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/2017/01/27/public-editor/friday-mailbag-crowds-dads-trump-rust-belt-public-editor-liz-spayd.html

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

Version 0 Version 1
Friday Mailbag: Measuring Crowds, Maligning a Region Friday Mailbag: Measuring Crowds, Maligning a Region
(about 9 hours later)
Last Saturday, swarms of women (and more than a few men) marched in Washington and around the world following Donald Trump’s inauguration. Some readers were concerned that The Times did an inadequate job estimating how many people showed up when it described the number as more than a million worldwide.Last Saturday, swarms of women (and more than a few men) marched in Washington and around the world following Donald Trump’s inauguration. Some readers were concerned that The Times did an inadequate job estimating how many people showed up when it described the number as more than a million worldwide.
Estimating crowd sizes has long been a fraught topic. Large gatherings of people can be difficult to estimate in precise terms — and no one will be happy with the outcome. There’s even a group of scientists who specialize in “crowd estimates,” as a Times piece comparing the sizes of the Washington women’s march to Trump’s inauguration noted.Estimating crowd sizes has long been a fraught topic. Large gatherings of people can be difficult to estimate in precise terms — and no one will be happy with the outcome. There’s even a group of scientists who specialize in “crowd estimates,” as a Times piece comparing the sizes of the Washington women’s march to Trump’s inauguration noted.
The Times used estimates compiled by the police, as well as figures from mayoral, public safety and homeland security offices. For greater accuracy in estimating the Washington numbers, editors asked Marcel Altenburg and Keith Still, crowd scientists at Manchester Metropolitan University in Britain, to analyze aerial photographs and video. The Times incorporated all this material to reach its final estimate of “more than one million.”The Times used estimates compiled by the police, as well as figures from mayoral, public safety and homeland security offices. For greater accuracy in estimating the Washington numbers, editors asked Marcel Altenburg and Keith Still, crowd scientists at Manchester Metropolitan University in Britain, to analyze aerial photographs and video. The Times incorporated all this material to reach its final estimate of “more than one million.”
Since march organizers have a vested interest in a high turnout, The Times only included their estimates parenthetically, through a link to a website reporting a total turnout of nearly five million: “(March organizers offered a worldwide tally for the 673 ‘sister’ marches, but when asked, could not provide an explanation of how the tally had been calculated.)”Since march organizers have a vested interest in a high turnout, The Times only included their estimates parenthetically, through a link to a website reporting a total turnout of nearly five million: “(March organizers offered a worldwide tally for the 673 ‘sister’ marches, but when asked, could not provide an explanation of how the tally had been calculated.)”
An editor who helped anchor the coverage in New York said:An editor who helped anchor the coverage in New York said:
The marches here in the States drew foreign protesters, too, but some were denied entry on questionable grounds. That story did not appear in The Times’s pages, and several readers noticed.The marches here in the States drew foreign protesters, too, but some were denied entry on questionable grounds. That story did not appear in The Times’s pages, and several readers noticed.
The public editor’s take: Not a huge story, but from what I’ve read on other news sites, it seemed like a compelling one. Unfortunately, Times readers missed out.The public editor’s take: Not a huge story, but from what I’ve read on other news sites, it seemed like a compelling one. Unfortunately, Times readers missed out.
Readers also noticed a story that is a repeated issue for The Times and one on which the public editor has written about previously.Readers also noticed a story that is a repeated issue for The Times and one on which the public editor has written about previously.
The public editor’s take: I’m with Schafran one, for the reasons she states. The public editor’s take: I’m with Schafran on this one, for the reasons she states.
Then there were Trump’s views on women during the presidential campaign, which came up again last weekend during the marches, such as his remarks about Megyn Kelly, Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton, and that infamous recording in which he brags about groping women.Then there were Trump’s views on women during the presidential campaign, which came up again last weekend during the marches, such as his remarks about Megyn Kelly, Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton, and that infamous recording in which he brags about groping women.
