
230
I'm an older reader. Forty was a lifetime ago. The Times has many older readers and many of us cannot deal with videos that have no captions. The videos are worthless to me without language. Pictures are not always worth a thousand words.
26
I feel EXACTLY the same way. A video on the Times is just a block of space on my screen that does not have text I want to read.
20
Martha:
The point of M. Davis's comment was to tell the Times that although s/he is under 40 (and part of the younger demographic the paper seeks as readers) even s/he is not interested in the video content. There's a stereotype that Generation X-ers and especially Millennials can be reached only through the images.
In other words, you and s/he agree.
The point of M. Davis's comment was to tell the Times that although s/he is under 40 (and part of the younger demographic the paper seeks as readers) even s/he is not interested in the video content. There's a stereotype that Generation X-ers and especially Millennials can be reached only through the images.
In other words, you and s/he agree.
8
I care a lot about reliability. With less oversight of reporters and the reporting process more mistakes will occur. Better for the news to come to me more slowly and be accurate than for it to come very quickly and involve numerous errors. The Times should keep its editors, hire more reporters, and raise subscription rates. If I want fake news, I can read Donald Trump's Twitter posts.
12
I am definitely seeing more minor grammatical errors (a dropped "a" there, a missing "the" there, repeats of sentence fragments, etc.) in the online edition than were there before. I don't know how the process of getting articles online differs from getting them into the print edition (someone once said you have large ranks of typists in India generating transcriptions for the web, an account I dismissed as urban legend), but certainly, given the time-sensitive nature of much of the web-based content, there would seem to be a greater likelihood of errors slipping through. Is there any difference in the copy editing process between print and web versions? Does web content receive more cursory attention?
15
Typically the web version is published first, early on in the morning or afternoon, after at least one editor looks at it. Then if it's supposed to appear in the newspaper, the story is copy edited again, and potentially updated, for the print version that is published the next day. So the print version does receive more time and attention than the online version does, in general, especially if it's breaking news that needs to be online ASAP.
We are told there are no cuts, merely an integration of copy editors into the editorial process. Then it is acknowledged around 50 copy editing jobs will be slashed because more specialized online skills are required. No cuts or cuts. Which is it? Proof positive that we need an independent Public Editor.
37
There seems to be no doubt that the 50 or so copy editors who are not ip to the Times' Hunger Games reinterview process will be out of work.
Why do I think that the incoming reporters and video jockeys will be younger, less experienced, more naive and, of the utmost importance, cheaper?
Why do I think that the incoming reporters and video jockeys will be younger, less experienced, more naive and, of the utmost importance, cheaper?
7
Would you be willing to share the decision-making process that led to featuring as the principle story in the Times a story about Chelsea Manning that included photographs of her that resembled a fashion shoot and credits for hair, nails, etc.? Did your editors err in letting such a bizarre piece slip through, and do you not think it is degrading to women to assume that women who are public figures are ipso facto preoccupied with their physical appearance? That piece seems a perfect example of a piece that could have used several more pairs of eyes and some serious reconsideration since it was ostensibly about a very serious national security issue.
59
Given that The Times is clearly interested in maintaining its world coverage, will there be a push to hire copy editors with specialized foreign language skills? I have noticed that the rush to post a story often results in poorly translated quotes that make the original speakers seem inarticulate or simple. Obviously reporters posted around the world can't be expected to have native-level proficiency in each country they must report from, but copy editors could then improve reporters' rough translations. The Times does its foreign sources a disservice in these cases, and taking the time to do a deep copy edit would improve this situation.
22
Thank you, Mr. Baquet, for thoughtfully sharing management's perspective on changes in copy editing.
A glaring weakness in the answers, however, comes in Mr. Baquet's response to the question about the eliminated Public Editor position. It's evasive and disingenuous to suggest that the executive editor substitutes for the paper's previous and best accountability mechanism.
Politico ran a lengthy feature on Mr. Baquet last month, describing how he chiefly values narrative "sweep" in this paper's content. The Public Editor defends against this "sweep" overstepping good reporting and driving the media agenda rather than following the news.
I love the New York Times, but attitudes like this one toward the former Public Editor undermine trust with readers. With no check on any ideological ax the paper wants to grind through the "sweep" of its reporting, I can't read it (especially political content) without suspicion.
