This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/opinion/ag-sulzberger-deputy-publisher-spayd-public-editor.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Dear A.G., Here Are Three More Problems for You Dear A.G., Here Are Three More Problems for You
(about 1 hour later)
The New York Times took a critical step toward crowning a new publisher on Wednesday, naming Arthur Gregg Sulzberger as deputy publisher and heir to the throne. He most likely will succeed his father, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., as publisher of The Times after an undefined apprenticeship.The New York Times took a critical step toward crowning a new publisher on Wednesday, naming Arthur Gregg Sulzberger as deputy publisher and heir to the throne. He most likely will succeed his father, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., as publisher of The Times after an undefined apprenticeship.
The younger Sulzberger, or A.G. as he is known in the building, will inherit a job of astonishing complexity. I’d like to add three more problems to the pile, from the perspective of someone who is in touch with readers on a daily basis. All my recommendations spring from concerns I hear from The Times’s audience, its most precious asset.The younger Sulzberger, or A.G. as he is known in the building, will inherit a job of astonishing complexity. I’d like to add three more problems to the pile, from the perspective of someone who is in touch with readers on a daily basis. All my recommendations spring from concerns I hear from The Times’s audience, its most precious asset.
First, I hope attention will be paid to the gaping distance many readers feel between them and the editors and writers at The New York Times. This is especially true of younger readers, who grew up with digital sites that are all about pulling their readers in close. By contrast, The Times can feel imperial, walled off from its audience, and not too keen on getting any closer. That doesn’t mean reporters and editors should be required to man phone banks all day, but it does mean thinking intelligently about how to give readers more ways to interact with the journalism they’re consuming. Another way to make progress? Relax the sometimes stilted, lofty voice without dumbing it down. That’s not easy, but editors are already at work sprinkling their pages with experimentation, and that’s a good thing.First, I hope attention will be paid to the gaping distance many readers feel between them and the editors and writers at The New York Times. This is especially true of younger readers, who grew up with digital sites that are all about pulling their readers in close. By contrast, The Times can feel imperial, walled off from its audience, and not too keen on getting any closer. That doesn’t mean reporters and editors should be required to man phone banks all day, but it does mean thinking intelligently about how to give readers more ways to interact with the journalism they’re consuming. Another way to make progress? Relax the sometimes stilted, lofty voice without dumbing it down. That’s not easy, but editors are already at work sprinkling their pages with experimentation, and that’s a good thing.
Second, think hard about being more transparent with readers. Let them know why certain decisions were made, why new features are being added, or why significant changes are being made to stories. A sizable chunk of emails that come in aren’t from people complaining about something, at least directly. They’re simply confused about how certain photos were chosen or email alerts sent or standing features killed. When The Times does notify readers of changes, it rarely takes the extra step off explaining to them why the changes were made. Without information, people assume the worst, and I’ve got a public editor’s inbox to prove it. Second, think hard about being more transparent with readers. Let them know why certain decisions were made, why new features are being added, or why significant changes are being made to stories. A sizable chunk of emails that come in aren’t from people complaining about something, at least directly. They’re simply confused about how certain photos were chosen or email alerts sent or standing features killed. When The Times does notify readers of changes, it rarely takes the extra step of explaining to them why the changes were made. Without information, people assume the worst, and I’ve got a public editor’s inbox to prove it.
Third, I hope the next publisher will engage in a clearheaded examination of who The Times wants its audience to be. Should it include people of different beliefs? Different skin tones? Different religious traditions? Everyone would surely say yes, but it’s not clear whether it’s an actual priority. The Times sees itself as one of the great news organizations in the world. But is its audience as broad as that claim implies? It’s well-established in the building, for example, that The Times reaches far more liberals than it does conservatives. I don’t know how many blacks or Hispanics or rural Midwesterners it reaches. But I hope a monolithic audience is considered unacceptable. It would be bad for business and, more perilously, it would leave The Times with a capsized public mission.Third, I hope the next publisher will engage in a clearheaded examination of who The Times wants its audience to be. Should it include people of different beliefs? Different skin tones? Different religious traditions? Everyone would surely say yes, but it’s not clear whether it’s an actual priority. The Times sees itself as one of the great news organizations in the world. But is its audience as broad as that claim implies? It’s well-established in the building, for example, that The Times reaches far more liberals than it does conservatives. I don’t know how many blacks or Hispanics or rural Midwesterners it reaches. But I hope a monolithic audience is considered unacceptable. It would be bad for business and, more perilously, it would leave The Times with a capsized public mission.