I note that you mentioned that you employ staff who are experts in countless fields! I further note, that you don’t mention any expert in the field of Teaching!
Your editorials in that educational field constantly bear that out.
1
Thank you so very much for keeping these comments open. I would like to try to explain once again disappointment with 2016 election coverage
In response to Heather, you provided an example of policy coverage :
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/politics/economic-plan-is-a-quanda...
But this is what was wrong. This article implies:
1) Clinton has no core beliefs
2) She is constructing an economic policy to appeal to Democratic primary voters upset about income distribution
3) But, she can't alienate her Wall Street donors.
The focus of the reporting is on the campaign not on governance--so the better marketer beats the nuanced policy wonk, and the policy wonk is a "bad candidate," thus separating what is needed to campaign from what is needed to govern---but we are choosing someone to govern so isn't the flaw with the reporters who cover the campaign rather than the proposed policies?
This is what we are looking for (every day! there are so many issues to address):
1) here is an economic problem (e.g. lack of employment in former mining communities). (perhaps arising in a voter's rope line question)
2) here is the candidate's proposed solution to this problem
3) here is the assessment of experts (not political spinners but people with experience confronting the problem) and how they would alter/fix the proposed solution if they feel it falls short
4) Here is the candidate's reply to any criticism/suggestions expressed by experts in #3.
1
I see that Mr. Sulzberger won't be addressing the NYT's own dissemination of fake news--he just pretends it's everyone else's doing.
But the Times for much of 2017 published fake news regards Russia/Trump nearly daily.
Then then there was the astounding fake news of January 2015 that the Times has not recovered from: "There was no coup in Ukraine in February 2014" still, 3 years later, reads like a National Socialist article in Germany 1939.
1
Here's my question: Why do you not allow reader comments on most of your stories and columns?
3
sounds good and I wish you the best. but I have read as the times has botched stories as Iraq, Lance Armstrong, the last election and Cheney's shooting of a "friend."
Your mistakes have a lot to do with your perspective:
U R East coast Intelligencia. PC to a fault. The NYT needs diversity of opinions.
Earth to Times -- You may want to direct the world to a better place but it's too big to comprehend from NYC, so stop assuming apriori that you do and begin questioning more…
As a reporter, it took me 2 years to discover that Lance was doping, but your man SAbt covered up for him for 14 years.
As a historian, I knew that Perle and Wolfowitz were joined at the hip with the worst senator in American history, Henry Scoop Jackson, so their judgment on an Iraq invasion was most probably wrong, too. Jackson, as you may not know, wanted American troops in Vietnam in '58 and wasn't for withdrawal until '74, when eyeing the California presidential primary.
And during the Democratic primaries there was not one columnist out of a dozen on your paper who ever took Bernie Sanders' side -- how can that be? It looks like the drift of party line. (Mill, Tocqueville) Hillary makes him her vp and she wins. … but like in her endorsement of the Iraq invasion, (like you) her intelligence was overrated
As for Cheney's shooting. You got the wrong ranch, weapon, range and damage. Rove played you.
With no hunter on staff, how would you know better?
nyt needs a jester to challenge it.
2
In your comments, you note approvingly of your reporter Sheri Fink’s experience as a physician, and how this improves her reporting. In a recent article she co-authored, which appeared prominently on your front page, Dr. Fink stated without qualification that physicians at Memorial Hospital in New Orleans, in the days after Hurricane Katrina in2005, “intentionally hastened the deaths” of their patients.
From what I have read of this story, that claim is unsubstantiated and controversial. In fact, the New Orleans district attorney, Charles Foti, was unable to convince a grand jury to indict the physician in question, Dr. Anna Pou, and thus could not prosecute the case. Foti also lost in the court of public opinion; he failed to win re-election, in part because of this case.
Importantly, your reporter Dr. Fink appears to have a financial conflict of interest, which was not disclosed. About a month before her article appeared, she apparently sold or otherwise made available her version of events to a television network (FX) which will make a docu-drama of some sort out of it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/hurricane-harvey-houston-hospitals...
I would have reported this to your Public Editor for comment, except that several months earlier you fired the public editor and closed her office.
In my opinion, if your are trying to earn the trust of readers such as myself, you need to do more. For example, you should reopen the public editor’s office.
1
I for one love reading the nyt ...the digital edition and find the coverage objective.Having said that i really need to tell your asia correspondent.. particularly the south Asian region coverages..to have facts checked and if possible rechecked
Regarding copy editing. It is indisputable that the Times’ standards for spelling, grammar and style have slipped, if I may say, bigly.
Phil Corbett used to run a very informative blog, called “After Deadline,” analyzing mistakes that made it into the paper. It appeared weekly, on Tuesdays. Corbett replaced it with an occasional series called “Copy Edit This,” which is rarer in its frequency, less educational to the reader, and less helpful.
But as for Sulzburger’s claim that “the majority of copy editors are still editing copy,” well that is too clever by half, considering that the number of copy editors was reduced from about 100 to 55. More than half are still on the job, but cutting the workforce by 45% is draconian by any standard. And Times employees, not only those being separated from the paper, took to the streets in vain protest.
https://www.poynter.org/news/new-york-times-copy-desk-top-editors-you-ha...
Sulzburger’s answer to that question is, at best, disingenuous.
3
Many commenters are unhappy about the elimination of the Public Editor position. The problem to me is that the PE columns often were just as infuriating as the issues they addressed. In other words, the Times is a great newspaper. Period. Inviting an individual to monitor its work seems silly. That's what readers do: read and comment and praise or criticize.
If all the PEs were like Margaret Sullivan, that could be a good thing, but they aren't, and several have been more annoying than helpful, and right there is the problem. We readers approve or disapprove of the PE's work, just as we do all the paper's articles/stories/columns!
