I commend the Times's rededication to truth in the face of an overwhelming onslaught of misinformation and outright lies by many "news" sources. My question is whether being a beacon of light to parts of the country that already recognize this dichotomy will help this country get rid of these elements that threaten our democracy. I do not see people in the red states suddenly seeing the light and rejecting what reinforces their prejudices against others and the lack of compassion or empathy of those who are not like them.
2
Dear Mr. Sulzberger,
I resent tis legacy of nepotism at the NYT because the world is big and there are many more qualified publishers than the son, grandson, great-grandson and great-great-grandson of Adolph Ochs. Sure, you may be good enough, like so many others.
Yours is not just some window-washing business, this is one of the most important businesses in the world, and insisting on nepotism to fill the publisher spot instead of meritocracy is wrong because we could be getting a more qualified person to run the business -- no offense, please.
In your letter, the reference to our "essential rights" of freedom of speech and the press as protected by the US Constitution is ironic when that same document also prohibits the possibility of a monarchy: nepotism at the NYT is wrong because a monarchy safeguarding our "essential rights" cannot be defended with the same values that safeguard our constitution.
I'd like to hear one reasonable explanation why this nepotism must be so, why we should accept it as the best of all possible solutions to the problem of finding a new publisher for the NYT. It just makes me so suspect of the genuineness claimed by the great-great-grandson that the paper is great as its legacy because you does not make one mention of the elephant in the room: you wrote a safe (mediocre, banal and uninspiring) letter that did not even once hint at a sense of shame for having "greatness thrust upon you."
How does this nepotism make you feel?
The Times, other newspapers and television media routinely interview figures of public interest and also collaborate in question/answer formats such as Presidential Debates. A recent topic in the news has been the question of President Trump's mental fitness and he has countered those questions with statements about his genius.
Could the Times, in collaboration with other news agencies, arrange a public moderated session in which individuals (including President Trump) participate in multiple cognitive tasks?
A neuropsychologist could provide advice on selection of such tasks to address a broad range of cognitive functions and levels of difficulty but they could be done via paper and pencil or asked by a news moderator. Examples of tasks might include listing as many names of flowers as possible in 1 minute; drawing a clock with the hands set to a specific time; spelling words of varying lengths forwards and backwards; doing mental calculations or making change (e.g., how many nickels in 60 cents); naming items in a drawing or describing how items are similar (e.g., a chair and a table).
In addition to having the President participate, news organizations of all varieties could nominate other participants (with participant agreement) with final selection by random drawing. This approach could not address whether our President exhibits a personality disorder or psychosis but it could allow the public to judge matters of cognitive fitness and genius by themselves.
2
When will the questions we submitted be answered? I'm not trying to be annoying, I'd just like to be sure not to miss it.
The immediacy of the television media, forces catchup from the print media, and despite the Times high quality journalism, and undoubted integrity news services like CNN almost become unfair competition.I think the Times needs to focus more on the more serious existential issues facing many civilizations, and of course the planet itself.
The Times has nothing to sell but its credibility and thoroughness. While I understand the financial pressures placed on the paper by a qualitatively changed advertising environment and a populace that far too often seeks out confirmation of its already held beliefs rather than information and true dialogue, the Times brand must remain true, or it will become just another footnote. The HomePage fluff, gossip, unsupported headlines, poor editing, and the replacing of solid journalists such as Gretchen Morgenson and Margaret Sullivan with lifestyle-driven neophytes just won't do.
Two cautionary tales:
CNN was the go-to place for reliable TV news. Then it decided it could do "better" by going from a news format to personality-driven shows. This became apparent when they sacked Aaron Brown, a journalist who did a remarkable job on 9/11, and replaced him with Anderson Cooper, essentially a talking head. I expect the honchos looked at the up-an-coming Fox and decided to emulate much of its approach. In doing so, it became neither fish nor fowl, neither a reliable source of news, as it had been, nor a station pandering to the worst aspects of American life as Fox was. So now, CNN is largely an afterthought.
Mad Magazine, a very successful, brilliantly executed magazine of satire, was sold by its founder to a corporate entity. Quickly, the new owners thought they could make a few more bucks by inserting ads that mimicked content. For all practical purposes that was the end of Mad.
6
I enjoy my on-line subscription to the NYT because it has a breadth of information that you cannot find in another newspaper. I learn something new about someone or somewhere or something every time I read this newspaper. I do wonder about the strong liberal editorial content and the attraction the paper has for those readers who share that ideology. For those of us of a more moderate political persuasion, the obvious lurch to the left by your editors, columnists, journalists, readers and commentators can be distracting on political issues. It does however sharpen the mind to understand views different from one's own. When it comes to non-political issues, the paper is comprehensive and informative and shows that it is America's newspaper of record.
4
As one who has read the Times daily for at least 50 years, I am terrified about the state of journalism in our country. You and the Washington Post seem to be the only print papers left that do investigative journalism. Would you ever consider converting the Times into a non-profit entity? and what is your opinion about the Center for Investigative Journalism of which I believe you are a supporter? (not interested in being published, just answered)
3
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune here in Florida is known for it's investigative journalism. This is especially notable since the paper covers a relatively small area and has a moderate subscriber base.
1
And may it ever be so. Sincerely, Someone Who Knows You.
I would like the NYT to research the work FT of London did on Trump
BEFORE the election and try to understand why they had the essence of this story many many months before major US papers understood his connection to Russia.
3
So sorry! Just noticed I made a comment in the question section which should have been posted in response to the publisher's letter on Jan 1 instead. Cheers!
In the run-up to the last, tragic general election, why did the Times provide almost no coverage (as news, not as op-ed) of the two parties' stances on actual issues, instead providing endless coverage of what we all knew even then to be the utter non-issue of Clinton's emails? When will the Times devote more analysis of real social and economic issues--fact-based, with international comparisons?
3
James Reisen- a Pulitzer Prize winning former NYT staffer writes in The Intercept that this paper suppressed stories at the request of the White House, CIA and NSA. What happened to "without fear or favor"?
The first responsibility is to the subscribers and readers- not the government. The First Amendment was to hold government accountable- not to provide a self censored stenographer to Washington.
This needs to be answered on the Front Page and in detail.
Link to original story:
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-reporter...
No questions, two suggestions: please forbid the use of “on the ground” as in reporters on the ground. Also ban “close proximity”. It too is a redundancy. The NYT is better than this. Thank you.
2
More a comment than a question: I feel better with you at the helm of the old girl, knowing that you will not put up with the shenanigans carried on by the witless child emperor occupying The Peoples House in Washington, D. C. He is what my generation would term as "small potatoes". Surround yourself with the best talent you can find, execute your responsibilities truthfully, on time and pay no attention to the man behind the D. C. curtain; that is merely a puff of rancid smoke. Remember, All the news that's fit to print. Good Luck going forward.
2
Good. We need the NY Times. You must learn to live on your courage. Every day. Doubt and fear are temporary and therefore have only temporary reality. There is a "spec" of "Divinity" in you that will show you the way. Listen to it.
1
And yet you allow your White House reporters to just sit there and listen to Sarah Huckabee Sanders' lies without challenging her as a liar. Why? You call that journalism?
2
I'm concerned with a lot of your reporting. In 2016, the New York Times seemed to be relying on sources most likely from the New York branch of the FBI which drove the paper's coverage of Clinton's emails to a significant level and never questioned the source of the WikiLeaks publications, or their veracity. I am also concerned with your reporting on Trump's ties to Russia. The New York Times was quite dismissive of this treason throughout 2016. I am concerned that many of the commenters here are not humans, and wonder what you are now going to do to stop the flow of misinformation within the New York Times community.
Thank you NY Times. I am glad such a young man took the responsibility to deal with such a complex reality.
My first question is: In many instances, foreign news media beat out NY Times to report important news such as Panama paper & Edward Snowden stories. Why?
My second question is: How can you prevent news of WMD "Weapon of Mass Destruction" will not happen again?
Thanks you.
Mr. Sulzberger, I also posted this in your "note to readers". Onward and upward to all of us in our responsibility and accountability to the public trust.