A glaring weakness in the answers, however, comes in Mr. Baquet's response to the question about the eliminated Public Editor position. It's evasive and disingenuous to suggest that the executive editor substitutes for the paper's previous and best accountability mechanism.
Politico ran a lengthy feature on Mr. Baquet last month, describing how he chiefly values narrative "sweep" in this paper's content. The Public Editor defends against this "sweep" overstepping good reporting and driving the media agenda rather than following the news.
I love the New York Times, but attitudes like this one toward the former Public Editor undermine trust with readers. With no check on any ideological ax the paper wants to grind through the "sweep" of its reporting, I can't read it (especially political content) without suspicion.
66
I don't expect the Times to be the fastest with all--or any--stories, but I do expect that all Times stories are correct. I rely on the Times for accuracy, not speed. Haste makes waste.
108
You exactly distill my feelings on the subject, Mr. Berner. Thank you.
Mr. Baquet is appallingly tone deaf if he thinks the Times is competing with television or instant, often erroneous, web outlets. The Times fills a niche: detailed, accurate, investigative journalism. Instant gratification sites on the web are a dime a dozen, yet Baquet wants to abdicate being newspaper of record to be just another fast outlet with accuracy problems.
Mr. Baquet is appallingly tone deaf if he thinks the Times is competing with television or instant, often erroneous, web outlets. The Times fills a niche: detailed, accurate, investigative journalism. Instant gratification sites on the web are a dime a dozen, yet Baquet wants to abdicate being newspaper of record to be just another fast outlet with accuracy problems.
10
To be perfectly honest, I'm still smarting from the switch to color from B&W. The paper lost its gravitas when it went to the USAToday look. I'll eventually get over it.
But I do wish that the Times would have covered the Sanders campaign better. Perhaps it was tainted by the overtly biased Op-Ed page (which needs a real liberal in there... not more center-right-wingers), but the news coverage came off as being rather dismissive.
The Times is still the best paper in the world. The international journalism and science sections alone put it head and shoulders above all others. But one must read it for what it is– a paper from the financial capital of the world. The general slant always has that baked in.
But I do wish that the Times would have covered the Sanders campaign better. Perhaps it was tainted by the overtly biased Op-Ed page (which needs a real liberal in there... not more center-right-wingers), but the news coverage came off as being rather dismissive.
The Times is still the best paper in the world. The international journalism and science sections alone put it head and shoulders above all others. But one must read it for what it is– a paper from the financial capital of the world. The general slant always has that baked in.
6
The Reader Center is a pitiful substitute for the Public Editor.
59
Read all of this as a substitute for the precipitous elimination of the Public Editor.
As well, the entire exercise reflects the heat that the NYT feels from the open letter that copy editors sent, plus the walkout protest.
At many colleges and universities an office of the ombudsmen exists to handle such expressions.
While it surely is worth reading what Mr. Baquet has to say, the NYT should recognize that its devoted readers -- and most of all its loyal subscribers -- believe they have a vested interest in its day-to-day operational practices.
As well, the entire exercise reflects the heat that the NYT feels from the open letter that copy editors sent, plus the walkout protest.
At many colleges and universities an office of the ombudsmen exists to handle such expressions.
While it surely is worth reading what Mr. Baquet has to say, the NYT should recognize that its devoted readers -- and most of all its loyal subscribers -- believe they have a vested interest in its day-to-day operational practices.
13
I've seen headlines I thought were misleading. Who writes these and why do they sometimes change?
14
Copy editors write them, usually, and sometimes backfielders. They change as the story develops and the reporter adds content or for search engine optimization. Including keywords in the headline allows people to find the story more easily through places like Google, but they're often clunky or too long. On the other hand, print headlines are confined by space and so sometimes the most accurate headline just won't fit. A lot of compromising goes on.
1
Good luck -- but I really hope this doesn't lead to the NYT becoming the mess that so many other newspapers are running stories that have misspellings, grammatical errors and worse, stories lacking structure or that forget to answer the obvious questions of who, what, when, where, and why.
11
Mr. Baquet, who is supposed to be a journalist and the company's top news executive, was as evasive as any other CEO in any other industry when he was asked why senior management didn't take salary cuts so a few jobs could be saved. This has always been the hypocrisy of journalism, where senior news or business executives demand their reporters get the truth from others, but not from their own organizations.