Just keep improving and making the Times the best you can. It will emerge whether you have heard or paid attention to the complaints, for example about the election coverage, etc. We will always be able to comment, and if readers are really unhappy, they will unsubscribe and you probably will know why.
Sulzburger speaks of his experience in smaller, more locally oriented newspapers. When is the Times going to stop the slow motion disappearance of Metro coverage?
1
Maybe the Times should make it a bit easier or more visible to directly donate a subscription to someone like the elderly woman who wrote in to say that she had to cut hers. I think there is plenty of goodwill and more than enough people willing to buy +1. The issue would be administering such a program without too much overhead and I'm sure there is someone who has already solved that problem.
The New York Times is a newspaper for the entire world not just for American readers. That is why NYT is so unique and no other news media has achieved this status. The input should also from foreign readers too. Perhaps Mr. Sulzberger could also reach out to foreign readers. Just a thought from a foreign reader. I have been asked to write an op-ed regarding the impact of English language newspaper in Asia which should be published in a major English language newspaper in East Asia. I am retired but I enjoy reading newspapers. Lately too many critical news about Trump. Is he really that bad? I voted Hillary Clinton, but I do not hate Trump.
1
This is an example of an article published before the 2016 election that I was able to find about Trump's business deals: Thin Line Splits Donald Trump’s Politics and Businesses
By DAVID BARSTOWNOV. 5, 2016
I urge everyone to reread this article and be honest with themselves - it's a little cringe-worthy given what we now know about Trump. I do not see a single mention of Trump's foreign business entanglements.
"When either his ambitions or circumstances shift, Mr. Trump has shown himself willing to make swift and dramatic course corrections in his businesses. From the moment Mr. Trump took the reins of the real estate business his father founded, he was bent on reinvention, steering its focus away from mostly middle-class apartment projects in the other boroughs to big, splashy commercial developments in Manhattan. It is a formula Mr. Trump has returned to time and again as he has cycled through different money making personas."
I don't see the words "money laundering" anywhere in the above paragraph.
I am embarrassed for the Times. Barstow implies that Trump pere was out of the picture when Baby Trump started projects in Manhattan. 5hat is entirely untrue. In fact, when Baby Trump’s first foray into casinos in Atlantic City was foundering, Daddy Trump provided a needed, illegal injection of cash flow by buying $3 million in chips with no intent of ever using them. In fact, the casino was sanctioned for that by the NJ Gaming Commission.
Without that, there might have been a seventh bankruptcy on Baby Trump’s ledger.
Without that, there might have been a seventh bankruptcy on Baby Trump’s ledger.
4
Heather, even worse, how did the Times, after asking so many questions about the Clinton Foundation, how is it that the Times failed to ask one single question about the Trump Foundation, instead allowing itself to be scooped in its hometown by David Farenthold of the WaPo, who won a Pulitzer by exposing the Trump Foundation for the scam that it was, precipitating its demise?
1
Why always having to defend oneself/one's organization for being liberal, or having to deny it? Why is it even something that can be used to attack one's integrity? Who says conservative is any better? As a progressive myself, I am more wary of the conservative viewpoint of the world that I read and how it is implied to be correct position.
1
The old adage that facts have a well-known liberal bias seems to be in play in the liberal bias criticisms. Example: ~97% of scientists spread over the globe, who spend their professional lives collecting, analyzing and pouring over data, conclude man-influenced climate change is real.
Un-biased reporting would have 97 stories about effects and causes of climate-change for every three from contrarians. These critics want 50-50 reporting, which would be VERY biased (see opening sentence).
I feel the Times reports as factually as possible & it sounds liberal to those who deny inconvenient facts for ideological, political & financial gain.
4
First, congratulations on your new position—I wish you success in your mission to uphold the mission of the NYT.
Regarding your response to the question about the Public Editor: Your reader center is a fine thing, and allows you to hear directly from the people, as letters and comments do. However, I don’t know if it’s clear to folks within an institution just how high the virtual wall is that keeps out the greater population.
It is the nature of institutions to protect their own. What the public editor position did was to give the reader an impartial advocate within the walls of the institution with more access and more voice than they as members of the public could ever hope to have.
The fact that Margaret Sullivan or her predecessors could approach, press defend, or criticize individual reporters and editors (sometimes to the point of annoyance) in trying to clarify a decision, is vastly different from a reader having their letter or comment selected by an internal representative of the paper.
I hope you can see the difference, and that you will reconsider your decision to eliminate this position.
4
"In the new model, I’m hearing your questions directly and you’re hearing my answers directly. (As part of this process, every question submitted by readers was reviewed by editors, who selected those that captured the most common areas of interest and concern.)"
... and who were able to discard, whether they actually did so or not, the ones they didn't want to answer. A PE the calibre of a Margaret Sullivan would make sure all relevant questions are addressed. Just as important, she inspired confidence in readers that she'd do her best to hold the institution to the highest standards.
And using trump's public criticism of the Times as proof that you're under scrutiny is a straw man. He'll criticize anything that's not pro-trump. And his scrutiny is worlds apart from that of those of us who value a strong, honest and transparent press.
6
Thank you for taking the time to address readers’ questions. I think one concern that you really didn’t address is the fact that the single biggest factor driving the public’s impression that there’s “fake news” and bias out there arises because of the differences in the stories The NY Times does, or does not, report on versus outlets such as Fox News. It’s not that the reporting itself is false but rather it is in deciding which stories to report and which to ignore that you shape your reader’s opinions about which issues matter. I have repeatedly found myself stymied after reviewing Fox News website, feeling as if I were living under a rock or in another country because the stories covered there differ so substantially from those I read in The Times. I don’t blame The Times for this discrepancy but how can we reduce the mistrust of news media when people aren’t even reading about the same stories? It’s not just the reporter’s perspective but more importantly the editors choices as to what they report.