May I request that instead of “doctors cover health” that our treasured NYT “infuse our journalism with expertise” of nurse educators and professional nurses – the most trusted profession. Professional nursing is also the hope for humane health care reform in this country with a focus on health maintenance, promotion, and prevention, and away from the fee for service/ for profit sick care medicine delivery, which keeps the U.S. ranking #37 in basic health indices among all developed countries (WHO). Onward and upward to all of us in the pursuit of truth, honesty, and openness.
1
The Times can always be counted on for accuracy, but I would appreciate more balance in the reporting. Much of the reporting seems designed to undermine the Trump administration and little note is made of its successes.
"I thank my stars I am happy. I will be strange, stout, in yellow stockings, and cross-gartered, even with the swiftness of putting on."
Yup, and some have greatness thrust upon them. I'd have like to seen your new publisher's photo below the knee.
I have been a Times print subscriber for many years but recently have become very disappointed at the coverage of New York sports teams. Printing the wire service coverage of games played by the Knicks and Rangers instead of live reporting by a Times correspondent is insulting. The Times coverage now pales compared to that of the Post and Daily News. Why is it not possible to assign a sports reporter to actually attend the hockey and basketball games and give readers some insight based on locker room reports rather than the meaningless wire service stories? Are we to expect the same coverage of our local teams during baseball season?
I'm actually in Exeter, NH. My father, Gene Robb, was a contemporary of your grandfather, and publisher of the Hearst owned Albany papers in the 50's and 60's. He crusaded for a just government in Albany against longest elected Mayor and corrupt Erastus Corning. I am glad to see you take the helm and continue the good, deep investigative reporting that uncovers the truth with solid evidence. Great idea for kids NY Times - print only.
I do not have a question, but would love to see the Times ease closer to the
middle of the political spectrum.
1
I want to thank you for your column and look forward to making comments in the future.
Someone wrote a retort to your to your reference to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He made a good point if we're looking at a surgical strike rather than a panoramic view. A newspaper's bias is that of its publisher. We buy particular newspapers for this very reason -- its bias matches ours. So, maybe you should not worry too much about trying to please all of the people all of the time. Be honest. Be fair. Publish alternate opinions so we can understand the whole context of an issue and, as a bonus, write snarky comments. Most of all, enjoy the experience. I wish you good luck with the whole newspaper experiment. I personally don't think it will last, but I've been wrong before.
Mr. Sulzberger, may I request that instead of as you share in ‘note to readers’ on January 1, “doctors cover health” that our treasured NYT “infuse our journalism with expertise” of nurse educators and professional nurses – the most trusted profession. Professional nursing is also the hope for humane health care reform in this country with a focus on health maintenance, promotion, and prevention, and away from the fee for service/ for profit sick care medicine delivery, which keeps the U.S. ranking #37 in basic health indices among all developed countries (WHO). Onward and upward to all of us in the pursuit of truth, honesty, and openness, and mindful of our responsibility and accountability to the public trust.
1
Second comment. If there’s a way to get more conservative right leaning comments in these articles/op-eds that would be helpful to the readers. Sometimes, many times, I feel as though we’re just “preaching to the choir”.
1
Keep up the integrity of your fabulous work and columnists - we need them. There are times when I want to copy a comment, but cannot see how to do this. Please advise how. Reading the comments is like getting a full class of Americana...fascinating and delicious.
1
Suggestions...when your writers say that they have interviewed "dozens of people" what does this mean? Twelve, 24, 36? How about a number that is accurate. Also, articles, especially on politics, Congress, Mr. Trump, that attribute information to un-named sources, there should be a statement regarding how the information was obtained and how it was fact checked before publication. This may slow or prevent the cries of fake news. I have read the NYT my entire life and believe, for the most part, that the stances taken by the paper are not biased. But, I really don't know that to be so in all cases. The obit of the recently deceased President of the Mormon church is a good example. For each of us the truth is that which we choose to believe.
I find the recent conversion of pages 2 and 3 into sort of a gossip section to be a waste of space, and really miss the quick headline digest that used to be there. On mornings when I'm in a hurry to get out, it was a great guide for what happened last night and what to expect today. Please reconsider reinstating that format.
Congratulations and thank you for writing to us.
I have subscribed to the NYT's for years now and love the electronic version a lot. I'm especially loving the Daily Podcast.
Please make sure that Donald Trump cannot find any fake news within this paper. He will accuse you of it but make sure you don't have to take back anything or apologize to this incompetent President.
1
Congratulations on your appointment! The NYT"s has been a national beacon of measured coverage of the current and on going national fiasco. It is the main reason, apart from the Rachel Maddow Show, (on which many of your journalists, with their breaking news, appear), I remain hopeful of a orderly resolution to the current constitutional crisis. And, thank you for your continued effort at making print media and the legion of journalists behind it stay current with digital media consumption.
So, it is as a devoted fan that I feel compelled to mention that your coverage of women's sports is sorely lacking. I understand providing coverage is expensive but it represents the institutionalized bias against equality in media coverage. The stories are out there. You tell them and we will follow. Thank you for your ear and best of luck! Mary Clay Fields
1
Congratulations on your new position as a publisher of the NYTimes. It would be helpful to make all videos with either open or close captions for the D/Deaf and hard-of-hearing and Braille for the blind to follow first hand Information with the news on the daily basis. Thank you for your consideration.
Continue to counter Trump’s lies with not only reporting the truth, in its many forms, but giving evidence of both of the lie and it's damage to America. Call him out and ask readers to back you with calls and letters to the White House. Let's out number him and his supporters. He'll only dig himself in deeper. Thanks.
1
Just want to tell you how much I value the Times. The Times continues to be a major source of information for me and has been since I was a teenager. My father was an avid reader and one of my favorite memories is sharing the newspaper with him on Sunday and of course searching for the Ninas in Al Hirschfeld's drawings. Wishing you much success!
2
No question, just a comment. I grew up in NYC and my father read both the New York Times and the NY Daily News every day. He also was a subscriber to Time magazine for over 70 years! I have been a daily newspaper reader all my life. Twenty-five years ago, I moved to Washington DC and have subscribed to the Washington Post since day 1. A year ago, after the disastrous 2016 presidential election, I started an online subscription to the NY Times. My goal was to support genuine journalism, aka "real news." Happily, I am receiving the bonus gift of great reading, especially the opinion pieces. Thank you!
Dear Mr. Sulzberger,
I have been a NY Times subscriber since 1986. I am a true fan of this newspaper! I love how things are changing and developing. While I dearly miss the home section on Thursday, you have brought so much more into my life. I wish there were more hours in the day because there is so much to read! Thanks for that terrific puzzle section that you sent out on 12/17/17.
Please wow me more!
Congratulations on your new position!
1
Best wishes. You guys are my first source every morning. Looking forward to seeing more coverage on inequality and all of the extenuating issues and challenges that particular issue brings to the future of our country.
Congratulations on your position into the acclaimed New York Times! Your career is well deserved and I, as a subscriber of emails and podcast messages, appreciate your candor and concern to provide quality information to the world.
New York is the United States' financial epicenter of the globe. It's the key that reflects the multicultural melting pot of our ancestors as well as our new traveling friends of the earth. The BIG Apple is the heart and soul of music, art, poetry, dance, fashion, celebrity and memorial institutions. They recognize masters of their own genius or mastery of the talents of others.
We are on an AMAZING sailing trip together and as we communicate our commitment to the human race we thankfully fall short of becoming slaves of our struggles, history or family's past.
Bless you in 2018 & may the path of light and honesty lead you forward in connecting to millions through The New York Times!
1
Dear Times, I never comment on anything. My husband and I run a small Montessori school in a big city called Chicago. We do our best to keep freedom alive in education and push back against a debilitating culture. We rely on the Times to keep our families informed (and they us!) as we take on the wild task of raising and educating children. Your articles inspire us to keep moving forward and remind us that media is both a powerful and trustworthy tool. Thanks to all of your hard work. We are very glad to be a part of the NYT community.