With that said, The Times must do what it must do to survive. I can't imagine what life would be like without The Times or The Washington Post in the Trump era. They must be preserved, even if we don't always agree with their management policies.
With that said, The Times must do what it must do to survive. I can't imagine what life would be like without The Times or The Washington Post in the Trump era. They must be preserved, even if we don't always agree with their management policies.
14
"Mr. Baquet, who is supposed to be a journalist and the company's top news executive, was as evasive as any other CEO in any other industry ...'
Remember the Judith Miller (phony weapons of mass destruction stories spoonfed by high-placed D.C sources) and Jayson Blair (plagiarized articles) era? Day after day, questions were answered by a NYT spokeswoman who was in full crisis-management mode. The tone was the same as here.
The Times has never recovered from that annus horribilis of 2003. It may have been a good thing because it taught us once again to question authority and to keep on questioning it. Compared to other news outlets, overall, it's an excellent paper, which is why I read it, but it has feet of clay and I don't like being talked down to like some kind of uneducated, uncritical Trump supporter.
And bring back The Public Editor. The readers need an independent advocate.
Remember the Judith Miller (phony weapons of mass destruction stories spoonfed by high-placed D.C sources) and Jayson Blair (plagiarized articles) era? Day after day, questions were answered by a NYT spokeswoman who was in full crisis-management mode. The tone was the same as here.
The Times has never recovered from that annus horribilis of 2003. It may have been a good thing because it taught us once again to question authority and to keep on questioning it. Compared to other news outlets, overall, it's an excellent paper, which is why I read it, but it has feet of clay and I don't like being talked down to like some kind of uneducated, uncritical Trump supporter.
And bring back The Public Editor. The readers need an independent advocate.
2
So many errors in the decks of stories now, such as "After years of crimes & mental problems, Alexander Bonds, snapped." Too many to count on Twitter feeds. Seems like you need more copy editors, not less.
16
I have often emailed the news desk when poor spelling or a factual error gets through and is published. This doesn't happen all the time, but when it does, it is disturbing. Most recently, an article about the Gal Gadot Wonder Woman movie stated that it was set in World War II, when a 30 second check would have revealed that it is set in World War I. Are you planning to have your readers be your freelance volunteer copy editors and fact checkers?
88
@Bethynyc: I think the answer to your last sentence is: YES.
5
Yeah, but I don't get how those typos remain after more than 5 minutes, when surely even many Times employees would have read the article. They DO read the paper, right?
2
Interns, who as subscribers will pay for the opportunity to serve.
3
If by "almost constant number of corrections that appear online after strories are initially publisher" you mean the errors in spelling a name or mis-presenting a title, that is and has always been a problem from the basic level of reporting that no editor can possibly catch. Calling someone a mayor when her correct title is supervisor is such a case. And relatively minor. And appreciated here for accuracy when it's fixed. The bigger problems are inaccuracies in broader analysis and interpretation of facts. I'll give these changes Baquet is describing a chance.
1
Mr. Banquet should understand that all fake news stories will eventually be exposed in this new era of social media. Take the Russia conspiracy lie. There was never any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia but that did not stop the NYT's from pushing this "reporting" every day for weeks and weeks. It turned out to be a big nothing burger. Retraction? We are still waiting. Don't hold your breath. The once lapdog public relies less on the NYT's take on events mainly because we have a President that reminds us each day that this publication is fundamentally dishonest at its core. True or not it certainly has some merit. This grates the media but that have been hoisted on their own petard.
6
You appear to have missed that fact the Russia collusion situation is still under investigation by the federal government. You can call it a "nothing burger" but that would just be the lie that you choose to accept and spread.
8
I suggest you get on over to Lawfare, and read the self-exposed formerly anonymous source, Matt Tait, who was specifically recruited by the Trump campaign to collude, likely with Ru$$ia.
"Nothing Burger?" I'm going to go with a no here.
"Nothing Burger?" I'm going to go with a no here.
3
Role of the Public Editor
"I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them."
Ostensibly and in some cases actually, the Public Editor had some real independence from the paper. You have no independence from yourself.
"I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them."
Ostensibly and in some cases actually, the Public Editor had some real independence from the paper. You have no independence from yourself.