2
Although I get the sense the New York Times has given a better look at your relationships with those papers with which you share articles internationally, I have no idea if it is the case, as the point I posed to you in the first iteration is not answered below. Nevertheless, I hope your turn at the Times doesn't further devalue your brand (an awful noun preferable for napkins & soap) by loosely engaging in relationships with outlets in Buenos Aires, for example, which almost never, if not never, publish articles critical of their stance here. The best recent example is the one I referred to in my original note to you, which is that of Ronald K. Noble, the former Sec'y General of Interpol, vs. the Argentine main dailies. Frankly, the Times looks as though you've not a clue about what's going on down here (except that Daniel Politi is really good) and that you just sell your business network - or whatever it might be called - to whomever pays you.
I began reading the NYT a few years ago. I wish I had started sooner as I am not a young person. I am on a daily basis convinced that a free press is a hallmark of a democracy. I hate it when the POTUS accuses the press, specifically, the Times of being fake news. I feel he undermines our democracy in hateful rhetoric. I for one, am grateful for you and the work of your reporters! Thank you.
1
The establishment press and in particular the New York Times have sacrificed their reputation for fair and balanced coverage with much of the American public. This perceived lack of integrity has been a boon to sites such as Foxnews and Breitbart. How else can one obtain coverage of what the Times does not cover? The present immigration debate provides many examples of why the Times has lost its respect. Anecdotal stories and ad hominem arguments feed passions but do not build respect among readers who think. The Times has not explained the loss of trust that occurs when neither they nor the Democratic leadership has made a clear statement of what immigration policy should be. Both have opposed anything that would reduce low-wage immigration, such as chain immigration, or enhanced enforcement, such as mandatory E-Verify. Both have supported one amnesty after another. The Times has not explained to its readers the enormous cost of bringing in immigrant labor. Government expenditures are over $20,000 a year per resident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_budget
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
and are proportionate to the number of residents. Check Canada and Australia. When immigrants do not offset the additional cost of their presence through taxes, their presence is being subsidized. Imagine what would happen if employers were required to offset the costs through a tax to hire a non-citizen.
3
Thank you for answering my question regarding your coverage of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 election. I have now been gifted a subscription by my father-in-law so can read the Times without ending my one-woman boycott. Unfortunately, your answer was deeply unsatisfactory and raised more questions than it answered.
You provided several links to show your coverage of Trump during the election, insinuating that I and other readers may have missed the extent to which you covered Trump. Unfortunately, you undermined your own argument because the link to an article showing Trump's foreign business connections during the 2016 election cycle is not actually from 2016.
"Trump’s Business Ties in the Gulf Raise Questions About His Allegiances" by David Kirkpatrick is an excellent article raising disturbing questions about Trump's ability to be impartial in world affairs given his business ties abroad. It could have informed voters about some of the down sides to electing a candidate from the world of international business. It would certainly have done a lot to counter the avalanche of coverage of the Clinton Foundation's donations from foreign governments. What a shame it wasn't published during the election, but was instead not published until June 17, 2017.
The big question is...why? I'd love to hear more about why this story only surfaced in June 2017 instead of during the election.
3
In describing your job, two things stood out to me:
1. You want the Times to "have a strong strategy for our long-term commercial success in a moment of pressure and change in our industry."
2. You want the paper to be "unselfishly devoted to the public welfare."
For a long time now, the paper has been behaving as if these two goals are mutually exclusive and has been strongly favoring goal #1 when the two come into conflict with one another. (Exhibit A: 2016 coverage of the presidential primaries.) How are you going to resolve this, Mr. S.?
3
It's well known that the Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate for President since Eisenhower. Zero for 15. How can you convincingly claim to be nonpartisan against that record? I suggest that you consider whether you should continue endorsing political candidates. What is the theoretical justification?
I'm sometimes a commenter, and I'm often frustrated by articles that don't have a comment opportunity.
Also if your newspaper prizes "judgment," you may have missed something in your coverage of the Iraq war and Bernie Sanders candidacy. There are times when truth goes against the establishment, and you have a chance to make a difference.
5
AG, kudos on this sort of Q/A framework - but
Your own answer to "Heather" highlights the subtle but fundamental subjectivity and selectivity of the NYT ,in reporting on - or recalling - things
You mention each of Sanders, Rubio, and Cruz only once
Rubio and Cruz were bit players compared to Sanders
And - during the campaign - my "settled suspicion" was that your campaign coverage staff was, overall, in the tank for Bernie
And, looked like you all - as part of maintaining your progressive bona fides - used Sanders to try to bludgeon Clinton into taking more progressive positions on issues
And it absolutely blew up in your faces
Sort of like what just happened to Schumer
Not to say "I told you so", but I'd wager I'd mentioned more than two dozen times how you all would've done more to elect Trump than any influential entity in the country...Used to regularly include how many times "Trump" mentioned on your front page
Yes - Krugman wrote apologia after apologia about how Clinton's approach to Health Care was measured and responsible, while Bernie's was pie-in-the-sky
But - realize the overall impact was that of one of those pharma TV ads where everyone is happy and dancing [after using whatever pharma being hawked] while the fine print and montone warned that urges to cover your ankles with paper cuts might develop
So, AG - one question
How're you going to get to one billion paying subscribers - some a la carte
I do think you have what it takes - am dead serious
To June in Stamford who wrote to say that she reads the Times only on Sundays due to the cost: she should know that many public libraries, including the Ferguson Library in Stamford, offer “free” digital access to the Times on a daily GroupPass [sic] activation basis to active cardholders. Since she is already using her iPad to read the Sunday Times, this would seem like a good solution for her. There may be limitations based on the Library’s subscription to the service, but it’s worth an inquiry to the library to find out. If you pay taxes to fund your local library, you are helping to subsidize that subscription, so technically not free, but still a great deal.