Like many TIMES readers, I grew up with the paper -- beginning as World War II was coming to an end. There have only been a few extended periods in the 70 years since that time (two Fulbrights abroad) when I haven't read the paper on a daily basis. It reads, I should say, better than ever. Special congratulations are due for Page 2, "Inside the TIMES," a spectacular addition and innovation. Thanks so much for taking your readers seriously, especially in a moment when "the news" is so readily vulgarized.
Doris Friedensohn
Professor Emerita of Women's Studies
New Jersey City University
Thank you for your timely, incisive, and intelligent news and editorials. The NY Times is providing citizens with information and perspectives to survive these times. I encourage you to continue being bold, brave and candid in your news reporting. How can a democracy survive without an open and free press?
1
Kudos.
While I'm sure you're getting sage advice from family and colleagues, my question is much more cosmetic:
With the Washington Post depicted in films by Redford and Hoffman and now Streep and Hanks (not a bad line-up, by the way) , who would you cast in a film about the NYT and what chapter would you single out?
1
Congratulations as you embark on the journey as publisher. I am interested in learning about your goals, areas of priority, and plans for new initiatives as you move forward.
Dear AG. I wish you the best during your tenure as publisher of the precious (to me and my family) New York Times. We travel outside the US frequently and have always appreciated the professional and comprehensive coverage of international issues, cultures and challenges so ably covered by the Times. In the past several months we have been dismayed to see the deterioration of trust in the US and in our 'values' under the Trump regime. The wars and endless conflict with 'terrorism' are one area, but, the ascendance of China as an economic power, the withdrawal of Turkey into an increasingly authoritarian state, the Greek economic issues, the ways in which Australia deals with its 'open' multicultural society, the rise of nationalism in Europe, the endless tragedies of relentless immigration and displacement, all of these issues are complex and we need help understanding history, context and nuance. The New York Times excels in these areas. And in an age of seemingly endless Trumpian chaos and distraction from real issues that plague and challenge our nation, the Times has done stellar reporting to call out the less than salubrious aspects of this challenged Presidency. You have a big task but it sure seems that you have the passion and concrete skills and smarts to keep adapting and keep leading. Thank you.
1
Keep up the excellent and trustworthy work in these challenging and transitional times. We need the truth more now than ever. I have been reading The New York Times since I was in high school fifty years ago, when it was required reading. I always read Frank Bruni and Charles Blow and support them in speaking out about our "Chaos President." Finally, I value your reporting on the Rohingya people and women's and human rights issues around the world. These articles are one more way to protect our democratic values. And one more thing - the recipes are marvelous. Keep them coming because I use them. The NY Times is adapting and thriving.
1
No question, just a comment. I started reading the Times in college 40 years ago, and then read the Sunday paper sporadically (mostly on vacation when I could spare the time). When the last election rolled around, and I was retired, I subscribed to the on-line edition. I read it faithfully, and enjoy it so much. Particularly since 6 months out of the year we live in the land of Gannet journalism. Please continue upgrading the on-line edition content and make certain features, like "My Sunday Routine", and the health mysteries (see - I can't remember the name!), easier to find. Thanks for letting us keep in touch with the world!
Your comments focused on the print edition are welcome. Some of us find the print format remains far more valuable and congenial than digital.
While I agree that the Times is 1 of the best newspapers we have, I am disturbed that your reporters and editorialists have not apologized to the country and to Hillary Clinton about their unequal coverage of the Presidential campaign. The newspaper had a large part in the election of Donald Trump by focussing on her emails ad nauseam without much discussion of her policy proposals. You were in a position to educate the public of the policies of each candidate. Whether due to misogyny or even possibly jealousy the paper didn't do that. It let everything about Trump slip out of view without investigation and yet hounded Hillary about a politically generated investigation. An analysis of your reportage and an apology are necessary.
I am one of the more popular commenters on Times articles. Most of us have a publication record, and the freedom to speak more directly than Times pieces that are written by staff.
Thank you for publishing our comments, but after years of making them it would be fitting of The Times to offer each of us a chance to submit an occasional guest column. We love your newspaper, and that gesture would be a sign that the feeling is mutual.
3
You know that you can submit op-eds for the consideration of the page's editor, right? Go for it!
My question is: Would you consider having one of your excellent investigative reporters search for the truth of who is behind Trump's evident successes? Somehow, in spite of the President's mind-boggling flaws and outrageous flights of fancy, someone--or several--in his administration have done some behind-the-scenes finagling to achieve a series of positive results. I want to know who to credit for being able to--so far--survive Trump's west wing and mediate what could be catastrophic damage.
11
I'd suggest that our mass media's gutlessness and ambition is an important component of the Trump-still-in-charge phenomenon. Michael Wolff, as obnoxious a man as he may be, shows the way. He clearly didn't care about the continuing access that Times reporters and most other national journalists covet and allow to interfere with their actually "afflicting the comfortable." "But, but, but he'll never speak to me again if I tell the truth!" Perhaps the Times doesn't believe that the truth about this administration is "fit to print."
I enjoyed your interview on the New Yorker Radio Hour podcast and was informed and impressed by what you had to say. I used to buy the Sunday Time occasionally at a local store but now happily subscribe to the online version. But I was a little surprised by the discussion about embracing the online world because of how fast things change today (maybe you said you were seeing the face of change at Huffpost). The surprise was because one criticism I have of the Times I see is how long some articles remain in the Sections recaps at the bottom of the page. Sometimes it seems like the same link is there for more than week. Doesn't look like fast response to me.
6
Some 20 years ago, when I was a foreign graduate student "fresh off the boat", I had no idea of the American media landscape. I even thought stories on Onion were real. But I loved to collect free newspapers from leftover by other customers in campus coffee shop and read them all-USA today, local newspaper, and NY Times. I was immediately drawn to NY Times for its writing--because it is the only newspaper with many words I did not know, and I could instantly see that the writing is on a much higher level. Little did I know that I also share similar views with the paper politically and socially. From that time on, my favorite pass time in Madison was to find a full edition of NY Times, and read it over with my free-refill of coffee in a snowy afternoon.
Now, I am a subscriber and do not need a dictionary to read the paper, but I was constantly delighted by stories in the paper that nobody else covers--from butter shortage in France and "bonjour-hi" controversy in Quebec, just a few recent examples.
I have no question for the new publisher, but just want to give my appreciation and say carry-on!
20
When my grandparents emigrated to this country, my grandmother, who "had" no english, as she liked to say, would sit in the apartment in NY while my grandfather was at work and study the Times to learn english. Many, many people learned that way!
1
This is a well written comment. One nitpick: instead of "pass time" I think you mean "pastime".
1
Despite acknowledging that large budget numbers require the context of percentage of GDP, percentage of the federal budget, or spending per capita to be properly understood, the New York Times continues to print large budget numbers without context. Will you commit to ending this practice?
7
"There was a reason freedom of speech and freedom of the press were placed first among our essential rights. Our founders understood that the free exchange of ideas and the ability to hold power to account were prerequisites for a successful democracy."
I love the First Amendment, but Mr. Sulzberger's statement is historically inaccurate. Madison originally proposed a longer list of opening amendments (you can find the full list in the Annals of the 1st Congress, June 8, 1789, at p. 451). Madison proposed that the amendments be inserted into the original text (the way that legislation is typically amended); he therefore listed them in the order in which the original corresponding constitutional provisions occurred (you can see his original reasons for the order in the Congressional debate). The "First Amendment" was not first; it was actually fourth, after proposed amendments to earlier text in the Constitution. But those other proposals failed to pass, and so the "freedom of the press" ended up first in the list, but only because Madison proposed that it would modify Article I, Section 9, which is earlier in the text than other amendments.
Why does this matter? Because we live in a time where serious questions are being raised about whether the press is objective and fact-based, or whether it is politically motivated and pushing its own agenda. So when the Times' new publisher opens his account by misstating history, he starts off on the wrong path.
10
A major newspaper (or any newspaper for that matter) should not be a dynastic family business. How does this continue in 2017? A family business is never independent.
3
Or, even worse, 2018!
I feel more able to rely on continuing to get high quality news and opinion from a family-owned NYTimes than if it were a publicly owned corporation with stockholders. The family has demonstrated its long-term commitment to maintaining what makes this newspaper so valuable. I'd be worried about an ownership model based on maximizing profit for its parent corporation.
