The New York Times - They're even more evil now

newsroom in revolt. record breaking subscription cancellations

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/new-york-times-tom-cotton-staff-reaction.html

DaveSchmidt said:

Not really. Tougher are the ceaseless news cycle and the internet’s thirst for new material, which have significantly hastened the time to make decisions and present nearly infinite opportunities for a regrettable one.

 I agree that generally this is a huge issue regarding inaccurate reporting being published.  But I'm not sure how it comes into play in what was likely an exclusive op-ed, and one with no serious time sensitivity.  If someone rushed this decision to publish Cotton's piece without any edits, they probably rushed it needlessly.

apparently Bennett didn't even read the damn thing before it was published.

He should resign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.html

And Cotton is having a grand old time yucking it up.

drummerboy said:

apparently Bennett didn't even read the damn thing before it was published.

He should resign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.html

And Cotton is having a grand old time yucking it up.

Embarrassing

ml1 said:

I agree that generally this is a huge issue regarding inaccurate reporting being published. But I'm not sure how it comes into play in what was likely an exclusive op-ed, and one with no serious time sensitivity. If someone rushed this decision to publish Cotton's piece without any edits, they probably rushed it needlessly.

Nobody said “without any edits.” Everything at major newspapers is edited.

And there’s almost always “time sensitivity” at large newspapers for publishing even nonbreaking copy. Promotion on the homepage involves timing (you want to be ready when a spot opens up, because the window might not wait). Cellphone alerts involve timing (hitting the right time of day, spacing them out, avoiding competition with similar types of stories, so, again, be ready). Most important, workflow involves timing (maybe what you’re editing now isn’t urgent, but there’s plenty more waiting, and you never know when something urgent will come up, so you’d better keep the pace up).

The Times’s statement reflects that last reality by acknowledging the “rushed editorial process” and saying it will be “reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish.”

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

I agree that generally this is a huge issue regarding inaccurate reporting being published. But I'm not sure how it comes into play in what was likely an exclusive op-ed, and one with no serious time sensitivity. If someone rushed this decision to publish Cotton's piece without any edits, they probably rushed it needlessly.

Nobody said “without any edits.” Everything at major newspapers is edited.

And there’s almost always “time sensitivity” at large newspapers for publishing even nonbreaking copy. Promotion on the homepage involves timing (you want to be ready when a spot opens up, because the window might not wait). Cellphone alerts involve timing (hitting the right time of day, spacing them out, avoiding competition with similar types of stories, so, again, be ready). Most important, workflow involves timing (maybe what you’re editing now isn’t urgent, but there’s plenty more waiting, and you never know when something urgent will come up, so you’d better keep the pace up).

The Times’s statement reflects that last reality by acknowledging the “rushed editorial process” and saying it will be “reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish.”

I don't think any of these excuses applies to this op-ed. It wasn't breaking. It didn't have to be printed on that day, it could have waited.

The issues with the Cotton op-ed were 1 - they shouldn't have printed it in the first place. and 2 - once they decided to print it, they let it go with some egregious errors and misrepresentations.

Your boys eff'ed up - and it wasn't due to a "rushed editorial process". That's just weak CYA tea.

The Nation compares Mattis vs Cotton. "The contrast between the writing and the moral stature of the two men was unmistakable."

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/tom-cotton-jim-matthis/

drummerboy said:

apparently Bennett didn't even read the damn thing before it was published.

He should resign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.html

And Cotton is having a grand old time yucking it up.

 Senator Cotton (on the right) explaining to NY Times Op-Ed page editor Bennett (on the left) how great his article is and Bennett doesn't even have to read it.

drummerboy said:

I don't think any of these excuses applies to this op-ed. It wasn't breaking. It didn't have to be printed on that day, it could have waited.

They aren’t excuses. They’re an attempt at a brief explanation for why speed, which can lead to what I previously described as regrettable decisions, isn’t “needless,” based on more than 30 years of experience. You’re welcome to continue to think otherwise based on everything you know about the job.

DaveSchmidt said:

Nobody said “without any edits.” Everything at major newspapers is edited.

