 |
Posted on 05/08/2005 10:39:18 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
In order to build readers' confidence, an internal committee at The New York Times has recommended taking a variety of steps, including having senior editors write more regularly about the workings of the paper, tracking errors in a systematic way and responding more assertively to the paper's critics.
The committee also recommended that the paper "increase our coverage of religion in America" and "cover the country in a fuller way," with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues. The 16-page report is to be made available today on the Times company's Web site, www.nytco.com.
The committee, which was charged last fall by Bill Keller, the executive editor, with examining how the paper could increase readers' trust, said there was "an immense amount that we can do to improve our journalism."
As examples, the report cited limiting anonymous sources, reducing factual errors and making a clearer distinction between news and opinion. It also said The Times should make the paper's operations and decisions more transparent to readers through methods like making transcripts of interviews available on its Web site.
The report also said The Times should make it easier for readers to send e-mail to reporters and editors. "The Times makes it harder than any other major American newspaper for readers to reach a responsible human being," the report said.
The report comes as the public's confidence in the media continues to wane. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that 45 percent of Americans believe little or nothing of what they read in their daily newspapers, a level of distrust that may have been inflated because the questions were asked during the contentious presidential campaign when the media itself was often at issue. When specific newspapers were mentioned, The Times fared about average, with 21 percent of readers believing all or most of what they read in The Times and 14 percent believing almost nothing.
In a response to the committee's report, Mr. Keller called it "a sound blueprint for the next stage of our campaign to secure our accuracy, fairness and accountability." He said he wanted to "hardwire these guidelines into the newsroom" and would be explaining them to the staff and appointing people to enforce them.
But, he asked: "Will these reforms, by themselves, reverse the decline of public trust in news organizations? Of course not." He said that while there were too many factors beyond the paper's control, it was still essential "to maintain high standards over the things that are in our control."
One area of particular concern to Mr. Keller at the outset was the relentless public criticism of the paper, amplified by both the left and right on the Internet, that peaked during last year's presidential campaign. The paper was largely silent during those attacks, and Mr. Keller asked the committee to consider whether it was "any longer possible to stand silent and stoic under fire."
The committee asserted that The Times must respond to its critics. The report said it was hard for the paper to resist being in a "defensive crouch" during the election but now urged The Times to explain itself "actively and earnestly" to critics and to readers who are often left confused when charges go unanswered.
"We strongly believe it is no longer sufficient to argue reflexively that our work speaks for itself," the report stated. "In today's media environment, such a minimal response damages our credibility," it added. As a result, the committee said, the newsroom should develop a strategy for evaluating public attacks on The Times and determining whether and how to respond to them. "We need to be more assertive about explaining ourselves - our decisions, our methods, our values, how we operate," the committee said, acknowledging that "there are those who love to hate The Times"' and suggesting a focus instead on people who do not have "fixed" opinions about the paper. A parallel goal of this strategy, the committee said, was to assure reporters "that they will be defended when they are subjected to unfair attack." The defense should be led by journalists in the newsroom, the report said, "with support and advice from our corporate communications, marketing and legal departments."
The report also called for the paper to "devise a strategy governing when and where it makes sense for us to be on TV and radio," and recommended that reporters be given television training.
The report arises from a review begun formally in November but has its origins in one of the most damaging episodes in Times history, when Jayson Blair, a Times reporter, was found to have committed journalistic fraud, including plagiarism and fabricated quotations in at least three dozen articles from October 2002 until late April 2003. Mr. Blair resigned in May 2003; five weeks later, the paper's two top editors also departed.
After Mr. Blair left, The Times appointed a committee to review the newsroom culture that had enabled his behavior. That committee, headed by Allan M. Siegal, an assistant managing editor, issued a 58-page report in July 2003.
The current committee, also chaired by Mr. Siegal, addressed different problems. And its genesis was different. As Mr. Keller put it, "The first committee was an attempt to set our own house in order; the second is in response to a broader assault on the credibility of the serious news media." But the semipublic self-analytical nature of the two reports - highly unusual for The Times - is similar.