1
Who would you have own and operate our newspapers if not the families that created them? Why would you hold newspapers to a different ownership model than any other business, really? Different standards of behavior, for sure, but independent of what? Are corporate owned newspapers any more "independent" than the Times? Please tell us more. How does this idea carry over to television news?
Congratulations. I am from Knoxville and my wife went to Chattanooga city high and knew your cousin steve goldin whose mother was at Chattanooga times newspaper. I enjoyed your note.
As I read your statement a feeling of disappointment started to creep into my mind until almost the very end. Then I found what I was looking for when you said;
“We will continue to put the fairness and accuracy of everything we publish above all else ..”
In the hard news section, as opposed to the editorial section, UNBIASED ACCURACY should be your ONLY concern. Report the story accurately, and let the chips fall where they may!!
Over the past years, the firewall between news and opinion has been crumbling and OBVIOUS bias and opinion has been consistently finding its way into front page NEWS SECTION stories.
Unbiased accuracy is what we all want. We need that for obvious reasons. All the rest is pretty window dressing but totally useless if unbiased accuracy succumbs to the pressure of all kinds of special interests ( monied or not).
14
The NYT has a history of fearless investigative journalism. It, along with the Washington Post, has spoken truth to power, albeit sometimes better than at other times. But without the efforts of investigative journalists and publishers willing to risk it all, our country would be in the dust bin of History. It is only with an independent and loudly vocal press, that fourth estate, which tyrants fear and dictators try to silence, that we remain truly free.
We have gone through periods of ‘yellow journalism’ before and it did not serve our country well. Misinformation, disinformation, cheating and abuse needs to be called out and laid before the people. I know of very few organizations that put forth Pulitzer Prize winning articles of critical importance for us to read, consider and research on our own. For those who would say your paper is too ‘left wing,’ I would say I don’t even hear about many of the important issues of our day discussed by the right. For example, you have a science section. Imagine that!
I can only add my voice loud and strong to #metoo-And say keep up the good work—no, get better at it, and be fearless.
15
It would be great if the NYT could take the lead in facilitating readership interest in acting on key issues like climate change. Issues where preventive measures are far more successful. And less costly in the long run. The opportunity to "comment" helps to focus our thoughts. But, we need to "act" as well.
6
I'll keep it short.Other than try and mollify that under a half million cohort of Trump supporters who put him over the top and sing his praises from on high like there was some connection between Trump himself and Gospel truth, your president needs to transition himself more fully into man of “all” the people mode. He’s at work on that now. And much like missing out on the last election result, the NYT is likely to miss this ship going out over the horizon only to return flying the flag into a second term.
Thank you, Mr. Sulzberger. You are light and hope.
5
Mr. Sulzberger -
Congratulations on your new job. I wish you well. I feel involved with your commitment to reporting the truth, as I am a faithful reader and have been since high school in NYC.
I consider the Times a source of facts on our national and worldwide situations.
4
Dear Mr. Sulzberger: Thank you to you and your family for upholding the highest standards of journalism at a time when the truth itself is under attack in our country. At this moment in our history the press--the responsible press at least-- is the only powerful institution standing between us and the destruction of our republic. Any individual critical comments readers are making here pale in comparison to the value of the public service you are providing.
3
I have said it before, but I believe that it bears repeating,
May the Lord bless you and the Times, and keep you, and make his face to shine on to you both.
On a different subject, I would like the ability to e-mail the actual article to myself or someone else, with all pictures and formatting but without the embedded ads. I would have no problem with ads at the beginning of end of the story, however.
5
The only thing worse than fake news is fake science. There is overwhelming scientific research showing that marijuana has some medical benefits. The Schedule 1 classification of marijuana is a growing disaster and embarrassment. The New York Times would do the country a service by detailing both the reasons why marijuana should not be classified as a Schedule 1 drug and the economic havoc it is creating in the marijuana industry and our prison system.
7
I see the New York Times as "anti Trump". I'd like to see the Times as "holding Trump accountable" instead.
8
Sadly, I see the two things as the same.
1
What would that look like, please?
1
The Times is needlessly snarky in articles about trump, bringing in unrelated or loosely related offenses. The writing on trump drips with contempt. What Trump does stands on it's own as contemptible, applying spin weakens the case.
Am I wrong to state that you changed the basic structure of different contents, since World News start on page 3 not on top first page , as you prefer to publish many excellent essays covering highly actual topics of a magazine but a reader like myself expects to get the main world news on front and second and third page as usual in other continental papers
in short you offer a melange which delays for a standard reader the lecture of main news.
This leads me to start daily with the Financial Times and be informed as expected and then only optionally to contiune with other diversified topics
speaking of FT I may state that it renders a strictly neutral opinion British style like the BBC, whereas your paper over 80 -90 % is a Trump bashing paper, Paul Krugmann is of course the hero of Trump bashing
FT renders indeed a balanced opinion and I regret to claim that your paper is far away from neutrality
these comments shall not stop me to read the NYT but maybe you agree with some of my comments
Teodor Garabet
4
I love the NYT for what it is and what it stands for. Good luck.
3
I truly enjoyed Mr Sulzberger's letter to readers, however my main question is why the the publisher role at the Times is handed down to generation after generation of Ochs-Sulzberger family members. What was the search process for the role? Why is Mr Sulzberger the best person for the job? Again, not doubting Mr Sulzberger's credentials as a journalist as I've enjoyed his writing in the Times for years, but the whole process of installing a new publisher seems very opaque as a reader.
3
Please avoid false equivalencies of the type that contributed to the election of the completely inappropriate Donald Trump. There are quite a few comments that suggest that the Times is allied with the Democratic Party or the left. This is complete poppycock.
The values of equality, truth about the environment, scientific based evidence, an educated electorate, truth rather than lies, a functioning government, diplomacy rather than bluster, nonpartisan ratings of health care and tax initiatives, ARE NOT one sided in their reporting by the TIMES.
PLEASE don't change so that you have to represent the views of the now radical GOP as anything but what they are....destroying our country.
7
Could you, PLEASE, include intelligent conservatives on the editorial staff? I'm not a conservative myself, and although you might describe David Brooks (who, like me, is a thoughtful centrist) as your token conservative, he does not represent real traditionalist perspective. The paper feels like an out of touch seriously lopsided ivory tower that's about to topple. I think the likes of George Will, featured more often, would do a great paper a lot of good.
5
What do you think Brett Stevens is? (Sp?)
Happy New Year, Arthur. How things change. Waay back when, you would have been called Adolph, instead. I like Arthur, for today.
I do not like the column Race Matters, because it portends to dabble in fantasy. There is no bio, nor genetic marker to support the existence of RACE - that is separate races. It is a man made concept that only needs to be mentioned to send chills up people's spines or unlock the savage beast of anger. Why do it?
NO MORE!
Best Wishes, to you. I envy you.
5
a small point, but as mr Sulzberger said in this piece....the nyt has moved from covering a city to being read around the world. wouldn't it be a good idea to give distances and weights in metric and imperial since that's what the rest of the world uses metric.
3
Dear Mr. Sulzberger,
As a long time print subscriber (and also an internet subscriber), I would like to congratulate the NYT’s for reaching out to your su bscriber base to request our help in sponsoring subscriptions for schools and students. Not only has your audience expanded, you are penetrating the youth market that sorely needs to ‘read’ the news from such an impeccable source as your paper.
Please continue to solicite my help in broadening your subscription base.
Regards, George
4
The NYT is the most intelligent, deeply talented and conscientious news organization in the world. And that's not "truthful exaggeration" (lying) but verifiable. Yet, when the well connected investigative journalists on staff spend weeks, sometimes months on an important story and break their findings, all that is required to neutralize the story is to have an oversized man-child of advanced years scream: "Fake News! Fake News! Fake News!" This lumbering, ignorant, non-reader considers "The National Enquirer" and Fox News to be "real news." Fox recently had an "expert" guest who revealed that the FBI was planning to assassinate the president of the United States. Of course, the Enquirer, which declared "Trump Must Be Prez!" and "Trump's War on Dictators" and "World War 3 is Coming!" should have won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, according to our president. For the life of me, I cannot imagine how the NYT is ever going to win The War on Stupid! But, God willing (Inshallah), our latest Sulzberger will find a way!