81
What is the point of a "Reader Center" if the editor's responses are 100% self-approbatory and defensive, as they are here? Bring back an effective public editor (i.e., Margaret Sullivan).
113
How about you stop your extreme leftward tilt and come back more towards the center? How about you stop allowing your reports leftward bias to seep in to their news articles? Maybe just maybe you could stop being so obvious about your agenda and do away with all the advocacy journalism and go back to being the great newspaper you once were. Yes I know readership is up and the Times is making money but you know what? So is the National Enquirer. Its either get back to fairly reporting the news or continue to sink into irrelevance and be merely an echo chamber for the far left.
7
The Times isn't really leftist. It is faux liberal, like the people they champion: the Clintons, Liz Warren, etc. etc.
6
An "extreme leftward tilt" that went to great lengths to disparage Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton? A leftward tilt that editorially endorsed the disastrous Iraq misadventure? I don't think "extreme leftward tilt" means what you think it does.
6
I wish that you had directly answered this question:
How much would online-only subscription rates have to be increased to save the 50 or so copy desk positions slated for elimination?
You might not see this as a cost reduction measure, but frankly, I would have preferred a greater amount of editing even before this change. My subscription fee of $15/mo is a pittance in comparison to the paper's importance, and I would gladly pay a bit more for more editors.
As for your comment about SC decisions, I respectfully dissent. I would rather wait for proper analysis. If I want instant, ill-informed shouting, there's cable tv for that.
How much would online-only subscription rates have to be increased to save the 50 or so copy desk positions slated for elimination?
You might not see this as a cost reduction measure, but frankly, I would have preferred a greater amount of editing even before this change. My subscription fee of $15/mo is a pittance in comparison to the paper's importance, and I would gladly pay a bit more for more editors.
As for your comment about SC decisions, I respectfully dissent. I would rather wait for proper analysis. If I want instant, ill-informed shouting, there's cable tv for that.
54
Editors must be more stringent in removing opinion from what purport to be news stories.
By the way, to write that "when a reporter crafts a story" is a regrettable turn of phrase. Reporters should not "craft stories". Get back to "who, what, where, when and why" without speculation and bias.
By the way, to write that "when a reporter crafts a story" is a regrettable turn of phrase. Reporters should not "craft stories". Get back to "who, what, where, when and why" without speculation and bias.
23
Short-sighted view, Mr. Baquet.
At a time when facts and clarity are under fire, and journalists face tougher time pressures, editors are vital. How much do copyeditors cost, anyway?
Penny wise, pound foolish.
At a time when facts and clarity are under fire, and journalists face tougher time pressures, editors are vital. How much do copyeditors cost, anyway?
Penny wise, pound foolish.
33
No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney. Or would a good copy editor make it "bologna"? My husband was once a copy editor. Some of my best friends are (or were copy editors before their papers downsized), so I admit to a pro-copy editor bias. Nevertheless, I can with complete certainty based on observation that reducing the number of eyes looking at each story WILL increase the number of errors great and small. Maybe the Times should get back to the basics of journalism and speed less time and money on video production (and this is from a one-time CNN producer) and other whiz-bang nonsense,
31
Mr. Baquet, it's a peculiar argument that extols the calibre of The Times's journalism while defending the elimination of a component that the news reporters say is critical in achieving that excellence.
The fact that this is, as you say, a shift in resources from editors to reporters doesn't guarantee the reader that there will be more legitimate and relevant journalism. (I recall reading a decision from the Times to cut back on local news reporting.) Unfortunately, this decision reinforces the impression that the commitment to probative journalism is losing ground to money-making pap masquerading as news reporting.
The fact that this is, as you say, a shift in resources from editors to reporters doesn't guarantee the reader that there will be more legitimate and relevant journalism. (I recall reading a decision from the Times to cut back on local news reporting.) Unfortunately, this decision reinforces the impression that the commitment to probative journalism is losing ground to money-making pap masquerading as news reporting.
13
Re the lack of a public editor, you state, "I actually think it is healthier for me to have to answer these questions. I value our readers. It is good for me to speak directly to them."
The point is not what is good for you. The point is what is good for your readers and for journalism. You cannot be objective. The public editor would have critiqued and evaluated your answer. She would have put your answer in context, and, in many cases, the views of other editors would have appeared alongside your own. It was unconscionable to eliminate the ethical voice from your system of checks and balances.