And there’s almost always “time sensitivity” at large newspapers for publishing even nonbreaking copy. Promotion on the homepage involves timing (you want to be ready when a spot opens up, because the window might not wait). Cellphone alerts involve timing (hitting the right time of day, spacing them out, avoiding competition with similar types of stories, so, again, be ready). Most important, workflow involves timing (maybe what you’re editing now isn’t urgent, but there’s plenty more waiting, and you never know when something urgent will come up, so you’d better keep the pace up).

The Times’s statement reflects that last reality by acknowledging the “rushed editorial process” and saying it will be “reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish.”

once again, I erred by using an absolute instead of using an appropriate qualifier.  I'm sure that the Cotton submission was edited at least for grammar, spelling and length.  But the op-ed obviously went ahead without some very substantial edits, because it contained at least one obvious less-than-truthful unsupported assertion.

and as others have already pointed out, a rushed editorial process in this case doesn't seem all that necessary.

The times reports unsupported assertions all the time. Their predilection for this caused mass death and unnecessary human suffering at the beginning of this century.   

ml1 said:

and as others have already pointed out, a rushed editorial process in this case doesn't seem all that necessary.

I can live with letting the process seem whatever it does to other people who have never been a part it and who won’t take the word of someone who has.

terp said:

The times reports unsupported assertions all the time. Their predilection for this caused mass death and unnecessary human suffering at the beginning of this century.   

 yes

DaveSchmidt said:

I can live with letting the process seem whatever it does to other people who have never been a part it and who won’t take the word of someone who has.

do we really need to be an insider to know whether or not this article was urgent?  You're telling us that there is a sense of urgency in a newsroom.  We're asking if that sense was necessary.  What would have been the problem if the op-ed appeared one day later?

ml1 said:

do we really need to be an insider to know whether or not this article was urgent?

It seems so.

What would have been the problem if the op-ed appeared one day later?

No problem at all. I can almost guarantee, however, that a reason no one said “Whoa!” — why there was what drummerboy called an eff-up — was that the editors who handled the op-ed were rushed, which can impair diligence and judgment.

it's almost like a newsroom is a quantum physics lab, it's so difficult for laypersons to understand how it works.

ml1 said:

it's almost like a newsroom is a quantum physics lab, it's so difficult for laypersons to understand how it works.

It took me some time to understand when I started out, too.

DaveSchmidt said:

It took me some time to understand when I started out, too.

 it might surprise you that I was head of news research for a TV network for a couple of years.  So I totally get the mindset that EVERYTHING is urgent, all the time, even when it's something that is not urgent by any platonic ideal of "urgency."  I used to have the head of network news PR calling me up each week to ream me out because my team wasn't getting him the weekly ratings fast enough (even though I devoted 16 person-hours a week just to getting him his numbers for his press releases.). Were those releases really urgent?  Of course they weren't.  They went to websites read only by other news professionals.  And was it "urgent" for them to know our program finished second to the competition for the 75th consecutive week?  Of course not.  But our release needed to be the first, probably so he could have bragging rights over his friends in PR at the other networks.

And yet, of my team's precious personnel resources, I devoted roughly 20% of our person hours to him.  Why?  Because his releases were URGENT.

So I get that that's the newsroom mindset.  The question is not, "how does this happen?" Because I know how it happens.  The question is more of why is this an acceptable excuse.  Why is there not a process in place to take a step back when it's an op-ed and not breaking news? 

ml1 said:

The question is not, "how does this happen?" Because I know how it happens.  The question is more of why is this an acceptable excuse.  Why is there not a process in place to take a step back when it's an op-ed and not breaking news?

Then it should please you to know that nobody I’m aware of is saying it was acceptable. I thought I was pretty clearly addressing the “how,” after someone wrote in this thread that “I’m not sure how it comes into play.”

(And, as I mentioned earlier, some of the time pressures on a news organization to keep its digital presence fresh and engaging to readers throughout the day can apply to nonbreaking copy like op-eds as well as to news.)

With so much at stake — world peace, human survival, etc — perhaps it is time for a re-evaluation of just how much news must be generated and regurgitated over the 24/7 news cycle created by new technology. Often, getting it out first is more important than getting it right. 
Everyone with an iPhone is an on the scene reporter. Everyone’s viewpoint reflects his or her predisposition and interpretation of what  is happening. FeedIng out hundreds of versions of events every day, by hundreds of news sources, is not healthy competition. It is too politically motivated and sponsored for people to digest. Missteps will and do happen. 