2
I'm sure you've read the Washington Posts recent article of your misrepresentation of the Russia/Trump investigation as we'll a state the Columbia Journalusm Review's study of your reporting during the 2016 campaign. In light of these troubling reports of the NYT's skewed and innacurate reporting, what changes are you making to your investigative reporting? Your decisions of what to report and why? And what mechanisms you are putting in place to allow you to see accurately what kinds of stories you are producing and why? If you want to be like fox, have at it but at least be honest about it. One of your last articles on them Mueller investigation would have fit in nicely with their world view.
4
I have seen a number of recent articles which seem to me to be "normalizing" 45. He has shown us, perhaps more clearly that we knew, that much of what we thought to be settled doctrine, law, custom is indeed not settled, not doctrine, not law and not even customary. He lies, he blusters, he babbles. His recent "interview" from his vacation home was astonishingly vapid, but no one at the Times seemed to notice. His notion of "taxes," that he knew taxes better than the greatest CPA, "associations." (which don't exist). Etc. (Fortunately, the Post did a really good analysis of the interview!) Please, don't normalize this monster.
42
Real journalism and honest media outlets cannot allow #45 and his absurd interviews and pronouncments by twitter to go unchallenged. True journalism should be the voice of the people when no one in power listens. Dan is correct.
5
Mr. Sulzberger
Thank you. Thank you for your letter and thank you for what has been contributed by the N.Y. Times and you plan to continue contributing to our society.
6
The statement sounds good. But if it is to be lived up to, the first thing that must be acknowledged is that the NYT has not lived up to Ochs's vision on either count, news or opinion, for a long time. It has been overwhelmingly partial to the Democratic Party and the Left, and has featured heavily left-skewed opinion. Everyone knows that, and the readership mirrors the paper.
12
What some chose to see as partiality to the Left. seems to many, many of us as partiality to the truth and a disdain for lies. I have known many thoughtful and concerned republicans in my 75 years. But today's Right, Alt-Right, Nationalists, and those writing and speeking to them and on their behalf are neither thoughtful nor concerned for our collective well being. False equivolency is not deserving of serious coverage, except to point out it's factual shortcomings. I trust The New York Times to try to do this.
With Trump telling over 1000 blatant documented lies in less a year, and Obama telling 18 lies in 8 years, I would hope the NYT leans to the truth more often. The truth is not LEFT or RIGHT, but Trump voters think true statements are biased and a liberal conspiracy. The only think true about Trump are the first 3 letters of his last name. But the Depublicans ( typo intended) and conservatives are blind to many truths.
1
That may be an opinion of one whose views diverge from "truth, justice, and the American way" (I know that you will insist on your Americanism, but).
You may believe that "trickle down economics" by whatever is the current name. really works. But no reputable economist believes that is so. That is why President Bush had to enact a large tax increase to offset President Reagan's massive tax cut.
The fact is, saying is doesn't make it so. Virtually all tests of Republican ideas of government have failed the reality test. So when The Times reports on these experimental data, it is distressing to those who would like to suppose that that Republican theories are correct. And they (you) blame the messenger (The Times). But the FACT is the problem is your incorrect ideas and The Times is merely reflecting reality. One that you don't like.
2
My 3 main criticisms of the otherwise fantastic journalism by the nyt:
1. I strongly advocate independent journalism, that independence is sometimes lost by the nyt too strongly aligning itself w the Democratic agenda, which is a different agenda than the liberal progressive or humanist agenda. I d like to see stronger independence from all political agendas, be it Republican, Democratic, Israeli, or American.
2. I miss insights into minority issues at the nyt, like the black social issues beyond racism, as portrayed by black artists in the movies moonlight or fences, and would love to see more micro reports from minorities from black, Hispanic, Midwestern, southern, chinese, Korean, w more emphasis on ethnicity than race.
3. I miss environmental reporting, the greatest social economical issue of our time.
23
Thank you to the Times for all that you do! She's a gray old lady, treat her well Mr. Sulzberger.
8
You don't know how important you are to those of us living in backwater areas without local journalists. I often wonder, however, if those who are suspect of the Times' impartiality aren't really talking about the preponderance of Opinion writers, who are mostly progessive and largely anti Trump. I wonder if you really need so much Opinion or if there isn't a way to downplay it online where it seems to be emphasized, not just confined as it is the printed paper. For what it's worth, i think the excellent and indepth journalism is where you shine. The truth is compelling in these times!
12
Thank you for your letter, Mr Sultzberger. The value of investigative journalism is precious these days. My state has only one independent news publication running on a shoe-string budget (and 4 staff) to investigate and report on our blatantly corrupt state legislature and their corporate cronies. Talk about David versus Goliath.
6
I give the NYT one of the highest compliments possible:
I subscribe.
That said, I was concerned by the NYT tilt for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
I think the solution to hiring the wrong public editor was to replace them with someone better, not abolish the position.
Finally, I was a little disappointed that letter talked so little about the financial realities of navigating a paper in this day and age. I'd like to see some discussion of this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/new-york-times-company-2q-ea...
4
Since the NYT is the most important paper in N. America, and since N. America is the most important ally of Israel, I follow the NYT reporting on Israel closely for over 10 years now. Today it is possisble to read OpEd's in the NYT that are somewhat critical of zionism and Israel, but serious and fundamental criticism still seems too dangerous . Israel is a constant threat to security, and a major cause for violence in the world. I would hope that voices strongly critical of Israels political practice, its justifications, and its State funded propaganda efforts will receive more opportunity to get heard in the pages of the NYTimes. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz could be an example.
17
I hope you are able to bring The New York Times back to the center because it seems to champion one side of political ideology and discredit the other.
12
Thank you, A.G. Sulzberger. The New York Times is the paper I have long trusted and its integrity is one I have as long presented to students and relatives and coworkers. Read it best, read it here. CBS wears a gold ring, also; one as firm on the finger in devotion to impartiality as the NY Times. They stream a desk on Hulu. It's pretty good. The Times cannot be for that platform though, but if it could ditch fashion and its barren objectification I would actually wear the New York Times. London's Independent, when I last lived there, was the photojournalists truest dream and revelation. What the New York Times delivers in black and white provides more presence of place. I trust you will keep it up.
2
My congratulations, Mr. Sulzberger. You hold a heavy weight in your hands and a responsibility that touches millions of people in countries throughout the globe. Don’t let malevolent forces shake your resolve. Be fearless. Be fair. And most importantly…………..enjoy what you do. Long live truth, faith, and The New York Times.
14
I’m a reader and supporter of the NYT and I believe this is consistent with your statement as the new editor.
“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope….
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle…. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
“There is never time in the future in which we will work out our salvation. The challenge is in the moment; the time is always now.” James A. Baldwin
“Dissent... is a right essential to any concept of the dignity and freedom of the individual; it is essential to the search for truth in a world wherein no authority is infallible.” Norman Thomas
“It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” Harvey Milk
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington
“We recognize our own mortality, and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame – but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in bettering the lives of others.” President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. January 12, 2011
5
For the past 2 years or so, I have seen a decline in inviting writers with the opposite vews, specially in politics (need to hear the reasoning of those who support Republicans and Trump), pro-catholic church, etc. The Times has become in my opinion biased and I have to get the other view from other sources to achieve a more balanced and well informed opinion.
10
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You are a beacon in a dark world.
6
Wishing The Times a strong renewed continuation of its authentic vision.
Please invest deeply in Venezuela. It is falling apart with extreme suffering for its once happy and proud people. They are in our backyard and China and the Kremlin are holding the cards there. Chavismo has destroyed Latin America's model democracy through populism, division and seeding hatred. While the parallels only go so far, there's a lot to learn from what has happened in Venezuela this last 20 years.
Best of success.
Your work matters immensely.
Chris.-
3
Dear Mr. Sulzbeger,
I salute your continued efforts to be true to the facts. Although from Canada. I read the Times every day, as I find it one of the best resources for news in a time when the "News" seems to be whatever one wants it to be.