The point is not what is good for you. The point is what is good for your readers and for journalism. You cannot be objective. The public editor would have critiqued and evaluated your answer. She would have put your answer in context, and, in many cases, the views of other editors would have appeared alongside your own. It was unconscionable to eliminate the ethical voice from your system of checks and balances.
179
True that. Is Baquet offering weekly question and answer sessions with readers? Somehow, he avoided answering my question about the proliferation of anonymous sourcing on his watch, despite the fact that, when it was less prevalent in October, 2014, he admitted to Margaret Sullivan allowing more than we (the editors) ought to.
4
Informative. Thank you. I'd like to know how editors work with younger reporters who are used to texting in shorthand and whose use of slang may define their style. How do you 'clean up' modern writing without making it impersonal and generic?
3
The number of typos and grammatical errors in the Times these days is astonishing. When I was a kid, it was said that to read the Times was the equivalent of a freshman college course. That was never quite true, but did say something about the high regard in which the paper was held. No one would ever say that today.
Sorry, not buying the elimination of the Stand-Alone Copy Desk as a reader service. I'd rather get the story 10 minutes or even an hour later with fewer distracting spelling, typing, and grammatical errors and hopefully, no factual errors. That this would be the first stated justification is insulting to our intelligence.
Sorry, not buying the elimination of the Stand-Alone Copy Desk as a reader service. I'd rather get the story 10 minutes or even an hour later with fewer distracting spelling, typing, and grammatical errors and hopefully, no factual errors. That this would be the first stated justification is insulting to our intelligence.
105
Dear Lifelong...beg to differ. As of today, I don't see any drop in NY quality of any kind but stayed tuned after this move....the jury is out....
1
Today, for much of America the New York Times is the newspaper of the elite. For much of America and for too many the Times is the newspaper of the PhDs and other overeducated know it alls. I have been reading the Times for 65 years because my uncle had the Sunday NYT delivered when Montreal did not have a Sunday paper.
The cynicism that permeates American society is not the fault of the NYT. Because my eyesight is now less acute that gives me empathy for lapses in grammar and punctuation in a world that moves far too quickly.
I can live with those errors because the NYT is still a bulwark against "Fake" news and opinion masquerading as fact.
The cynicism that permeates American society is not the fault of the NYT. Because my eyesight is now less acute that gives me empathy for lapses in grammar and punctuation in a world that moves far too quickly.
I can live with those errors because the NYT is still a bulwark against "Fake" news and opinion masquerading as fact.
2
I don't know how much time is needed to carefully fact-check and copy-edit a fast-breaking story. I wonder whether The Times could do what at least one technical publisher does: release early "Rough Cut" editions that are rushed out with the clear understanding that more polished versions are coming soon? Of course, there's ahead the chance that sooner "fake news," typos, etc. will sneak in to an early edition. But a list of updates made to the Rough Cut -- even updates after those updates -- could give readers an industry cut at the news from an experienced reporter-on-a-deadline as well as a useful demonstration of the fact- and grammar- checking that go in after the initial release.
With a transparent system like this, it seems to me that everyone wins: Readers get (typically accurate) breaking news quickly, The Times has a chance to double or triple-check, and readers have confidence that errots are shown and are being corrected.
With a transparent system like this, it seems to me that everyone wins: Readers get (typically accurate) breaking news quickly, The Times has a chance to double or triple-check, and readers have confidence that errots are shown and are being corrected.
Notice he dodged the question about whether he considered taking a pay cut.
81
Do not pretend this is about anything except money.
37
I retired after 48 years in journalism. Copy editors saved us every day; but push comes to shove -- it is reporters, good reporters -- that a news organization most needs.
7
Let me guess -- you were a reporter. I bet if were to ask a retired editor with 48 years of service, you'd hear about another anchor of quality, fine editors.
5
I was a reporter for 10 years. You need stories so editors can edit. Without stories, well . . .
Mr. Smith: My older brother is in his 41st year as a copy editor at the Baltimore Sun, with about 5 years prior experience in North Carolina and western Pennsylvania.
He sent me this article by 12 year Times' veteran correspondent and editor Michael Cieply. http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-f...
What is your veteran opinion about his credible claim of the difference between the bottom up, reporter driven journalism of the LA Times, where he also worked, versus the top down, editor driven journalusm of the NY Times?