However, the Times’ reaction to the anger generated by the Cotton op-Ed makes the paper look worse IMO. Days gone by, a story which got printed and which produced angry responses would have been handled the way most controversial pieces should, and often are, and  left to readers’ letters to the editor, or other op-Ed contributions,  offering reasoned responses to the original story. 

I don’t know if there is a way to stop “progress.”

I will admit to having spent years in newspaper offices, reporter, copy editor, and managing editor. Way back in the day, when tomorrow was another news day. 

ml1 said:

So I totally get the mindset that EVERYTHING is urgent, all the time, even when it's something that is not urgent by any platonic ideal of "urgency."

Mind-sets notwithstanding, I’ll very briefly reiterate that my Platonic ideal of urgency includes not letting a constant, nearly minute-by-minute inflow of work pile up.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

So I totally get the mindset that EVERYTHING is urgent, all the time, even when it's something that is not urgent by any platonic ideal of "urgency."

Mind-sets notwithstanding, I’ll very briefly reiterate that my Platonic ideal of urgency includes not letting a constant, nearly minute-by-minute inflow of work pile up.

 All of which has factored into the recent Microsoft and Google décision to do away with human-generated and edited news, and rely on solely on automated journalism. I’ll be very interested to read consumer reaction to publication, oversight and their complaints then. 

joanne said:

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

So I totally get the mindset that EVERYTHING is urgent, all the time, even when it's something that is not urgent by any platonic ideal of "urgency."

Mind-sets notwithstanding, I’ll very briefly reiterate that my Platonic ideal of urgency includes not letting a constant, nearly minute-by-minute inflow of work pile up.

 All of which has factored into the recent Microsoft and Google décision to do away with human-generated and edited news, and rely on solely on automated journalism. I’ll be very interested to read consumer reaction to publication, oversight and their complaints then. 

 That's not exactly what Microsoft is doing. Haven't found out anything about Google yet.

Ignore the headline.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/30/microsoft-sacks-journalists-to-replace-them-with-robots

DaveSchmidt said:

Mind-sets notwithstanding, I’ll very briefly reiterate that my Platonic ideal of urgency includes not letting a constant, nearly minute-by-minute inflow of work pile up.

 if that's an issue, that's not a newsroom issue per se but a management issue.  In any workplace, tasks should be sorted by priority.  And an op-ed from a senator would presumably be moved to the top of that work pile.  Putting out a newspaper has got to be stressful, but it's not Lucy and Ethel on the chocolate assembly line where every piece of chocolate is equal.

I once had an internal client at a different TV network who gave me a list of things she needed my team to work on.  When I asked her which were highest priority, she said "All of them!" First of all, that's almost certainly not true, and secondly it's just bad management.  

Sorry for late reply, DB. I’d read this article, and a lot more discussion around it, from our MEAA (relevant Union, if which I used to be a member). Worth noting that Weekly Beast here also referenced the move and its relevance to death of journalism

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52860247

Edited for typos

ml1 said:

if that's an issue, that's not a newsroom issue per se but a management issue. In any workplace, tasks should be sorted by priority. And an op-ed from a senator would presumably be moved to the top of that work pile. Putting out a newspaper has got to be stressful, but it's not Lucy and Ethel on the chocolate assembly line where every piece of chocolate is equal.

No one said this case wasn’t a management issue, either. And I could riff on the relevant and irrelevant parts of the Lucy and Ethel analogy, but I’m weary of having newspaper editing and production jobs ml1splained to me.

DaveSchmidt said:

No one said this case wasn’t a management issue, either. And I could riff on the relevant and irrelevant parts of the Lucy and Ethel analogy, but I’m weary of having newspaper editing and production jobs ml1splained to me.

I guess we're even then. Because I'm weary of being told that I can't understand if I've never worked in a newsroom.  

ml1 said:

I guess we're even then. Because I'm weary of being told that I can't understand if I've never worked in a newsroom.  

On the contrary. If I didn’t think you (and others) could, I never would have tried.