1
Thank you for making the effort to solicit and answer reader questions, but I’m seconding the reader who would like to see the Public Editor column brought back. Nothing I’ve seen replaces it and it served a valuable function in addressing questions which left unaddressed, undermine reader faith in the editorial judgement and/or journalistic policies of the Times. The reader comments do not include responses from the Times and comments are only allowed on very few columns or articles. I too was profoundly disturbed by the Times coverage of Trump versus Clinton in the run up to the election. An occassional mea culpa would not hurt the Times’ image, in fact quite the opposite. Also, The Times seems to place a lot of concern on a “perceived libral bias”. You must know that the right wing media is constantly harranging its followers to call, write and harrass the Times based on their spin of a particular article. I feel the Times makes every effort to report fairly, with the occasional slip up, but if there’s a bias it’s pro Wall Street and anti populist on either side of the political spectrum.
1
You did not answer the portion of the question posed by June Laben of Stamford, Connecticut regarding offering discounts to new subscribers and not considering the difficulties of those on fixed incomes to continue paying rising subscription prices. It seems to me that a system of “loyalty pricing” and “senior’s” discounts would go a long way toward addressing this concern, that I also share. Please respond to this overlooked portion of Ms. Laben’s question.
With all due respect, and I say that sincerely, as a historically moderate voter, long time Times reader and NPR listener, I am flabbergasted that you can state that the paper is reasonably objective. As a litigation attorney, I can think of no better description of the overall content of the paper than a vehicle for advocacy. I believe that you are blind to this for two primary reasons: the overwhelming preponderance of liberals on the staff and the fact that you secure more subscriptions if your content is liberal. I am bitterly disappointed in the paper and believe that your lack of courage in confronting the truth about this is very dangerous for the country. How can you possibly think you're objective when there is virtually no content that reflects the views of the half of the country's voting population that voted for the president?
2
I, too, think that Mr. Sulzberger erred at a minimum on the both the Public Editor question and the 2016 election coverage question. He claims there is ample opportunity to contact the Times, but there is no one holding his or the Executive Editors' feet to the fire to do so. And that leads to the 2016 election coverage thing. I seem to recall the Times promised a thorough and uncompromising review of their coverage. If this is it - a few paragraphs in a Q&A - then I'm sorely disappointed. External reviewers have easily noted the Times' real bias in September and October on the front page between Clinton and Trump coverage. I continue to believe the Times had a hand in Clinton's defeat, and I think its own bias played a part.
Bring back the Public Editor, and let's have that *honest* review of the election coverage!
6
One of the questions you addressed was a Senior Citizen's regarding the cost of the paper. Many utilities offer customers the option of adding a Dollar to their bill to help those on fixed incomes and I was wondering if the NYT could allow readers to chip in to provide lower cost subscriptions to the elderly, the disabled and the poor.
I would gladly throw in an extra dollar per payment to help lower the cost for those who otherwise might not be able to read a paper. I do not consider it charity- I consider it an investment in Democracy.
Second, here are a few people I would like to see on the Opinion Pages from time to time:
1- Nomi Prins- former Investment Banker and Author.
2- Nomiki Konst- activist and contributor to The Young Turks who recently served on the Democratic Unity Commission following the 2016 election cycle. She gives a voice to many disgusted at the way politics is done in America.
3- Naomi Klein- Author of many books, including The Shock Doctrine, that detailed Disaster Capitalism. I would love to see her insights on the opinion pages of this paper.
There are others, but I will stop at these three.
1
Thanks for a very interesting column. I believe, however, that the first sentence is incorrect, You state, "I got my start as a reporter at newspapers in Rhode Island and Oregon before joining The New York Times as a metro reporter in 2009". I think it would be more accurate to say, "I got my start in journalism when I was born into the Sulzberger family".
I've got no problem with that, nor do I doubt your commitment to journalism. It's just a more accurate depiction of why you happen to be engaged in the profession . . .
7
Dear AG - thanks for telling us about your backgound. I really enjoyed the part about your journalistic credentials which justify your recent appointment as NY Times publisher. Somehow you forget to include one minor detail, however, namely that your are the son of the prior publisher and a member of the family that owns/controls the Times. While we all appreciate your transparency and i'm certain this was a minor oversight on your part, i know a number of journalism Pulitzer winners who apparently didn't meet the high bar set for the job of publisher. It''s good to know that nepostism isn't just a feature of the Trumps and Murdochs, way to go...
1
The Times fails in one key area: It makes it impossible for readers with no agenda to reach its reporters. Well-financed publicists or lobbyists can buy databases of reporters' email addresses but unlike the Wall Street Journal, The Times hides its staffers email addresses. Twitter is not how serious citizens and informed readers should be expected to bring news or concerns to journalists. As an unpaid public official, a community board member, I have lost faith in The Times as a "New York City" paper because it is impossible to share emerging issues with particular reporters, many of whom would welcome the tips. Be concerned when a Murdoch paper is more accessible than the Gray Lady.
No true, one can email most reporters at the Times.
Yaj: they used to append email addresses to articles, particularly opinion columnists. No longer. If you look up a reporter theough the now more well camouflaged “Times Topics,” it connects you to a form without revealing the reporter’s email address. And the likelihood of receiving a reply varies wildly depending on the recipient.
Worst is that the executive editor used to be reachable at “[email protected]”. That is no longer true. Using that generates a delivery failure notice. Now one must use the general newsroom address “[email protected]” and hope that someone forwards it on to him.
These are not nearly good enough.
Worst is that the executive editor used to be reachable at “[email protected]”. That is no longer true. Using that generates a delivery failure notice. Now one must use the general newsroom address “[email protected]” and hope that someone forwards it on to him.