As an adjunct question, doesn't Baquet's decision to keep backfielders while cutting copy editors confirm Cieply's thesis? After all, the backfieldes "shape" stories...to fit "the narrative," right?
He sent me this article by 12 year Times' veteran correspondent and editor Michael Cieply. http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-f...
What is your veteran opinion about his credible claim of the difference between the bottom up, reporter driven journalism of the LA Times, where he also worked, versus the top down, editor driven journalusm of the NY Times?
As an adjunct question, doesn't Baquet's decision to keep backfielders while cutting copy editors confirm Cieply's thesis? After all, the backfieldes "shape" stories...to fit "the narrative," right?
2
I applaud what you are doing. America has become the most unAmerican of developed Western countries. America was supposed to be about perpetual and constant evolution. America is failing because even its so called liberals are reactionaries and don't want to evolve. I trust the NYT to keep the best of the new and discard what doesn't work.
3
This column is a job for the Public Editor.
133
Mr, Baquet can speak for The Times' management, of course. But it seems obvious that he's far different from an independent and experienced journalist who has direct access to management and who can ask tough questions that a Times executive might not think (our want) to lask.
How much money does The Times save without a Public Editor? What's the financial loss if readers' confidence suffers in a newspaper without its own oversight?
How much money does The Times save without a Public Editor? What's the financial loss if readers' confidence suffers in a newspaper without its own oversight?
1
I notice that Mr. Baquet completely skirted the issue of taking a pay cut, as the Times cuts jobs.
It isn't that I expect him to do so. It is that I expect him to answer the question.
It isn't that I expect him to do so. It is that I expect him to answer the question.
137
A Public Editor would have supplied an answer. Baquet is just playing the politician here and changing the subject.
1
The third paragraph of the answer re alternative cost-saving measures is a great example of text that could use a proper edit. Editing brings clarity and concision that are also vital in our tumultuous times and fast-paced lives. I'm not convinced this is a good choice.
7
As a longtime reader of NYT, I can accurately say that editorial errors are far more common today than they used to be. Speed is important, but the Times prides itself in being the "newspaper of record." Today, I read articles that have words missing from sentences! Send me an email address that I can use to report these serious lapses, and I'll gladly fill in for your missing editors when needed.
14
You are fine just the way you are. Don't change anything.
Content editors/line editors are incapable of copyediting to the same standards as a trained copyeditor. There will be more errors, period. I catch typos in the Times daily, and that doesn't even include factual errors.
65
This is the slow death March of the times. I see many factual mistakes everyday and sloppy/lazy reporting. You gave up New York coverage. Real Estate section is one big infomercial. Magazine is written by verbose wannabe novelists. Videos look they are made by summer interns trying to make a 90 second movie.
You blew the election coverage by your arrogance.
The Times has some very good reporters but making these cuts is killing what was a good New York newspaper. RIP NYTIMES
You blew the election coverage by your arrogance.
The Times has some very good reporters but making these cuts is killing what was a good New York newspaper. RIP NYTIMES
39
Mr. Baquet danced around directly answering the question of whether he ever considered taking a pay cut. I see he's not eliminating the dodgeball dept.
51
Every journey to any destination begins with a single step.
Sadly, in this case, this is a misstep that will inevitably lead to a less professional product. Many of us subscribe to the NYT because it is seen as a last bastion of professional ethical journalism. If the Times loses that edge, it will lose readers.
If speed is the motivation, then more people to do the work is the answer. Cutting out steps is not in keeping with NYT's longstanding tradition of excellence. No matter how your wordsmiths spin it, it is an economic decision and a very bad one.
Sadly, in this case, this is a misstep that will inevitably lead to a less professional product. Many of us subscribe to the NYT because it is seen as a last bastion of professional ethical journalism. If the Times loses that edge, it will lose readers.
If speed is the motivation, then more people to do the work is the answer. Cutting out steps is not in keeping with NYT's longstanding tradition of excellence. No matter how your wordsmiths spin it, it is an economic decision and a very bad one.
