New York Times 2020 Report

Again, if that's what you came away with after reading the report -- that it's just concerned with making sure the writer's voice isn't lost, I would suggest you didn't read it very closely. And as I stated in a previous response, there was also an action plan from management that was released at the same time as this report. While the main report was made public -- I assume because it's older cousin, The Innovation Report, was leaked -- the information in it is really intended for the Times newsroom. In addition, some of the blanks that need filling in, like how many people will be working here by the end of the year and which sort of things we'll cover less or not at all, perhaps, have either not been decided or not been announced. There have also been a couple of townhall type meetings with the newsroom to answer questions. So if you're left scratching your head over things, perhaps that's why.

 

I'd suggest otherwise. It was a flawed report. Other posters have commented on various portions, and I also said more than what you mention here. Maybe you should read those comments more closely.

But if the NYT thinks increasing diversity and keeping the writer's voice are the keys to success in 2020, I wish you luck.

 

Not sure what these mean, really, or if they're just posted to get a reaction. Guess I'll naively take the bait. But if the only thing you took away from reading the full report was a push for diversity, then I'd say you didn't read it very well. But by diversity I can tell you they're referring to race, gender, sexual orientation, language, geographic background, education, prosperity, etc. The whole gamut. Will it happen? I dunno. But that doesn't make it a bad goal. It's just part of a bigger plan, but don't mock the effort.

I don't know if the Gannett comment referred to the movement to do less editing or that Gannett is far ahead of The NYT when it comes to digital journalism in the 21st Century. But while respecting the idea that the other guys get paid, too -- places like the WaPo, the Journal, the LAT, the Globe, Gannett and other newspapers and digital-only sites that I'm certainly leaving out for time -- I'll put my shop's success with digital subscriptions and with its journalism against anybody.

 

Regarding the people doing the report:

(1) If those backgrounds were that relevant, why were they not included? I know you implied this was "leaked," but it's strange to point out those things as if they were apparent.

(2) If those backgrounds were that great, why didn't we see a far better report?

(3) "Skimmed" meant didn't read every word closely, mainly because this has been done, over and over and over, at various places. It's often the same conclusions -- no one trains us, we want less editing, "DIVERSITY!!1111" (no specifics about what to do, how to achieve it, or when), ad nauseam.

In short: Do better. Your future depends upon it.

 

This is a tired retort. No one is going to write about every aspect. You should strive to do much better.

 

Specifics? That last part is straight from the Gannett playbook. Aside from "hopefully," I bet it's been said word for word in more than one of these initiatives.

 

If that graphic is your trump card, I can see why your report stresses the need to learn how to do graphics.

The very first text box covers up the athlete. Very. First. One. Was that intended?

The text is hype from the level of Around the Horn. "Now officially known as." Not just "known as." "Officially known as."

There was some information buried inside the hype. So it wasn't a full waste of time. As the guy said in Hong Kong in The Dark Knight, "Just unintentionally wasting it."

While we're discussing graphics, I assume you know my comment was based on the part of the report that mentions an article about a subway route that didn't include a map of the route. I assume those are the types of graphics the workers are desperately seeking to know how to create. If the true goal is to include a layered, multimedia example like the one you included here, then you should get busy learnin'!

 

It's stunning to hear this pattern occurs at the mighty NYT because this stuff is A-ball level nonsense. Even at some really poorly run places, we attempted to establish editing levels -- no "chasing commas" on the third read, etc. Some people simply chose to ignore those, which is why we sometimes ran out of time, or ended up with Draconian policies that prevented some badly needed changes later in the cycle.

One of the better days I recall is when a story showed up about a topic I knew a lot about. It was clear the writer had tried to get the facts straight but had simply not put them all together. I asked for and received the go-ahead to make some substantial repairs. Later we tried to make this case with some other people -- ask for some things early on and avoid a lot of the chasing at the end. Some listened, and some did not.

If your organization is so unwieldy that this can't happen effectively -- and to be honest, I would have assumed that even before the report -- something is really wrong with the process.

 

I just want to know why diversity matters so much if we are such a colorblind society. The Undefeated had a great piece a while back looking into the mysterious circumstances around Sonny Liston's death. Was it a great piece because it was told "through the lens of a black person" or "pure undefeated style" or whatever the hell undefeated projects about, or was it great because it was well-reported and well-written? We need to really get over the whole race thing and accept people for who they are not what they are.

 

I think if places focused on diversity of thought/viewpoints, a lot of good could be accomplished. But that has been, at best, way in the background.

 

My comment had to do with Gannett's News2000 push from the 1990s, in which they emphasized diversity to the point of browbeating reporters if they didn't have a minority source, regardless of the necessity for the source in the story.

My other point with that was Gannett's essentially wasted everyone's time with it instead of actually concentrating on real journalistic issues, such as the rise of digital.

 

I was with Gannett in the early 90s. I remember it well. It was certainly a very superficial attempt, and I agree, it hurt real journalism. I personally do think, though, that having a diverse newsroom helps your journalism reflect the world you're covering and gives you a better chance to attract a wider reader/viewership. It seems obvious to me, but so many people seem to want to fight it.

Good luck, Baron.