Monday, May 09, 2005
'The New York Times has recommended ...': There are actually a lot of good ideas in this NYT report on its operations and the paper deserves credit for publicly releasing it. But the part about the paper more aggressively defending itself against critics -- “with support and advice from our corporate communications, marketing and legal departments” -- sounds ominously like corporate bunker mentality.
Update -- From Reader No. 1:
"I have some different thoughts about the NYT report. First, the good ideas:
"1. '...tracking errors in a systematic way...' Unfortunately, it sounds like the rank and file are opposed to it (3rd to last paragraph), or is it just that NYT management thinks the rank and file would be opposed? Isn't one common thread of the Blair story that there was a long-standing pattern leading up to an embarrassing public event? This will turn out to be a BAD idea unless error-rates of individual reporters are tracked (the paper needs accountability).
"2. '...making a clearer distinction between news and opinion...' Doing this, and reducing errors, would eliminate the need for the NYT to go on the attack defending stories it publishes. But I think NYTCo might have something else up its sleeve (keep reading).
"The bad ideas:
"1. I don't want 'senior editors' to 'write more regularly about the workings of the paper.' We don't need more vanity-stroking media analysis from the media.
"2. I don't want NYT to 'cover the country in a fuller way' unless they are going to hire a whole bunch of different reporters to do it. I don't need chin-stroking latte-sipping Ivy leaguers telling me what's wrong with Kansas.
"The interesting ideas:
"1. '...devise a strategy when and where it makes sense for us to be on TV and radio...' Add this to the vigorous defense of Times Reporters and it sounds to me like the ultimate legacy of this self-assessment might provide 'a sound blueprint' for for NYTCo to launch its own counter-FOX cable and radio news ventures. This would be an offensive strategy as opposed to the defensive PR-focused one that people are interpreting."
Update -- From Reader No. 1:
"I have some different thoughts about the NYT report. First, the good ideas:
"1. '...tracking errors in a systematic way...' Unfortunately, it sounds like the rank and file are opposed to it (3rd to last paragraph), or is it just that NYT management thinks the rank and file would be opposed? Isn't one common thread of the Blair story that there was a long-standing pattern leading up to an embarrassing public event? This will turn out to be a BAD idea unless error-rates of individual reporters are tracked (the paper needs accountability).
"2. '...making a clearer distinction between news and opinion...' Doing this, and reducing errors, would eliminate the need for the NYT to go on the attack defending stories it publishes. But I think NYTCo might have something else up its sleeve (keep reading).
"The bad ideas:
"1. I don't want 'senior editors' to 'write more regularly about the workings of the paper.' We don't need more vanity-stroking media analysis from the media.
"2. I don't want NYT to 'cover the country in a fuller way' unless they are going to hire a whole bunch of different reporters to do it. I don't need chin-stroking latte-sipping Ivy leaguers telling me what's wrong with Kansas.
"The interesting ideas:
"1. '...devise a strategy when and where it makes sense for us to be on TV and radio...' Add this to the vigorous defense of Times Reporters and it sounds to me like the ultimate legacy of this self-assessment might provide 'a sound blueprint' for for NYTCo to launch its own counter-FOX cable and radio news ventures. This would be an offensive strategy as opposed to the defensive PR-focused one that people are interpreting."