20
I feel compelled to comment here. While I fully understand the need for the NYT to respond more quickly to the ever-changing news cycle, I hope that these funds that are freed up will be devoted to exanding their international reporting. I visit the 'world' section of the paper every day and to be honest it feels increasingly thin. I realise it is hugely expensive to maintain foreign bureaus but there is very little reporting on places like my home country, South Africa, for example, Given that South Africa is still the biggest economy on the continent I find it weird that so little of what happens here is reported in the NYT. If Americans are relying on the NYT to give them a fulsome picture of what is happening in the world each day they are only getting a very slim slice of the whole story.
7
It is heartening to see The New York Times making these kind of (very) difficult decisions aimed at making sure it is able to produce first class journalism long into the future. In fact, I have been worried that it hasn't been moving fast enough to navigate the digital world. It would be nice if there were enough resources to keep decades old structures in place and do what is necessary to meet the quickly evolving needs of the audience. But, like all news organizations, those resources aren't there. It would be a real loss for its readers and our society if The Times faded away because it wasn't strong enough or bold enough to change.
1
Trump's next and predictable tweet, "The failing Fake News NYT forced to cut jobs. Sad!"
13
While I understand the concerns over quality expressed by many readers, and in the symbolic action taken by the staff, I'm more concerned by the ignorance of the economics of media that they reveal. As you well know, it's easy to say "don't do it", but much harder to figure out how to pay for it. Unfortunately, much of the news staff, and many readers, have long been sheltered from the economic reality of the news business. I was in "the biz" for over 50 years (including 26 on the business side of The NYT), and I remember this going on 35 or more years ago. Don't mean to be overly harsh, but it is impossible to operate today in the same way the business operated in the "glory days".
2
Yes, how to pay for what we say we are committed to is the big question. I ask, what are you paying for now, and how much are you paying? I venture to guess that certain execs and celebrity writers are getting big bucks, and those doing the needed grunt work, not so much. It's the same all over. Until we're willing to pay for what we say we value, and cut the bling, we'll never have a high-quality Times.
2
Stevevelo:
That is a hard argument to make when less than a year ago, the Times had $30 million in disposable cash to buy internet RATING SITES The Wirecutter and Sweet Home.
To show that I am mathematically competent, assuming that the salary plus benefit cost of each copy editor is, generously, $200,000 per year, then for the price of two ratings services, all 50 copy editor positions could have been fully funded for three years.
Don't forget that this is the same Times whose "business sense" impelled it to shell out an astonishing $700 million for the Boston Globe, which it eventually sold at a yuge loss.
So just be careful to whom you impute an "ignorance of the economics of media," stevevelo.
That is a hard argument to make when less than a year ago, the Times had $30 million in disposable cash to buy internet RATING SITES The Wirecutter and Sweet Home.
To show that I am mathematically competent, assuming that the salary plus benefit cost of each copy editor is, generously, $200,000 per year, then for the price of two ratings services, all 50 copy editor positions could have been fully funded for three years.
Don't forget that this is the same Times whose "business sense" impelled it to shell out an astonishing $700 million for the Boston Globe, which it eventually sold at a yuge loss.
So just be careful to whom you impute an "ignorance of the economics of media," stevevelo.
5
The Times (I know people who have worked there since 1929) has always been top heavy with management fat. (To be fair to the NY Times, many other corporations are too).
To be fair and efficient, these are the general rules when cutting.
1-If you cut union staff, cut the mgt. fat that goes with it.
2-Offer any person cut a chance to work in another job or if not a fair buyout.
3-Never cut to the bone, ie eliminating critical worker or mgt. jobs.
To be fair and efficient, these are the general rules when cutting.
1-If you cut union staff, cut the mgt. fat that goes with it.
2-Offer any person cut a chance to work in another job or if not a fair buyout.
3-Never cut to the bone, ie eliminating critical worker or mgt. jobs.
14
At The NY Times who calls the shots?
Which individual or group decided to endorse Clinton BEFORE the primaries were underway and BEFORE the people's voice could be heard?
Who decides thing like, we will portray Clinton's lead on the front page in charts and graphs, day after day, as seemingly insurmountable by counting super delegates favoring Clinton as votes that had already been cast?
Is it too much for a citizen to ask exactly who it is that wields the ultimate influence over such decisions that affect the fabric of our families lives?
Or is the most important question where transparency ends?
Which individual or group decided to endorse Clinton BEFORE the primaries were underway and BEFORE the people's voice could be heard?