Please keep on digging and reporting.
3
Dear Arthur,
After Trump was elected, I immediately signed up to The Times because I felt betrayed by the various easy sources of news I have had access to.
I felt that the cookies on my Google search, Facebook news feed and other sources of info I used to get online have shown me a mirror of my own thoughts and opinions. I realized that I have been living in an information bubble. I thought the world was open minded and global. People were liberal and human rights are everyone's concern. And then Trump got elected and this is when I felt deeply betrayed by myself and by the "cookies".
My anger lasted few months. Afterwards I signed up to The Times aiming for exactly what your vision is; responsible journalism. In addition, I started purchasing hard copies of random magazines and newspapers so that I am no longer a victim of "cookies".
I do not have a question per se but a request that The Times keep shocking us with facts and realities that are not common and to keep us on our toes mentally.
Thank you!
8
Dear Mr. Sulzberger,
Thank you for your inspiring editorial. You have set some difficult goals for yourself and your reporters.
Toning down the clickbait nature of some of the NYT recent headlines and delivering more accurate coverage, especially about science, will be important to your credibility.
I shared the stage with one of your reporters at a recent conference. The reporter said that in order to get accurate coverage of exciting science news, a reporter should ask the scientist(s) being highlighted to provide names of respected scientists who would disagree with the finding or its importance, and then talk to those people (any scientist at the cutting edge who can't think of names of such people should be suspect).
I hope that you will insist on this behavior from your reporters. Sometimes it might take the shine off a story or kill a story, but when the NYT reporters have not done that, the NYT has propagated misinformation, and it thereby loses credibility.
I wish you great strength and luck in achieving your goals.
Fred
6
On Journalists writing as newsmakers or opinion writers: I frequently see news articles (not presented as opinion or news analysis), which cite such things, to paraphrase, “widespread uproar,” or “controversial,” when they appear to be basing those adjectives on the fact that other media sources, or your own, or sources with potential bias, are the ones generating that “uproar” in the first place. In the interest of good journalism, I think it is critical to your writers cite openly when such terms are based upon a media narrative or coverage which originated within the media itself vs. outside of it. I also frequently see supposedly news articles (not presented as opinion or news analysis), such as about President Trump or Republicans, which cite such things as, to paraphrase: “humiliating defeat” on the healthcare repeal. “Humiliating” is an editorial characterization which I think goes beyond the standards of objective journalism. Terms like “very significant,” “major,” or similar seem far more appropriate. Also why the disappearance of traditional Who, What, Where, When, Why, How: Journalism 101 courses taught this was the way that all articles should begin as a useful way to sum up a column if one cannot read the entire piece. It also establishes clear emphasis on facts, not opinion. However, it seems that too many articles no longer include this approach, and I don’t know why. I don’t think it improves readability for the purpose of news.
16
Sumguy, I love it. So true.
1
I applaud this message -- and I needed it. As a former college newspaper editor, journalism teacher and publications advisor (and way long ago, day-tripper with classes to the New York Times as the epitomy of excellence), and a long time freelance writer and editor, I'm re-energized and hopeful because of what is said here.
Now: one tiny but key quibble, which would make my reading and sharing the NYTimes easier: please, Mr. Sulzberger, authorize a return to the former way of sharing NYTimes stories, wherein the recipient's name was typed in, the option existed for the sender to get a copy too, and the process was easy. Of late, that process has been changed to one my computer system can't work with so I'm forced to copy and paste links and jump back and forth between the online Times and my email.
Per your statement here, I wish you great success as publisher! That can only be good for the rest of us.
3
That's only going to work if you're using the default email program that came installed on your computer - usually Outlook Express - and I don't think the Times can do anything about that. I could be wrong - maybe google will get around to making that work for everyone using gmail, I don't know.
I am happy to see that you intend to continue the spirit of fierce independence of your publication. I applaud the sentiment.
I also am in agreement that particular topics need to be covered by people who have expertise in the subject matter. Your quote that “We will continue to infuse our journalism with expertise by having lawyers cover law, doctors cover health and veterans cover war.” concerns me, however. When lawyers cover law, then the people who end up being affected by the law don’t get the proper voice. Same with doctors covering medicine ignoring the patients and veterans covering war glossing over the effects on the non-military population.
I am quite sure that you don’t actually intend for the scenario I am laying out to occur, but the quote probably skews your actual intentions in an unintended manner. Infusing journalism with expertise, though necessarily including those experts you mention, also includes others. For example, I would assert that laws relating to controlling pollutants should absolutely include perspective from environmental experts; laws relating to taxation should include economists’ views. I am certain you understand what I mean and am further certain that your intention is generally along the lines of what I am espousing.
Your enemies, of which there are many and many of whom are powerful, could twist your statement into appearing elitist or condescending. There is no need to give them more ammunition than they already have!
3
Mr. Sulzberger,
Thank you for your words. As trust in the press declines, what are some concrete steps that the Times will be taking in order to combat the decline?
Also, non-partisanship -- will we see a greater diversity of voices represented in the Times?
2
Mr. Sulzberger,
Thank you for sharing your approach to journalism and the NYT philosophy and mission.
I am concerned in this era of Big Corporations, and how they control so much of our media, such as Mr. Murdock's hold on Fox Broadcasting, etc.
I see truth in journalism eroding, day by day. It seems at times that truth is no longer a requirement in journalism / media and this is precipitated in the highest levels of our government and corporate offices as well.
Misinformation is certainly rising and truth in the media is declining. Knowing this, how can you then state that "the hard work of original reporting is eroding, forcing news organizations of all shapes and sizes to cut their reporting staffs.." ? Shouldn't the pendulum swing in the other direction, and the staffing increase? Yes, I realize the "business model" has to support a profit, but at the expense of the truth?
I respectfully state that I also believe the important work of a publication like the NYT should be to significantly report the important stories and messages of the era. What percentage of the Times reporting is "invested" in sports, the arts, books, movies, music compared to technology, business, education, politics, etc? All topics are necessary for the NYT to carry, yet a focus on key topics is essential.
As William Shakespeare stated, "No legacy is so rich as honesty", and Thomas Jefferson stated, "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom". My best wishes as Publisher.
2
Mr. Suzberger,
I read you note as the new publisher this morning with cautious optimism. Regardless of the format it is my fear that journalism, where opinions are restricted to the “Opinion/Letters to the Editor/Editorial” page and not presented as factual news is a thing of the past.
I was disappointed in the months leading up to the 2016 Presidential election and for several months after it, is appeared to me that journalism was ignored and there was a relentless effort to discredit Donald Trump. This seems to have subsided in the past couple of months and I applaud the Times. Regardless of who I support I want to feel I am reading or hearing fact based reporting, where it reflects positively or negatively.
Unfortunately, I do not feel confident with the daily news I hear from either CNN or Fox. They only seem to be furthering their agenda or increasing their ratings.
Many Americans share my opinion that we didn’t have much of a choice in November of 2016. The fact is that those individuals who are truly qualified and who we need to lead our country will most likely never come forth because the media will report their past mistakes, as a rule, in the most negative way possible. I was brought up with the belief that you learn from your mistakes and it makes you better. This holds true for leaders.
Finally I wish you the best of luck and hope that you are able to hold to the lofty goals in you note this morning!
5
Trump deserved all the discrediting that could be brought to bear, as his hideous record so far as president has proven. He lies constantly, and those lies deserve to be flagged. He has a wretched and dishonest history as a businessman, and his habits have continued into office. Of COURSE the TIMES should report past mistakes, especially when they aren't simply individual errors but show a consistent pattern of fraud and callousness.
6
Oh, please. Even Trump can be over-reported especially when there is a clear agenda to drag him down. He does that pretty well himself and doesn't need the newspaper's help. The NY Times loses credibility when it hammers certain themes, personalities and political agendas into the ground.
Thank you for your post and for your commitment to the future. Giving such a stability to the free press in our Republic, now today, is very positive contribution to our world. Please take care of yourself, all in your personal and professional family. I for one of many will send good thoughts each day I read the masthead and content of your/our New York Times.
