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/2016/11/18/public-editor/friday-mailbag-no-more-politics-just-kidding.html

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

Version 0 Version 1
Friday Mailbag: No More Politics. Just Kidding. Friday Mailbag: No More Politics. Just Kidding.
(35 minutes later)
Last week, our first Friday mailbag was mostly election themed, with Donald Trump’s surprise victory occupying most readers’ minds. This week has been no different: The number of letters only increased over the weekend and during the first half of the week, coming in — at their highest rate — at around 500 per day.Last week, our first Friday mailbag was mostly election themed, with Donald Trump’s surprise victory occupying most readers’ minds. This week has been no different: The number of letters only increased over the weekend and during the first half of the week, coming in — at their highest rate — at around 500 per day.
Many readers were still questioning The Times’s election coverage — more on that in Sunday’s public editor column. Another related topic was the paper’s plans to cover the Trump presidency over the next four years. Some offered suggestions.Many readers were still questioning The Times’s election coverage — more on that in Sunday’s public editor column. Another related topic was the paper’s plans to cover the Trump presidency over the next four years. Some offered suggestions.
Several other writers proposed methods for responding to a president whose falsehoods, thus far, have been difficult to keep up with.Several other writers proposed methods for responding to a president whose falsehoods, thus far, have been difficult to keep up with.
Others offered words of encouragement in response to the president-elect’s barrage of angry tweets about The Times.Others offered words of encouragement in response to the president-elect’s barrage of angry tweets about The Times.
One reader wrote:One reader wrote:
When The Times reported on Trump’s first White House appointees, many readers believed that the paper was already normalizing Trump’s presidency by inaccurately describing them.When The Times reported on Trump’s first White House appointees, many readers believed that the paper was already normalizing Trump’s presidency by inaccurately describing them.
On The Times’s description of Trump’s pick to reshape the Environmental Protection Agency, Myron Ebell, as a climate “contrarian”:On The Times’s description of Trump’s pick to reshape the Environmental Protection Agency, Myron Ebell, as a climate “contrarian”:
(A memo that went out to Times editors last year advised that the paper “should not use the shorthand ‘climate skeptics’ except when referring to the (relatively few) trained scientists who see only moderate consequences in global warming. Other doubters — political, religious, whatever — need a more deliberate description, like ‘people who reject established climate science’ or, subsequently, ‘climate denialists’ or ‘climate contrarians.’ ”)(A memo that went out to Times editors last year advised that the paper “should not use the shorthand ‘climate skeptics’ except when referring to the (relatively few) trained scientists who see only moderate consequences in global warming. Other doubters — political, religious, whatever — need a more deliberate description, like ‘people who reject established climate science’ or, subsequently, ‘climate denialists’ or ‘climate contrarians.’ ”)
On The Times’s description of Trump’s pick for a top White House post, Stephen Bannon, as “a right-wing media provocateur” and “a nationalist media mogul”:On The Times’s description of Trump’s pick for a top White House post, Stephen Bannon, as “a right-wing media provocateur” and “a nationalist media mogul”:
Some readers were mystified by The Times’s postelection analysis. Several were concerned with a story that featured a map describing two separate Americas: one Hillary Clinton’s, one Trump’s.Some readers were mystified by The Times’s postelection analysis. Several were concerned with a story that featured a map describing two separate Americas: one Hillary Clinton’s, one Trump’s.
A story on the Trump camp’s refusal to close the door on putting Hillary Clinton in jail raised readers’ eyebrows when it compared Trump’s possible investigation to President Obama’s decision over whether to investigate the George W. Bush administration for torture. The sentence has since been updated, though readers were not notified.A story on the Trump camp’s refusal to close the door on putting Hillary Clinton in jail raised readers’ eyebrows when it compared Trump’s possible investigation to President Obama’s decision over whether to investigate the George W. Bush administration for torture. The sentence has since been updated, though readers were not notified.
The earlier sentence read: “The decision [Trump] faces echoes one confronted by Mr. Obama and his first attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., over whether to investigate Bush administration officials for extreme interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects that the Obama administration later deemed to be torture.”The earlier sentence read: “The decision [Trump] faces echoes one confronted by Mr. Obama and his first attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., over whether to investigate Bush administration officials for extreme interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects that the Obama administration later deemed to be torture.”
It was changed to: “When Mr. Obama took office, he and his first attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., also faced a decision over whether to investigate the previous administration.”It was changed to: “When Mr. Obama took office, he and his first attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., also faced a decision over whether to investigate the previous administration.”
One reader wrote:One reader wrote:
The public editor’s take: The editors were wise to rethink their apples-to-watermelons comparison. Equating Clinton’s email travails to the actions of C.I.A. water boarders just doesn’t hold up.
After a Times live briefing included the term “death tax,” a slew of readers wrote in to point out the misstep. One reader wrote:After a Times live briefing included the term “death tax,” a slew of readers wrote in to point out the misstep. One reader wrote:
We raised the concern with the editor of the briefing; he told us that the term had slipped by, and that he’d discuss it with the author. (The term still remains in the briefing at time of publication.)We raised the concern with the editor of the briefing; he told us that the term had slipped by, and that he’d discuss it with the author. (The term still remains in the briefing at time of publication.)
Notwithstanding the various complaints — and Trump’s claim otherwise — The Times this week reported a drastic uptick in paid subscriptions since the election — 41,000, to be exact.Notwithstanding the various complaints — and Trump’s claim otherwise — The Times this week reported a drastic uptick in paid subscriptions since the election — 41,000, to be exact.
Many of the new subscribers wrote in to our office to explain their decisions.Many of the new subscribers wrote in to our office to explain their decisions.
One reader even asked how he could go a step further:One reader even asked how he could go a step further:
Another reader said she would will be relying on The Times not just for its reporting but also for inspiration.Another reader said she would will be relying on The Times not just for its reporting but also for inspiration.
Although we can’t speak for the newsroom, we can promise Beth that the public editor’s office will do its best to help the newsroom answer the call.Although we can’t speak for the newsroom, we can promise Beth that the public editor’s office will do its best to help the newsroom answer the call.