These are not nearly good enough.
Thanks for the introduction. It's great to see someone with serious journalistic street cred leading the NYT. I would hope Mr. Sulzberger would work seriously to make The Times more balanced in its story selection, its writing and its presentation, particularly on the political and cultural fronts. Donald Trump has lowered the cultural bar in many arenas, and I fear some of this has spread to The Times in its sometimes nearly hysterical coverage of the mercurial president. The Times can do better, and it appears they have a new leader who can ensure a more balanced and professional approach to the news.
2
Thank You so much to you and your staff for quality work! I would work there serving coffee if it furthered your important work!
In San Diego the NYT is our only choice. The San Diego Union, under Copley and (evil) Manchester, was too biased to be of any use. Now, under the LAT, it is much better, though like many local papers it has to be “news lite” written at a 5th grade level to survive. We don’t bother with it.
We will stick with the NYT. I assume you learned the lessons of 2016. Now we citizens need the NYT, PBS, Post, et al, for our very survival as a nation.
Mr. Sulzberger, to justify replacing the public editor with the Reader Center, you write: "My view is that if readers have significant concerns about a particular story or how we’ve covered a broader topic, we should engage with them directly and openly."
Yes, and that way your answer is always final. In contrast, the public editor (when you had one) could evaluate your answer and perhaps even ask you a follow-up question. She could put your answer in context and offer an analysis. In other words, she might subject you and the editors of your paper to some actual journalism. Why are you afraid of this? In the meantime, simply answering a question, no matter how open you consider your response, is an exercise in self-justification. No company or institution--even The New York Times--should be trusted to police themselves.
1
It is hard to express how disappointing I found Sulzburger’s answers.
He never did answer why, when the Public Editor position was eliminated, the only person who commented on why was Dean Baquet, to whom the Public Editor putatively did NOT report.
While Sulzburger avoided the risible rationaluzation offered by Baquet that the PE could be adequately replaced by twitter, he still bought into the vacuity of the idea of crowd sourcing the Times’ conditional devotion to journalistic integrity.
What Sulzburger has willfully omitted was that the Public Editor, agree with them or not, were all extremely experienced newspaper professionals, and placed in a position to OBJECTIVELY assess questions of journalistic integrity. What Sulzburger would probably not have thought of was that the six public editors have collectively more years in journalism than he and his father have spent years on this earth, and that number might even exceed his, his father’s and grandfather’s in aggregate years, and it might not be close.
Almost every question of integrity addressed in this Reader Center has simply gone to the editor involved, and gotten a boilerplate reflex defense of what they ran, most recently with an obituary that read like an opinion piece.
As for Sulzburger’s risible claim about answering questions directly, rather than through an intermediary, well, I hardly see difficult answers to trenchant questions here. 2500 questions, <1% answered. He skipped over the toughies.
4
Great stuff. The Times is in good hands. One of my favorite quotes here -
"Every week we publish about the number of words you’ll find in the complete works of William Shakespeare. Despite considerable efforts, it’s inevitable that some typos, misspellings and grammatical errors will make their way into our report."
As someone with a chronic blind spot for my own obvious mistakes in proofreading my too quickly written comments,
that was a warm breeze blowing in my face. Muchos gracias amigo.
Newspapers are needed most in times of challenge such as the times we are currently living in.
The Times failed this test in the days leading up to World War II when it failed to present an accurate portrayal of Hitler’s actions against the Jews; and is still paying a heavy price for this failure to this very day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/news/150th-anniversary-1851-2001-turni...
It’s current coverage of Trump and his gang of misfits has been frank, honest and courageous.
Please keep up this very good work.
3
Mr. Sulzberger: Thank you for taking the time to write this piece. At least it indicates that you value the ideas from your readers. I think the most encouraging part was that you brought up several questions that were not necessarily flattering for the Times (namely, the coverage of HRC in 2016). I, too, felt frustrated and angry and several times almost cancelled my subscription. My biggest problem is with how this criticism from the readers has been handled so far, which is to ignore or to shout back. Though you did not entirely admit to the unbalanced way the NYT covered HRC v. DT (it's not whether or not you covered aspects of the candidates, it's the tone and amount of time you spent on covering aspects of the candidate), at least not hiding behind your sterling reputation is a start. Also, I understand you want to cover be fair in your coverage of "the forgotten people," but I think, again, you're falling into the what tone and how much trap (an entire op-ed with letters from Trump voters???).... I know that's more of an editorial issue, but please consider. Thank you.
The accusations of "liberal bias" at the NY Times can simply be addressed by pointing out that the typical accuser believes that Fox News is "fair and balanced." However, one would think that the "some 2500 submissions" of questions to Mr. Sulzberger would have included quite a few questions about the Times' coverage of Israel and related issues. Which is, obviously, a very big controversy. For example, in 2016, Jewish Voice for Peace distributed (in NYC) 10,000 copies of a parody edition of the Times entitled "All the News We Didn't Print" which lambasted the Times for its poor standards regarding coverage of Israel and Palestine. I studied journalism in college, have a related degree, was a newspaper worker myself for a while (including a strike), and fancy myself to an expert on journalism and the media. As well as a critical thinker generally. The techniques that the Times uses with regard to this issue are very obvious to me, and I've communicated my view on that to you many times in recent years. Obviously, this issue not only affects readers of the Times, but also all Americans, and the entire world. The prime example being the Times' drum-beating for Dubya Bush's war on Iraq. I rest my case. Will Mr. Sulzberger meet his responsibility, speaking of "Trust and Transparency", to address this elephant in the room and answer those questions he surely received?
The first sentence of this piece should have said: I got my start when I was born into the family that controlled The New York Times.
5
The publisher's response to the public editor issue is weak and telling. No institution can police itself, and so an independent ombudsman with term limits is essential. Margaret Sullivan showed what's possible, and I fear that's what Times brass is afraid of.
