New York Times 2020 Report

You're again ignorantly using a report as if that draws out their entire plan. It doesn't. People in that building know what it means. People who do visual journalism for a living know what it means. You don't, so you're putting your own ignorance of the field into your reading of the part about the map and not realizing that a map can be way more than just a locator map. It can be interactive. It can have levels. The Washington Post did an excellent map after a mall shooting that started out as a locator and then developed throughout the day -- partially because of reporting work done by the designer working on it -- and ended up showing a three-dimensional view of the mall that showed where the shooter was and where the victims were and a lot more information that helped tell the story of the shooting.

But they weren't talking about basic maps, and someone who knows visual journalism would've known that. You didn't because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

And those are facts.

 

Here's another "map" that goes far beyond what you imagine a map is. But you keep thinking you've got a clue about what a map entails these days.

One shooting, conflicting accounts: Locations and statements of witnesses at the scene of Michael Brown’s death

 

That is way better than the example provided. It has a good bit of information.

 

Straight from the report:

"An example of the problem: When we ran a story in 2016 about the roiling debate over subway routes in New York, a reader mocked us in the comments for not including a simple map of the train line at the heart of the debate."

How about if you read first? Then you won't sound like as much of a puckering asshole when you get proved wrong immediately.

 

Again: "simple map." Read. Think. This really seems to be tripping you up.

 

Again, you're imagining that a simple map is what they're talking about when they talk about having a visual journalist telling a story. It's not. That's you're reading of it based off taking one statement and applying it too broadly. No one with a clue about visual journalism thought that's what it meant.

 

I read. I also used my basic understanding of visual journalism and writing to know that when they say, "An example of the problem" that they aren't saying that's all they want. But you go ahead and pretend you got some knowledge you don't. It's cute.

 

I would be very surprised if every writer in the place wants to learn how to prepare a complicated multimedia presentation. Perhaps it's true, but given that the report refers to a "simple map" and provides an example, and the fact that you seem to be a raging hemorrhoid with inflated self-worth, I think I'll stick with the correct facts, rather than your version of them.

 

Actually, I think you have the empty gun here. Show us where it says in the report that the writers want to learn how to do complex multimedia presentations. We'll wait for the evidence.

 

Show me where it says they want writers to produce maps or those presentations. I'll go ahead and quote you their actual solution instead of the one you made up: "To solve the problem, we need to expand the number of visual experts who work at The Times and also expand the number who are in leadership roles."