When the NYT eliminated its public editor, it said "our followers on social media and readers have come together to serve as a watchdog, more vigilant than one person could ever be."
They failed to realize how the Times staff would turn on each other.
vice.com/en/article/k7a…
They failed to realize how the Times staff would turn on each other.
vice.com/en/article/k7a…
Public editors like @Sulliview and Clark Hoyt served as a safety valve, giving staff (& readers) a legitimate resource where they could complaints, and expect a disinterested follow-through. Without the public editor, these staff are more likely to wind up at each other's throats
Also, the idea that random people on Twitter are going to extract accountability from a newsroom -- as Arthur Sulzberger Jr said at the time -- was ludicrous in 2017, and it's more so now. 
It would’ve been good for the Times to have an independent, fair-minded person evaluate 1619 and the claims against and for it.
But when you don’t have an actual journalist to do that, you wind up with Bret Stephens doing your in-house criticism. With the results you’d predict
But when you don’t have an actual journalist to do that, you wind up with Bret Stephens doing your in-house criticism. With the results you’d predict
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