Also, bring back the grammar column. Since it disappeared, I've noticed a ton more mistakes. The Times depends on the written word, and so the column should be viewed as an investment. And how much, really, did it cost to write and publish it? Not much, I'm guessing, in the scheme of things. Complaints from readers such as myself appear to accomplish little (otherwise, the paper long ago would have quit using the terms "murder" and "homicide" interchangeably, as if they are synonyms).
The liberal bias of NYT will never change--it's a warts and all thing, and we just have to live with that wart. Not unlike the conservative bias of the Wall Street Journal.
One thing, though. Sulzberger proved himself an excellent reporter and writer. I wish he was still doing this. We don't have enough excellent reporters on the ground. It is easier, I suspect, to find a great publisher than it is to find a great reporter. Unfortunately, that's the way the world works.
2
As a long term, loyal reader (LTLR?) these answers seem to have been written or vetted by a PR person. Accept no responsibility, except in name only, seems to be the motto.
1
I consider this newspaper my only trust worthy source of news and information on all that matters to me. I have been an avid reader for 57 years.
In return for my loyalty I am asking for a small favor. Please curtail the photos you publish with articles about our current POTUS.
They distract and annoy the heck out of me !
Thanks.
We shouldn't be too critical for these reasons: (1) Overall, NYT is fair and balanced. I am happy with my subscription. (2) The real problem is not unique or specific. We have this caste system and we are all doing our part to sustain the system. For people born into the system and benefit from it, what do you expect from them? They may not even realize the issue. They are the system. The best example is the "liberal" elite institutions. They can shameless promote "diversity" but their elite club membership is untouchable. I call their "diversity program" the "zoo experience" to benefit their elite club members. (3) NYT is the champion of Western values. For people from different backgrounds, even westernized by their native standards, can find biases. But it is acceptable. Nobody forced anyone to come to this country. This country is founded by Judeo-Christian values. (4) The NYT echo chamber is a fertile inbreeding ground for liberals. This is not healthy to democracy and to this country. More voices from conservatives should be published. Why not invite "controversial" opinion leaders from the right and let them make their cases. This will be a good business strategy.
Finally, I just want to be helpful. I hope NYT will be more successful. I know NYT can do better. The liberal swamp is comfortable but it is merely a small pond. Please come out of it and sail into the big ocean. The whole world is out there waiting.
Mr. Sulzberger, please bring back the public editor. Your explanation for eliminating this important position is inadequate. As long as newspapers like NYT remain profit-making entities, readers will find comfort in having a foil to the profit motive on staff. If the Times is really as "fearless" as Adolph Ochs wished it to be, give us back the public editor.
5
I have no problem with the NYT editorial articles having a liberal bias, but Mr. Sulzberger plays down the opinionated liberal tone of many news articles.
News articles should just be factual and I hope that Mr. Sulzberger will be attentive to this NYT deficiency.
This deficiency has recently been shown in the coverage of Trump's comment on Jerusalem. The NYT did not point out, or at the very least not sufficiently, that Jerusalem has been Israel's capital since 1948 and that Trump just acknowledged a reality. That reality does not exclude any future agreement between Israel and Arab Palestinians, but NYT's coverage of Israel is often more biased than factual.
1
Why no questions/answers about the NYT's editorial stance on a Mideast peace deal that expects Israel to make endless concessions while making no demands that the Arabs end their antisemetic and genocidal policies?
1
As a high school student from Peking, China, I came to the U.S. in 1949 to pursue my college education and I was able to attend the Manhattan College in New York City and in 1950 I transferred to the University of Maryland in College Park where I received my BS degree in agricultural science. I had no big problem to build a new life in America and I am grateful to America and American people's generosity and willing to help foreigners. When I was in China I began to read New York Times at the end of WWII because we had five English teachers from the United States. I still remember today that I had a Miss Larson and a Mrs. Shaw. They both were dedicated teachers and I really learned a lot from them not just English conversation but also American history.
After college years I was lucky to have a job offer as a Chinese reference librarian at one of the world largest libraries in Washington D.C.. Reading both Chinese and English newspapers were part of our responsibilities. I had the best opportunities to read all important Chines language newspapers as well as English language newspapers. NYT was an indispensable. Mr. Sulzberger, I do have a pretty good idea about what is NYT's mission and goal. But after more than 70 years reading of NYT I still feel that report on China is not quite fair. Except Brook Atkinson and a few other NYT's correspondents and bureau chiefs, most of other reporters only report the dark side of China, Is China really that hopeless?
2
"And sometimes even the most observant Times readers do not remember..."
I am sorry that you miss why both Sanders and Clinton supporters agree. Since the early months, even before 2016, your coverage focused more on the game than the issues.
We see signs of this in today's discussion of the budget. The Times is covered with discussions of Schumer "blinking" and the potential political costs of the shutdown, but where is similar wall to wall coverage of the actual substance of the budget?
The Democrats, working to include funding for domestic priorities, insist that the Republicans and Trump propose badly inadequate funding.
Here are some of the Democrats' concerns re the budget
https://www.c-span.org/video/?440047-1/house-democrats-outline-prioritie...
Yes, you can say that when Clinton gave a major speech on national security in the 2016 campaign you covered it etc. But those of us who want you to do better are talking about 2 years of the day-to-day beat.
If a NH voter on a rope line shares a personal opioid tragedy, why are reporters shouting email questions instead of covering Clinton's policy response?
If a drug price is raised dramatically, why not discuss candidates' proposed solutions rather than talk about the new campaign plane or Anthony Weiner or polls?
The day-to-day coverage was that of a game.
The Times can do much better, but first it has to understand and accept what many of your readers believe went very wrong in 2016
7
The Times abysmal political coverage long predates the eyesore of 2015-16.