Who decides thing like, we will portray Clinton's lead on the front page in charts and graphs, day after day, as seemingly insurmountable by counting super delegates favoring Clinton as votes that had already been cast?
Is it too much for a citizen to ask exactly who it is that wields the ultimate influence over such decisions that affect the fabric of our families lives?
Or is the most important question where transparency ends?
20
http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-f...
This article, by Michael Cieply, a 12 year veteran of the Times, who also spent time at the LA Times, has the answer. The uppermost editors set "the narrative," and task reporters with filing stories consistent with the narrative. "Backfielders" shape those stories to conform to, wait for it, "the narrative."
Baquet, with his answers, and his actions, has chosen the narrative and its shapers, backfielders, over copy editors and objective editing for grammar, accuracy, style and fact checking.
This article, by Michael Cieply, a 12 year veteran of the Times, who also spent time at the LA Times, has the answer. The uppermost editors set "the narrative," and task reporters with filing stories consistent with the narrative. "Backfielders" shape those stories to conform to, wait for it, "the narrative."
Baquet, with his answers, and his actions, has chosen the narrative and its shapers, backfielders, over copy editors and objective editing for grammar, accuracy, style and fact checking.
3
How much does video contribute to either income or readership vs text (print or digital)?
How can you say that "somehow" the Times lost reporters? Will you be saying that "somehow" the Times lost editors 5 years from now?
And why is there no longer a public editor?
How can you say that "somehow" the Times lost reporters? Will you be saying that "somehow" the Times lost editors 5 years from now?
And why is there no longer a public editor?
110
I agree with Siobhan's point of view here. You say you want to respond to your readers, but the fact is we want copy editors and we wanted the public editor. She asked the kinds of questions we have, but had the resources to get the kinds of answers we don't. Plus she had the space to speculate and to offer measured reactions to the explanations of other editors. I see an awful lot of obfuscation in Mr. Baquet's comments. He says it's "healthier" for him to answer questions than for the public editor to do so, but he is understandably defensive. The Times created a valuable position and now has eliminated it and other positions that serve as friends to readers.
68
I truly value The Times, but I also read the almost constant number of corrections that appear online after stories are initially published. Your supposed "need for speed" and the lack of those extra eyeballs can only make this worse. Sure, we want breaking news quickly. But more than that, we want it to be correct. There are a million broadcast and online outlets that produce those down and dirty reports, but there is only one New York Times. Please don't mess it up!
201
I see the "constant" corrections as evidence of transparency and credibility. Other news sources make as many or more mistakes but don't have the same culture of honesty. One of the many reasons to trust the New York Times.
2
Yes, Clyde, and thank you! Corrections seem to be an integral part of each story these days. Some are corrections of corrections, no less. Some are simple misspelling of proper names or incorrect dates (an easy double check!). Many of them could easily have been avoided with a little Google search, for heaven's sake. I am a big fan of the Times, but these often sloppy miscues are embarrassing, especially in light of the attacks on the free press we are experiencing from Washington and Moscow. Yes, NY Times, please don't mess it up!
12
I have found a significant disconnect between the typical anti-trump headline and what the article actually says.
Bold assertions are made in the headlines, such as "WH in disarray," or "Trump aides struggling,,.," or "Military officials not informed of Trump decision to ..," and then when you actually read the full story there is often nothing there to back it up, other than some generic anti-Trump quotes from retired bureaucrats who have no current knowledge of the matter.
I have seen this time and time again and the only conclusion is that most readers only read the headline and then quickly jump on the comments section with their anti-Trump rant of the day.
Bold assertions are made in the headlines, such as "WH in disarray," or "Trump aides struggling,,.," or "Military officials not informed of Trump decision to ..," and then when you actually read the full story there is often nothing there to back it up, other than some generic anti-Trump quotes from retired bureaucrats who have no current knowledge of the matter.
I have seen this time and time again and the only conclusion is that most readers only read the headline and then quickly jump on the comments section with their anti-Trump rant of the day.
3
Here it is: "Last October, Chris Ruddy, a good friend of Mr. Trump’s, commissioned David to write a book about how the right could mobilize to defeat President Clinton. It was taken as a given that she would win the election." "President Clinton?" Are you people kidding me? It was "taken as such a given" that Streitfeld even bestowed the title upon her, and no backfield team managed to figure out that the only President Clinton was not running last year.