{"id":314268,"date":"2017-06-24T06:42:43","date_gmt":"2017-06-24T05:42:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/nyts-new-reader-center-already-proving-a-step-backward-in-accountability\/"},"modified":"2017-06-24T06:42:43","modified_gmt":"2017-06-24T05:42:43","slug":"nyts-new-reader-center-already-proving-a-step-backward-in-accountability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/nyts-new-reader-center-already-proving-a-step-backward-in-accountability\/","title":{"rendered":"NYT\u2019s New \u2018Reader Center\u2019 Already Proving a Step Backward in Accountability"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"NYT:<\/a><\/p>\n

Without a public editor, the New York Times<\/strong>‘ executive editor gets the last word on the word “torture.”<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The New York Times<\/b>\u2019 public editor role was killed off a mere three weeks ago (FAIR.org<\/b>, 6\/1\/17<\/a>), but its absence is already being felt. Yesterday, the Times <\/b>published the first installment<\/a> of the paper\u2019s new \u201cReader Center,\u201d the ostensible replacement to the public editor, and, not surprisingly, it thoroughly underwhelmed.<\/p>\n

Reading much like an online version of a letters to the editor page, the inaugural Reader Center was comprised of five short items, only two of which were of serious import to the paper\u2019s coverage. The other three included a breezy social-media back and forth between a staff photographer and a reader about an archival photo, one item of self-promotion about a Times <\/b>investigative piece, and a update on the subscriber who won a contest to visit the newsroom. Quite a mixed signal to readers who have serious questions or issues with the paper\u2019s coverage. (The Reader Center added an additional administrative item this morning noting that, contrary to right-wing media reports<\/a>, former FBI Director James Comey did not visit the Times<\/b> offices yesterday.)<\/p>\n

Even among the two items that did raise coverage concerns, the degree to which this new Reader Center pales in comparison to a dedicated public editor was clear. Both of these issues\u2014one on the Times<\/b>\u2019 use of the word \u201ctorture\u201d in a recent expos\u00e9<\/a>, and one critiquing the ethics of how the paper visualized obesity<\/a> through photography\u2014elicited cursory responses from the paper\u2019s editorial staff.<\/p>\n

On the former, Times <\/b>executive editor Dean Baquet brushed off reader complaints about the expos\u00e9\u2019s use of the phrase \u201cwidely viewed as torture\u201d as tantamount to simply writing \u201ctorture.\u201d He then indulged in a little more self-praise about the paper\u2019s commitment to covering the issue.<\/p>\n

With no public editor to mediate or push back, or add context, Baquet\u2019s word became the final one. Readers are left with no advocate to push Baquet on the Times<\/b>\u2019 long, ignominious history of bowing to White House pressure by not using the word \u201ctorture\u201d (FAIR.org<\/b>, 8\/8\/14<\/a>) or, contrary to Baquet\u2019s boasting, sidestepping coverage of the issue (FAIR.org<\/b>, 8\/18\/14<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Likewise, a real public editor might have pointed that the \u201cwidely viewed as\u2026\u201d caveat also appeared in the expos\u00e9\u2019s subhed, giving it more narrative power than Baquet suggested. Or even questioned the logic of using this caveat at all, since it, by own Baquet\u2019s account, was aimed at \u201cdescribing the perspective\u201d of the architects of a torture program–hardly the point of view you\u2019d want investigations of torture to adopt.<\/p>\n

This step backward in accountability and transparency is to be expected, however. By removing the interrogatory power of a staff ombud, the Times <\/b>not only insures it will have the last word on any issue of its coverage, it effectively tilts the conditions for all critical debate fully in favor of its staff and masthead. It\u2019s a media criticism version of “the house always wins.\u201d<\/p>\n

Back in 2013, the Washington Post <\/b>tried to pass off a similar \u201cReader\u2019s Representative\u201d replacement when it killed off its ombud. The paper quietly ended that experiment<\/a> too, after nine months of similarly useless, ephemeral and unresponsive columns.<\/p>\n

Now more than ever, the Times<\/b>\u2019 coverage is in the spotlight, but the veneer of faux-accountability it\u2019s offering is not only bad for readers, it\u2019s a long-term gamble for the paper. It\u2019s a given that the next big missed story or ethical lapse the Times <\/b>makes won\u2019t be prevented by this Reader Center. And if future installments of it are like the first, the paper likely won\u2019t learn any journalistic lessons from those mistakes after the fact, either.<\/p>\n

\n

You can send a message to the New York Times<\/strong> at letters@nytimes.com<\/a> (Twitter<\/strong>:@NYTimes<\/a>). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/span>
\nThis piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News<\/a> with permission from FAIR<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Without a public editor, the New York Times‘ executive editor gets the last word on the word “torture.” The New York Times\u2019 public editor role was killed off a mere three weeks ago (FAIR.org, 6\/1\/17), but its absence is already being felt. Yesterday, the Times published the first installment of the paper\u2019s new \u201cReader Center,\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2521,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[519],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-314268","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-newswire"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2521"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=314268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=314268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=314268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=314268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}