On December 3, 2011, Public Editor Arthur Brisbane queried then Political Editor Richard Stevenson from a reader, asking why the Times refused to cover the campaign of Ron Paul, within the polling margin of error in NH and IA seven weeks before voting.
Stevenson replied with surprising, and appalling candor:
“Not all candidates are created equal. We are not compelled to cover all campaigns with the same intensity and seriousness.”
So, the Times, instead of reporting the news as it occurs organically, decides imperiously who is allowed to make news, and who will be relegated to unperson status. It sure explains how the Times printed Amy Chozick pieces about intimate gatherings at Hillary Clinton book signings while ignoring a series of Bernie Sanders rallies each attracting over 20,000 people. It also explains how the Times assigned Chozick to a dedicated Hillary Clinton beat 27 months before she declared her candidacy, and only assigned Yamiche Alcindor to a Bernie Sanders beat nine months AFTER he declared his candidacy, months after those west coast rallies.
1
This was a great introduction of Mr. Sulzberger to readers. He has a deep and varied journalistic experience that should keep the Times very much an American newspaper, aware of and engaged with ALL of America, not just the news that’s fit to print in NYC and D.C. There was even one thing he explained that I didn’t already know, despite being a subscriber for over thirty years and depending on the Times as my primary source of news, news analysis, in-depth feature reporting and opinion for over forty years: that the journalists around the country who report regional news aren’t occasional stringers but Times personnel. That testifies to me of a commitment to being America’s newspaper that few other things could.
In all of it, there was only one part with which I had a problem: Mr. Sulzberger’s response to the question “How do you respond to the view that The New York Times has a liberal bias?” The response to me struck a note of boiler-plate political correctness and, frankly, of evasiveness and unwillingness to come clean.
To everyone who is NOT a liberal (and who therefore DOESN’T look to the NYT for ideological ammunition), the paper clearly has a pronounced liberal bias and has had it for all the history seen by most still living; that apart from Opinion, where you expect it, infects every aspect of its topical news reporting and news analysis. If that’s an unfair characterization, then the Times has done a very bad job at correcting this strongly held conviction.
11
To be clear, the strongly held conviction among many is that liberal ideological excessiveness at the Times affects news selection, its framing, its writing and its presentation; and that the premises from which news analysis arguments issue are unqualifiedly and stridently ideological and liberal.
I’m not going to make of this comment an argument for the other side (I make that argument, and another of balance, every single day in my regular comments), but I offer merely a suggestion to Mr. Sulzberger that his claims to the contrary don’t enhance credibility. If he can’t or won’t change the culture (I’d be astonished and VERY impressed if he practicably could), then he should at least transparently own up to it and provide his justifications for it.
Storied NYT editor Arthur Gelb in retirement published in 2003 a best-selling reminiscence of his career at the Times (really, a biography OF the Times over fifty years) that I yugely enjoyed: “City Room” (buy it – you’ll enjoy it yugely, too). In it, he explained many of the operational quirks and high jinks of the Times City Desk over that period, but the one inescapable recurring theme from the first to the last page was his insistent and frank ideological liberalism and that same strain that had existed at the Times since the early 1950s.
Busted.
It’s not like it’s a secret, Mr. Sulzberger. Own it if you must, but acknowledge it and be frank in explaining it.
12
Arthur Gelb is long departed.
Was it so liberal to allow Judith Miller to provide an unfiltered anonymous conduit from Dick Cheney’s office to flog the Iraq invasion? Was it liberal for the putatively more liberal than the news room Editorial Board to endorse that war of choice?
If you think that (not Gelb’s confession) was too long ago, there was, almost four years ago to the day, Eric Schmitt with a coauthor, offering anonymity to Pentagon sources warning ominously of the consequences of a “premature” withdrawal from Afghanistan. By that time, Afghanistan was already the longest active military engagement in US history. Is that liberal?
Frankly, the Times is less a liberal newspaper than the house organ of the establishment.
Was it liberal for the Times to spike the James Risen-Eric Lichtblau story detailing the Junior Bush warrantless wiretapping program, which it had before the 2004 election? Bill Keller only published it because Risen told him he was going to include it in his book, “State of War,” if I recall correctly. Keller would have looked quite the fool being scooped by his own employee, in a book. The article, released from captivity after 15 months, won a Pulitzer.
Wouldn’t a liberal newspaper have given a fair hearing to Bernie Sanders instead of working overtime to anoint the much less liberal Hillary Clinton? That included what Margaret Sullivan conculded was “stealth editing” of a Jennifer Steinhauer article lauding Sanders’ use of the amendment process.
2
Right. I remember one opinion article when liberals were referred to as "we". That should have been a red flag that they were not giving equal attention to both sides of the debate in question, but apparently none of the editors at the Times noticed.
Thank you for this article. I found answers to questions I didn’t know I had. I am a Times lifer, starting as a freshman at MIT (1954) up to this day. No more hard copy for me but I still remember the delicious smell and luxurious feel of the news in my hand! It lingers even as I use my digits on the cold hard iPad! The spirit of the Times is alive and well!
6
I get hard copies of NYT, LA Times, San Diego Union (I live here), Wall St. Journal, New York Post, NY Daily News, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, Boston Globe and The Times of London. These are the papers still bringing great journalism to their local audiences. It ticks me off to no end when people accuse NY, LA and the rest of being "left wing rags." (My mom stopped reading the New York Times after 60-years because of her belief of bias against candidate Trump). Journalists are in business to poke at the establishment. Reporters didn't have a secret convention and say, "let's be left wingers." Yes, the early newspapers called "Democrat" or "Republican" were established back in the 1800s (mainly) to espouse the political leanings of their rich owners......but, as a daily Times reader for decades, I assure you, editors go to great pains to keep the opinions on the op-ed page and not in the news columns. If you're looking for a conspiracy, you'll find one. I'm not feeling it. Don't confuse aggressive reporting with bias.