3
Great reinforcement of the newspaper commitment. What I'm not reading is how the press will deal with the enormity of deliberate misinformation, press briefing abuse by the administration and demonizing of the press. Curtailing misinformation is a tall order that can no longer be ignored.
9
Is there anyone who believes that mainstream journalism isn't aware of the effects of mass psychology. Is there anyone who believes that mainstream journalism isn't aware of the effects of sensationalism, (especially in journalism) meaning the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement (making money at the expense of societal balance). Realizing that 6 people own 90% of all forms of media and those 6 people use their forms of media to manipulate the people of this country into actions that are against the very fabric of this nation and the very lives they are living, is there anyone who believes that journalism has any real concern for life in general,... that journalism's actions are based on righteous...morally right or justifiable; virtuous intent or it strictly materialistic greed that drives them. It is obvious that journalism hasn't forgotten it's responsibility as the fourth pillar of our democracy... it just doesn't give a damn unless it makes a buck... good old fashioned blood money. Journalism should be working, in concert, to uncover the truth from the darkest corners of the realm about anyone or anything that wishes to do harm to not just this nation but to our fellow living beings on this dwindling planet. Otherwise your last paper headlines will be, "BUT LOOK AT ALL OF THE MONEY WE MADE BEFORE WE DIED"... GAME OVER.
Become the Oracle, not one of the Four Horsemen.
2
Thank you, Mr. Sulzberger, for your great introductory letter. As a second time subscriber who lives in Virginia, I am enjoying the new digital access feature that was not available the first go round when I lived in Long Island about 15 years ago and was a in-game subscriber.
I would like to suggest less news about the every movement of the current president and more in-depth news about world affairs, such as the plight of the Rohingya and the Cholera outbreak in Yemen. I also would like more focus on regional news within the US such as what is going on with voter suppression in the deep South as well as the confederate monument relocation and/or take down movements.
Thanks for your request for feedback and have a great day.
6
Mr. Sulzberger, thank you for your letter. I am a journalist myself and share the values you describe. However, I write to suggest you attend to a business matter: the chaos of the Times' subscription fulfillment operations. Apparently your efforts to adapt the Times to the digital age have been successful in attracting new subscribers. I'm happy to hear that, because I recognize how difficult it has been to navigate the changing financial realities of the news business (changes that have affected my own economic welfare). The problem is that fulfillment of Times subscriptions appears to be in a state of breakdown. My wife and I recently had to make at least 15 phone calls and to send at least as many emails to your customer service represenatives to try to straighten out interruptions in our digital and weekend home deliveries, this after decades of subscribing without incident. The representatives we spoke with were unfailingly polite and apologetic, but also consistently unsuccessful in restoring our service. We have friends and relatives who report similar disruptions. If I had not been such a dedicated reader of the Times and a believer in the importance of its mission, I would have cancelled our subscription long ago; fortunately, at long last it appears our access and deliveries seem to have been restored. While you're pursuing the Times tradition of great journalism, I hope you will assign someone to address this shoddy treatment of those who are paying for it.
6
A succinct and clear grasp of your role and the one the founding fathers intended for the press over 200 years ago. Delighted to see that integrity, trust and respect still matter in some quarters of the nation and that some are willing to stand up publicly for their beliefs. Sometimes it is just a few lonely voices that can turn the tide in moments of darkness.
11
Mr. Sulzberger,
The Times does great reporting on many issues, and I want to point out that the Times photographers do great work. For example, the photos of the recent hurricanes and fires in California were outstanding. But there are a few critiques that come to mind:
If Bernie Sanders makes a presidential run in 2020, please please please do not undermine his candidacy as the Times did in 2016. The biased reporting was disappointing to say the least.
There are certain issues like the TPP that are underreported because it serves corporate interests to not fully explain the harm that the agreement would do to workers' wages and safety, the environment, public health, made in America products, and much more.
The Times' constant focus on Russia's influence in the 2016 election is baffling as there's no evidence for making such a claim. Analysts from three agencies were handpicked to say things like "we believe" and the like, which indicates they have no proof. Bill Binney (NSA), Ray McGovern (CIA), Coleen Rowley (FBI), and other former intelligence officers from the group Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have written numerous articles during the past year saying there's no there there. An excellent interview from The Real News discussing Guardian reporter Luke Harding's book "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win."
Where's the Collusion?
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20761:Where%27s-the-%27Collusion%27%3F
6
Mr. Sulzberger,
Your letter inspires me this morning, and your reiteration of the long ago statement of intent, awakens a kind of need to believe everything in it, His vision for the news report:
“to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.”
His vision for the opinion report:
“to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”"
I wish you the best, as you seek to stand by those critical promises, and even though my trust in much has been shaken, especially this last year, I believe you intend to carry on the vision.
18
I appreciated your letter published yesterday that outlined your vision for the New York Times and the value you’ll put on journalistic integrity and in depth reporting.
I was surprised that there was no mention of upholding the quality of writing that I believe has historically made the NYT not just a standard bearer of journalism, but of the English language. In the last year I’ve noticed the writing style change; it’s become more colloquial and more conversational. Do you intend to continue this trend? I for one, hope you raise the bar and let it be lowered.
4
Instead of the "Smarter Living" section, why doesn't the Times do a series of "Smart Journalism" articles, detailing how news gets made, how sources are checked, so it is more transparent for the public to see how articles are researched, fact-checked, etc. A good start is the little article about how the journalist got the impromptu interview with Trump. I think that would help combat the whole fake news thing.
52
I'm no Mr Sulzberger here, but you can find The Times' behind the scenes stuff in the "Times Insider". It's an interesting feature where you can see how the journalists approach to their story. Mr Schmidt actually wrote how he got the one-on-one with Trump. My personal favourite are when photographers tell their stories. But yeah, other ideas you mentioned are also welcomed addition to the feature.
1
Because then they wouldn't be able to direct people to the sweettooth, or whatever that thing is that they have invested so much money in.
1
Mr. Sulzberger, I have read your "Note from the Publisher." You have done more to calm my anxiety about our government and our society than any politician or commentator. Sometimes it feels as though the fabric of our democracy is unraveling but your words convince me that the Times will help weave us back together. Thank you for your commitment to your grandfather's vision. R Veenker, Supply NC
11
Great statement of purpose. Good luck!
....
My only suggestion is that the Times needs to "open the doors" to the offices, let people see how the news is put together - through explanatory articles, bios, and video. It helps to see the faces behind the news.
7
Dear Mr. Salzburger,
Congratulations! Quick suggestion: can you bring back the public editor? We really enjoyed Ms. Sullivan's work (and maybe not so much of Ms. Spayz's).
Thank you!
25
UJS -
In other words you enjoy criticism and commentary which validates your own political views, but not which challenge you to see things from a different perspective.
1
Thank you for your reassuring words, that under your guidance and vision, the New York Times reporters and all your dedicated workers are committed to the truth and facts when reporting the news.
8
You might consider a "new" and have the Times return to the days of yore. Publish a paper that has a sense of balance in the columns and throughout the paper.
Jim in Illinois
2
Does your belief in freedom of the press in the US Constitution extend to the rested the tenets Theron?
?? What does this mean ??
3
Why has the Times decided that mixing news articles with opinion pieces in the “Top Stories” section is a good idea? In these times of “Fake news” I think that it’s more important than ever to maintain this distinction.
46
How is it mixed? The opinion section is clearly on the upper right corner. It might do well with a bolder line below it, but it doesn't take a genius to see the border.
3
I don't have a question , I have a comment.
As an immigrant i will say that the NYT has always been for me a sentiment of stability and universal value , I know that I can count on the reporting when everything else is slipping away , I may disagree with some journalist point of view , but I guess this is what democracy and life in a society means.
I found this overture from our publisher this morning refreshing and I again will have a better day knowing that the New York Times is committed to the truth, merci.
8
In your remarks, Dominique, I think you hit on problem that many people have with presentations in today's Times...
"...I may disagree with some journalist point of view...."
Journalist in news pieces should not be expressing a point of view; they should be presenting the "who, what, where, and when". The "why" should be left to the opinion pages.
