Article

2005-05-09 -Short Attention Span Theater-

NY Times Study: readers don't believe them

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-05-09 04:51|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I don't believe that story at all and I subscribe to the NYT.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2005-05-09 09:41|| 2005-05-09 09:41|| Front Page Top

#2 That's only a few percentage points higher than the Weekly World News. Maybe the NYT should hire Batboy.

Posted by BH 2005-05-09 10:09|| 2005-05-09 10:09|| Front Page Top

#3 No doubt this "study" was done in the corner booth at a local bar.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-05-09 11:06|| 2005-05-09 11:06|| Front Page Top

#4 Shocking discovery!

Posted by Tkat 2005-05-09 11:12|| 2005-05-09 11:12|| Front Page Top

#5 Here's a tip for the NYT: quit making stuff up.

Posted by Matt 2005-05-09 11:35|| 2005-05-09 11:35|| Front Page Top

#6 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.

In other words, they'll more abrasively attack rurals as rubes and hicks, and snarl at the paper's critics...."Quit making stuff up" isn't addressed

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-09 11:42|| 2005-05-09 11:42|| Front Page Top

#7 Yeah, yeah, all god's chilluns' got religion now. That's beside the point. It's about a news model based on one organization's extraordinary market power that's now disappearing.

Until the web, the Times ~~abused~~ enjoyed something like Microsoft's market domination, using its syndication agreements and exhaustive reseller network and its sway over the east coast establishment and TV networks to push their own monopolized information product. Like MS Windows, the Times' product was full of bugs and in many ways inferior to competing products which the Times used its market power to eliminate or push out of public view.

No matter: the Times Knows Best. A "single standard" opinion-setter for the nation's elite, like a single standard operating system, had certain benefits. But even that argument's lost its validity. Linux in OS, and the blogosphere re news and opinion: open source, as messy as it is, becomes more and more stable and reliable, and customers are beginning to realize this.

Today the NYT's basically a lifestyle guide for upscale urban liberals. The National Conscience pose was always absurd, but there's no more monopoly power to enforce it, and the east coast elite no longer dominate the nation's agenda or its thinking.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-09 11:58|| 2005-05-09 11:58|| Front Page Top

#8 The NYT kinda reminds me of IBM and GM.

Posted by .com 2005-05-09 13:36|| 2005-05-09 13:36|| Front Page Top

#9 When you're out of step with your readership, your readership will step elsewhere.

The Baltimore Sun used to be a great newspaper...

Posted by Fred 2005-05-09 14:36|| 2005-05-09 14:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Fred - wasn't that the home base for HL Mencken?

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

It's a little fuzzy, and oh so un-PC, but I think I know what he meant. That time is, indeed, upon us.

Posted by .com 2005-05-09 14:45|| 2005-05-09 14:45|| Front Page Top

#11 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."

In other words; "Say nice things about us or we'll sic our lawyers on you!"

Posted by Steve 2005-05-09 3:25:18 PM|| 2005-05-09 3:25:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 So are they going to send foreign correspondents to 'fly-over' country. This should be more fun than the Guardian urging their readers to help 'advise' Ohio voters prior to the last presidential election. Cry havoc and let slip the prose of condescension ...

Posted by DMFD 2005-05-09 23:46|| 2005-05-09 23:46|| Front Page Top

23:48 Sherry
23:46 DMFD
23:25 Dar
23:07 3dc
23:04 CrazyFool
23:03 muck4doo
22:57 Angie Schultz
22:49 Glenmore
22:47 Frank G
22:36 3dc
22:32 mom
22:30 mom
22:29 SC88
22:18 crazyhorse
22:08 Pappy
22:01 mojo
21:55 Seafarious
21:45 Barbara Skolaut
21:17 trailing wife
21:16 Frank G
21:13 trailing wife
21:11 .com
21:11 Mike Kozlowski
21:09 Cyber Sarge