32
The response by Amanda Cox to the odds issue really shows how much she, or the Upshot team, does not understand the degree to which readers expected something approaching intelligent analysis, and the degree to which the Times failed to deliver it.
Her response sounds almost flip. Why not just give the candidates 50/50 in all elections, and save our time?
26
Right on, raindrop.
I understand probability, but I went to a specialized math and science high school. I would posit that most readers don’t, and that the number of Times journalists who do is vanishingly small.
But the point, spectacularly missed by both Cox and Sulzburger, is beside the mathematical point. When the Times is running a “meter” on its digital front page EVERY SINGLE DAY for months before the election, it reinforces the Times’ confidence in its wrongheaded prediction, a *speculation* that has no place in journalism at all, least of all on the front page of the self proclaimed “newspaper of record.”
The Times made a spectacular blunder by running it, but no more consequential by deciding that any of Trump’s twitter soasms constituted “news,” even more than a year before the election. There was no journalistic reason for the Times, for months, to run a sidebar on its digital front page enumerating “Trump’s Twitter Insults.”
1
Raindrop is correct. As someone with some experience in election polling I believe that she is too close to the matter to understand the reader's angst.
I certainly will not attempt to do a better job, but it is a complicated subject that probably deserves more space. How can one ask a few people a few questions, and predict what millions of people will do in the future? And predict accurately! After all, didn't Dewey beat Truman?
1
Will you discuss your recent flop to the mid-Right editorially? And your developing inclination to dignify very bad government, and Presidential actions, with almost laudatory language, and use of the passive to hide bad actors in politics generally?
18
You have GOT to be kidding. The perspective from which the Times could be considered editorially "mid-Right" is from three feet to the left of the LEFT wall.
9
As a loyal reader and fan of the Times for more than 50 years I want to wish you much luck and success as you undertake the enormous responsibility of Publisher. Although I have no respect for President Trump I hope the Times will try extra hard to provide as balanced coverage of Trump as possible. A challenge not easily met.
5
I'm happy to see that you have noted the increase in typos (and I would add minor factual errors) since the elimination of the separate copy editors team. I hope you continue to monitor the situation and improve it.
30
I would love an opportunity to gift a person on a fixed income or of limited means. HOW?
10
Mary, the Times places on its digital front page an invitation to sponsor student subscriptions: "Support the Mission of the Times", with a link to where you can do this.
I'm glad some people feel these are good answers to good questions. I feel like your PR flak answered them. Responses to tougher questions (like the 2016 election coverage) seemed a work around rather than an answer, and to introduce yourself as a reporter who started in RI and Oregon without mentioning you have a strong family connection to this job... all of it just really leaves me unimpressed with you.
40
"[W]ithout mentioning you have a strong family connection to this job . . . ."
What part of SULZBERGER was unclear?
I’m a lifelong Times reader who values the Times’ reporting more than ever. But I second this comment. Such evasive, defensive answers in the guise of transparency only remind me how much the Times needs a good public editor.
1
Completely agree with this comment. I was thinking the same thing as I read Mr. Sulzberger's responses. His responses have been very clearly either written by, or heavily edited by, his PR team, to the point that many of the responses are little more than standard corporate messaging. The overabundant use of links back to Times articles throughout his responses is a dead giveaway that his PR team was the primary writer and/or editor behind this "Q&A" with the publisher. It would be helpful if the NYT and Mr. Sulzberger at least owned up to it with a basic qualifier to the effect of: "While these responses represent the thinking and input of Mr. Sulzberger, they have been lightly edited by members of the NYT communications team". Ultimately, NYT readers are not stupid but they do expect the publisher to be forthright and to acknowledge that he has a team behind him that is coordinating articles such as this.
"Our job is to follow the truth, wherever it leads, and to bring information to light — not to tell people how to think."
That was in answer to the question about your liberal bias. How do you reconcile that with the words of President Obama, who identified the Times along with the Huff Post as "liberal" newspapers? That statement strikes at the credibility of your answer.
2
Where did President Obama mention this? Also, people often conflate opinion writers and reporters. The Times editorial board has always leaned left. That does not mean the reporters report with a "liberal" bias.
30
Liberal means FREE.
The attacks by Trump on the free press are horrible. So were his attempts at his rallies to incite violence against the reporters who were there. In at least one instance, the reporters were penned in, easy targets for those who hate "'liberal' newspapers" and the First Amendment.
31
Correct: the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) also shows, and makes no secret of, their conservative bias on their editorial pages. The news they print -- about business, the markets, and the economy -- can be pretty much taken at face value.
14
Great responses to great questions! As a loyal subscriber, I support your vision. I do have to disagree with your view on the Public Editor. I know that you have created ways to directly interact (such as this). However, all leave the ultimate decision on whether to address a concern to the Times itself. In contrast, the Public Editor had the platform and clout to get an answer no matter what. Her ability to go directly to journalists and editors gave me greater confidence in the integrity of the work and my ability, as a reader, to get the answers I needed. Please reconsider.
49
Mr. Sulzberger,
Good answers to good questions! I particularly liked your comments about my beautiful home town, Kansas City. (The worst restaurant I've ever been to was Füd, no longer in business. But I love Stroud's, Bryant's, Winsteads, etc., etc.)
Like one of the questioners, I was unhappy with the NYT's coverage of Hillary. The attempts at equivalency were disheartening. The election of Trump made me sick, literally. I think the paper should investigate the illnesses, physical, emotional, and psychological, Americans have suffered since Trump's inauguration.
I love the paper. We've been subscribers for decades and will continue to start our days with the New York Times.
17