3
Mr. Sulzberger,
It’s strange, but my family has trusted The Times for many generations. I feel like saying “welcome to the most important post in “our” newspaper, the one in which we have placed our trust as our prime source for insight-filled, honest coverage of the world, nation and region we live in.
We trust the Times as our chief representative in the republic of the 4th Estate. As with any form of republic, we know we cannot be present everywhere in the world, and have elected the Times news staff as our main source of truth, facts and analysis.
The fallacy that has empowered the easily corrupted social media” is the populist faith that an untrained group of self-appointed gossipers can replace your staff in providing insight without fear or favor.
I learned last month that the lesson of the 2016 election proved the frightening need for honest gatekeepers. You are now the most powerful gatekeeper in the land.
During last month’s Alabama Senate election: as I watched your live coverage, based on exit polls and sophisticated data analysis, watched the impending doom of an outwardly theocratic Southern Populist.
My wife, untrained in the ways of newspapering, rushed in to tell me AP was reporting Doug Jones was under arrest, caught smoking dope with a minor.
A bomb placed by a Facebook digital terrorist, aimed South had hit, via a close friend in Toronto. How? She, like others in its path knew he wouldn’t lie, so checking further was unnecessary!
-more if OK’d-
8
Why was the Public Editor position eliminated? Why was Dean Baquet the only Times person who commented on it, when it was a position that putatively did not report to him?
Will the Times either make reporters adhere to its explicit standards for the use of anonymous sourcing (my preference), or change its policy to conform to the content of its pages?
22
Do you honestly feel that your publication is indepentant and entirely objective? I’m a long time subscriber who would love to hear your thoughts...
13
In this era of deregulation, how will the New York Times protect the health, welfare and pocketbook of its readers?
3
Will the Nyt become less partisan under your tenure?
12
It would be awesome of they addressed Trump's profiteering, the breaking of the Emoluments clause, his dementia and his astounding unpopularity during a good economy. His destroying of regulations that protect the poor and the sick, his constant lying, etc. I'm tired of them normalizing this disaster that's been hitting the USA for the past 13 months.
4
alexgri,
Yours is the most important question. Thank you for asking it.
Mr. Sulzberger,
Errors will occur even with the best of journalistic verification, editorial oversight and proofing. In the current environment when the lords of fake news are trying to make liars of the press any error can be blown into a big issue.
With that in mind, I would ask that the corrections be place at the top of the front page where they will be readily seen by everyone. In both the print and digital versions the most important corrections can be spell out there with other lesser corrections can be found in a link to a chronological archive on the digital portal or the remaining daily corrections on a later page of the print version.
By noting your errors and putting the corrections front and center you would deny those who like to claim your bias of fodder to through out at their followers. This will also allow readers to see corrections to articles that they would likely not revisit on the digital portal as those are often appended to the end of the related article or opinion.
We are all human. We all make mistakes. What sets us apart is how we acknowledge, or ignore, those errors.
38
I agree and would also add that, although everyone makes mistakes, it is very important in this fast news/digital age that the Times takes its time to thoroughly fact-check things before posting/printing them. I'm sure it's difficult to do in our fast-paced world, but I have seen some whoppers of corrections in the Times' pages. Thank you.
Bravo Mr. Salzberger. My daughter-in-law in Seattle but me and Online subscription to New York Times and at first I was a little bit indecisive but now it is the First Source I turn to. Keep up the good work because there are people in Washington who do not want us to know the truth.
6
Great conviction, yes. Consider the alternatives, yes. Now more than ever, yes. I need The NY Times, yes. Thank you.
5
You might look at The Guardian. It is a worthy alternative. For me, an "older" reader, it's easier to read , more attractive.
3
Thanks for reminding us what is real and trustworthy.
Your success is a key to our county’s moral authority.
16
Thanks for your commitment to the truth. I also want to to compliment The Times for experimenting with new ways to communicate the news and I hope you will continue this effort.
4
I got tears in my eyes reading this as it gives me hope for the future. Something that's in short supply these days.
5
Thank you for starting 2018 off with sanity and intelligence, for real news, and for leaving Trump out of ‘Top Stories’ today. He should spend more time on page 2 more frequently.
22
Or, even better, page 20 in very small print.
1
Thank you for your commitment. We need The New York Times today more than ever.
8
Congratulations on your new job Mr. Sulzberger.
This is a comment instead of a question. I am an avid reader of the Times, I must say that I am growing dismayed with too many articles about our current president in the top stories. Enough.
There is too much else going on in the world to have so many top stories on him and his every tweet and antic. Top stories section is valuable space. How about climate change and what individuals can do. How about the importance of voting for anyone but just doing so? How does one get the required ID for a state looking to suppress voters. My list goes on.
More conservative writers or interviews with more conservative viewpoints are needed so as to reach out beyond the liberal following of the Times. The series where issues are rehashed by the right, left and middle is interesting.
I do believe it was all front page mentions from all the news outlets that got him elected (along with Russia of course and his campaigning to the electoral college vote.). Put him in the political section and focus on the news about the rest of the world and US.
2
Now more than ever we citizens of the USA need the Times to pursue fearlessly the truth of our current governmental affairs and to counterbalance intelligently the current corruption of language. It lifts my spirit in hope for the future to read the commitment of Mr. Sulzberger.
4
The New York Times is my favorite institution, of any kind, in the world. I wouldn't know what I know, or think what I think, or even be me without it. Let the truth be told about every topic under the sun, or beyond it. Let freedom ring. A.G., I wish you well as you pick up the baton and run with it. Let the marathon never end.
5
I wish you well, Mr. Sulzberger. Time will tell what kind of era you will preside over, but indications are it will be a doozy. Your statement reflects your commitment to your family's vision of integrity and resourcefulness, qualities that transcend the challenges of politics and technology. May you continue the tradition of the dear Gray Lady by making history in the best of all ways.
7
Please avoid tabloid headlines. An egregios recent example was the December 2017 story about Peter Metins, head of the New York City Ballet who was charged by ballet members (male and female) with physical abuse while angry. Your headline sqid he was accused of sexual harassment.
The NYTimes is a wonderful source of information on most aspects of human activities. I have few complains about most subjects, perhaps because I don't fully know much about them. The only section dealing with something I know something about is the SCIENCE TIMES. In case you are not aware of, the sciences are in crisis for a number of reasons, and biomedicine is probably the most affected. If it is true that you print all the news worth printing, your people at that section are either unaware of what's going on or are purposely avoiding the subject. Much can be said about this topic and neither specialized scientific journals like SCIENCE or NATURE, nor the WP or The Guardian are addressing the subject in all its dimensions. Your readership and the rest of us will certainly benefit from opening that "can of worms". Why don't you and the NYT make 2018 the year of enlightenment in the sciences?
22
I don't think the billboard size photos that interrupt the flow of the text online are helpful. If you think a photo is needed, insert a smaller one in the sidebar position. Often the big photo seems gratuitous, not germane, just a gimmick.
8
Every sense of journalism has been in crisis and thus now is carrying commercial ads in the form of journalistic reports. BBC, YAHOO, WP and almost all newspapers and broadcasters are becoming the mouthpiece of commercialism. If economic reality can justify such phenomena, they must be clearly and conspicuously marked and distinguished from those from reporters. Otherwise, most readers may be confused and misled. Simple heading or marks in light color are not enough. Journalists and broadcasters should set the standard for clear distinction urgently.
1
No form below on my ipad to ask questions. (Not a good start!)
I'd like to ask that there be more editing of articles online, as they begin to feel repetitive and padded at times, while trying to keep up with incoming news. For example, in an article on the possible good effects on business of loosening regulations under Trump, about half could have been cut and the writing tightened. Thank you for any replies here.
2
WHY? is the question that the Mainstream media never refers to the Philosophy of John Stuart Mill who wrote from the 1720s to the 176os on Philosophy/Economics - on Progressive Liberalism in Government, where he clearly states that it is OK to dislike your Government as long as "You do No HARM TO OTHERS.
We currently have a Government in power who do harm to the masses of the Common Man in America. Led by a President who is just driven by Transactions and a Republican Party which controls both houses of Congress and backs the most egregious Policies we have seen in our entire Democratic Society?
2