New York Times May 24 front page

I was first amazed and saddened by the package.

Now I’ll add dismayed to my feelings. That many errors could maybe be acceptable IF the list had been compiled through original, shoe-leather reporting, especially on deadline. But given that there was no real time crunch and the vast majority of details were simply gathered/compiled from other’s reporting, there is no excuse for not getting it 99 and 9/10ths accurate.

The New York Times continues to let its heritage, and its readers, down.

 

Big difference between an earnest project in which they're attempting to make a bigger point and blatantly tearing someone and/or something down. There was obvious effort put into it. They did try. There were errors - no disputing that - but there is a big difference between criticism and just taking a rip because it didn't fit someone's perfect narrative. An unrealistic narrative given what PD thought they should do.

 

Well, there seems to be two problems here:

The failure to get it right.

And then, the patting themselves on the back quickly afterwards, which starts to make THEM the story instead of just the storytellers.

 

They obviously want awards and the errors probably won't eliminate the awards. People don't expect much from newspapers nowadays. So they'll win mega awards for the effort.

 

I miss spnited.

 

That's the thing. It was a forced, self-imposed "gotta get this done before Memorial Day/100,000 deaths" deadline, as if death by virus has anything to do with Memorial Day.

 

That's exactly what the NYT wanted - and got - from all the people that mattered to it.

You don't do a front page with that many errors - culled from online news reports from other news orgs that on the verge of death - and claim your primary goal is still journalism. Much like the funny "David Aldridge learned of multiple reports that came before his report" scrolls on ESPN weren't about journalism, either.

 

Really, it's the 20-something-year-old murder victim that really gets me. It gives people who want to discredit it a way to do so before they're even two inches down the first column. You can't even be stone-cold air-tight 100% sure about the first 20 names listed?

I love the idea. Love it. I've never seen the phrase "a picture is worth a 1,000 words" more thoroughly debunked. The wall of text made a bolder statement than photos, and the little bit about each person humanized the tragedy more than 1,000 photos ever could have.

But there are a lot of great ideas that aren't practical, and for a goof that big to run that high, that tells me maybe the project was a little too big. I used to try all sorts of goofy ideas when I was the sports editor for a weekly suburbs paper. Some of that went laughably poorly. Some was awesome. The New York Times shouldn’t “try” to do something awesome. It either should do it, or shouldn’t.

 

The hubris involved in knowing the work will be scrutinized and not giving a shit blows my mind. The NYT’s focus should be on being above reproach, giving no red meat to the jackals who want to discredit everything they do.

They don’t care. So why should we

 

That's what makes the design so great.

Yikes.

A shame because they'll sweep over other worthy contenders.