The committee, made up of 11 editors, 6 reporters, a copy editor and a photographer, submitted its report to Mr. Keller on April 26. Mr. Keller responded informally to it on May 2 and plans to post his initial response today on the company Web site along with the report. That is when the report will become available to the paper's staff, as well.
In a draft of his response to the report, Mr. Keller noted that one big issue, the use of anonymous sources, was already being addressed. Last week, the Washington bureau chiefs of several newspapers met with the White House to urge that background briefings with anonymous administration officials be attributed by name.
The report urged strict limitation of anonymous sources, but did not call for them to be eliminated entirely. Nor did the committee see much point in boycotting the background briefings. Sometimes, it said, guaranteeing anonymity is the only way to extract important information.
As for errors, the report noted that the paper printed 3,200 corrections last year and proposed a system to track errors to detect patterns to try to prevent them from recurring. The committee said the system would not be used to compile error rates of individual reporters, noting that using raw numeric counts as part of a reporter's evaluation "would breed resentment."
It also said The Times had discussed plagiarism-detection with Lexis-Nexis, which was working with iThenticate, a firm that develops detection software for use in academia. Once the software is refined, the committee said, The Times should use it when plausible suspicions are raised.
In early reaction to the report from outside the newspaper, Orville Schell, dean of the journalism school at the University of California, Berkeley, said The Times had to strike a balance between "smart public relations" and "letting your work speak for itself."
"I would be loath to see a paper like The Times begin to spin its image too ardently through public relations techniques," he said. "But I do firmly believe that the paper has to defend itself."
If that's their idea of "assertive response" they may as well sell their physical plant and capital to The Racing Forum or some other useful service.
Reminds me of an IBM project that I was on. Despite my warnings; IBM took a $60 million write-off. Now they have sold this piece to the Chinese (as I type on a Think Pad). One wonders. Cheers.
Okay, now I get it. (shaking head and rolling eyes).
I'd give anything if the congregation could have advance warning and had rounded up every garden snake they could find. Put the garden snakes in a basket, and when the NYT reporter walks in the door, pull 'em out and start dancing!
There's nothing like gratifying the expectations of gullible liberals....
Truth... journalism... New York Times...
Do those three items belong on the same line? It just seems so alien.
|
|
Ah yes, the New York Times. Always and ever will be "all the news that's fit to line a birdcage".
Regards, Ivan
Nobody who is outside the employment of the Times and no mention of monitoring for bias in headlines and articles.
Telling.
I don't know if the New York Times will be more conservative, but I don't want to put road blocks in the path of them doing that.
They can open their doors to more discussions on religion [as cited in the article]. Last year, they attacked Archbishop Charles J Chaput, and pulled back a bloody stump because of it, as well as giving the good Archbishp his own column for rebuttal. That gaff was very costly for the New York Times -- in a city with lots and lots of Catholic Churches.
Opening the doors to religion will help right things [in a literal sense]. Good Christians and Orthodox Jews will not stand for any non-sense.
"...and responding more assertively to the paper's critics."
Don't answer the doorbell.
Avoid uncovered windows.
Tape your car's hood and check your brakes.
"(No, Seriously)"
Stop it; you're killing me.
I'll see that and raise you one Krugman.
THanks for the ping..If you go to Sunday's NY Times..the editorial Review section..there's a big column about this by the paper's ombudsman..
.....the report cited limiting anonymous sources.......
In that vein, fictional sources should be entirely eliminated.
Check the tagline.
The solution is very simple, fire ALL you extreme left wing biased staff.
It will never really happen.
The liars of the NY Slimes will continue to lie and fabricate vile hate pieces posing as opeds and news.
When these lies and vile opeds are outed on the internet, the Slimes will lose more subscribers and advertisers.
Thanks!
Sounds like another marketing campaign by the Slimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
