,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
It’s the Times’ inability to hear and respect and respond to legitimate criticism (from many quarters on this issue and others!) that remains its signature fault. When they respond, too often out of defensive hubris.
Also this is a weird and disingenuous bit of whataboutism.
Also this is a weird and disingenuous bit of whataboutism.
And, further, it is this attitude that makes even those who might be inclined to agree with or at least understand this decision and some others feel like it was not made thoughtfully.
Please restore the public editor, for the good of the paper.
Please restore the public editor, for the good of the paper.
I’ve written more about this in this mini thread:
Finally in addition to being a frequent critic when they go astray, I am a subscriber and a supporter of the Times. They mostly practice outstanding journalism. It’s important and needed. But this hubris and unwillingness to be truly and publicly introspective is an Achilles heel
It seems this arrogance and defensiveness extends to the subscription customer service. There's a culture issue that needs to be dealt with, seriously. I'm not advocating cancelling, but they should take the outrage of real people seriously.
Going into the election without a person/team who can report out and explain and/or criticize the paper's decisions is a disaster in waiting. Yes, a lot of criticism is disingenuous. Yes, non-journos don't get priorities and conventions of journalism. But all the more reason.
Also a public editor team could help frame things like: these reporters/editors have been working round-the-clock for days/weeks. (And maybe they let competitiveness cloud their judgement?)
But also: the WH probably knew what the Times reported about the whistle-blower.
But also: the WH probably knew what the Times reported about the whistle-blower.
Another way would be to empower a group of reporters to make holistic recommendations, a la the famed digital critique. I'd suggest the following areas:
Coverage (Judy Miller/emails/Russia not interfering-type stuff)
Opinion/columns
Packaging/social
Culture/public posture
Coverage (Judy Miller/emails/Russia not interfering-type stuff)
Opinion/columns
Packaging/social
Culture/public posture
More of this type of thing, by @JBennet, which in this case explains how the editorial board works and how they came to the decision to endorse impeaching Trump. Should hyperlink the explanation into every editorial. nytimes.com/2019/09/27/rea…