The issue? That The Times did not flat-out say that Trump’s statements were misogynistic. “Many participants,” The Times wrote, “believed Mr. Trump expressed misogynistic views during the presidential campaign.”The issue? That The Times did not flat-out say that Trump’s statements were misogynistic. “Many participants,” The Times wrote, “believed Mr. Trump expressed misogynistic views during the presidential campaign.”
The public editor’s take: Hmmm. I’m generally reluctant to think that a journalist’s work is achieved through labels, but it’s hard to look at many of Trump’s statements and not find them misogynistic. It depends on which statement we’re referring to, but to say “some” of his statements about women are misogynistic is unequivocal.The public editor’s take: Hmmm. I’m generally reluctant to think that a journalist’s work is achieved through labels, but it’s hard to look at many of Trump’s statements and not find them misogynistic. It depends on which statement we’re referring to, but to say “some” of his statements about women are misogynistic is unequivocal.
The issue of Trump and labels came up in a different context this week when The Times called one of his baseless claims a lie in a front-page headline: “Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers.”The issue of Trump and labels came up in a different context this week when The Times called one of his baseless claims a lie in a front-page headline: “Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers.”
The majority of readers who wrote in wrote to applaud The Times for doing so.The majority of readers who wrote in wrote to applaud The Times for doing so.
Some other readers, however, were warier, arguing that The Times would never be able to find its way inside Trump’s mind.Some other readers, however, were warier, arguing that The Times would never be able to find its way inside Trump’s mind.
We went to the associate managing editor for standards, Phil Corbett, for his take on the issue.We went to the associate managing editor for standards, Phil Corbett, for his take on the issue.
The public editor’s take: These parameters make sense to me. My vote is for using the word “lie” in a highly limited way, under specific circumstances and with top-level approval, as I’ve written before. As some of our readers point out, the intent of the person called out for lying matters. It can’t be just the routine stuff of the spin room.The public editor’s take: These parameters make sense to me. My vote is for using the word “lie” in a highly limited way, under specific circumstances and with top-level approval, as I’ve written before. As some of our readers point out, the intent of the person called out for lying matters. It can’t be just the routine stuff of the spin room.
Shortly after the election, The Times ran an Op-Ed piece by Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, in which he wrote, “When you call us the Rust Belt, you demean our work and diminish who we are.” A reader wrote in then to applaud.Shortly after the election, The Times ran an Op-Ed piece by Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, in which he wrote, “When you call us the Rust Belt, you demean our work and diminish who we are.” A reader wrote in then to applaud.
This week, Derck wrote in again when The Times ran a story on the front page with the headline: “In a Rust Belt Town, the Women’s March Draws Shrugs and Cheers From Afar.”This week, Derck wrote in again when The Times ran a story on the front page with the headline: “In a Rust Belt Town, the Women’s March Draws Shrugs and Cheers From Afar.”
“No, I’m not going to give this up,” she wrote. “I know how much work is left to do but are you still going to be calling us Rust Belt when we may be the leader in alternative energy or something else in 2090?”“No, I’m not going to give this up,” she wrote. “I know how much work is left to do but are you still going to be calling us Rust Belt when we may be the leader in alternative energy or something else in 2090?”
We shared Derck’s letters with the national editor, Marc Lacey, who said:We shared Derck’s letters with the national editor, Marc Lacey, who said:
The public editor’s take: Lacey’s answer is spot on.The public editor’s take: Lacey’s answer is spot on.
Last Monday, the public editor criticized a story on dads taking care of their kids while the moms marched against Trump, arguing that it should have never run. The column drew some wry responses from fathers, which we decided to highlight here.Last Monday, the public editor criticized a story on dads taking care of their kids while the moms marched against Trump, arguing that it should have never run. The column drew some wry responses from fathers, which we decided to highlight here.
Here’s to dads.Here’s to dads.