Comments on Community Journalism Interest Group: The New York Times -- Community be Damned

The tally of pro, con, and neutral letters is well...

2007-09-22T17:43:00.000-04:00

The tally of pro, con, and neutral letters is well worth giving space to. More vs less letters in print version is a matter of personal taste. I like reading them so I'd like more, but the point that limited space keeps there from being more -- or enough -- of many things is well taken. How about more coverage of debates like this one? As a non-"business" issue, it is unlikely to make the Monday industry section, or any other part of the NYT. Finally, what about letters about other letters? That is much better handled online, and keeps any given debate going rather than artificially capping it via editorial fiat. Some kind of signal to print readers regarding what is going on online in a given domain -- especially an interactive dimension like letters -- could surely be devised. New times demand new solutions. Looking forward to seeing where all this goes. In the meantime, does the now-tougher task of getting a kletter oublshed in the Times grow in value for tenure-seekers? The "journal" just became more selective. Worth pondering.

And there are people who object to not giving enou...

2007-09-21T09:31:00.000-04:00

And there are people who object to not giving enough space to the Bridge column, not covering poker, not covering recreational bicycling at greater length, ignoring the Aliens Bombed the Pentagon conspiracy ...

What makes you think I want any newspaper to devote more of its limited space to your opinions from letter-writers (when doing so means they have to give less space to the news?) When I buy the paper, I'm paying for that space, to paraphrase Mr. Reagan. I want it used wisely.

Paper is dead; long live the web! Think back to w...

2007-09-21T06:49:00.000-04:00

Paper is dead; long live the web! Think back to what the Times' website was just two years ago when they began TimesSelect. The changes are immense, evolutionary. They are putting their letters to the editor "where their mouth is."

Personally I like it that the Times is selective a...

2007-09-20T10:44:00.000-04:00

Personally I like it that the Times is selective about the number of letters it publishes. Almost all of them are well-reasoned, backed up with facts and often witty. If I want to read hundreds of half-baked opinions, there's no shortage of them on the web.

As for a personal response to your submission: Do you really think it's the best use of limited resources for the Times to pay someone to write a personal note to each of the hundreds of (unsolicited) pieces it receives every month? Or do you mean just you, because you're special?

Mark -- I appreciate and agree with your comments....

2007-09-20T09:36:00.000-04:00

Mark -- I appreciate and agree with your comments. There are a few newspapers that do what you say, and it would be nice if that became standard practice.

Of course, such a move would also suggest that high selectivity is virtuous (akin to peer-reviewed research journals, many of which brag about having high rejection rates).

A lottery approach to selection would be another interesting experiment.

Want to know why your comments really aren't heard...

2007-09-19T16:27:00.000-04:00

Want to know why your comments really aren't heard? Because on average, only about 15% of a newspaper's revenue comes from subscribers like you. Guess what percentage of that same newspaper's revenue is spent on printing and delivering the newspaper? 15%. So essentially you are only buying the paper and ink. The funding for journalism (whether editorial or objective) comes from the money spent by advertisers. That's why they don't care about what you think. Until you fork up the money to buy a full page ad to say what you want, you opinion is worth just about as much as it costs you to have it.

Even with limited space, there is one thing The Ne...

2007-09-19T14:40:00.000-04:00

Even with limited space, there is one thing The New York Times could do which would make readers (and NYT editors) more aware of the true nature of the "vox populi" on a given subject: tally -- and report -- the total number of letters, pro and con, on a given subject received within, say, five days of an article's or editorial's appearance.

Often, I'll see four or six letters all lining up with the NYT editorial stance on a subject, or all opposing this or that move from the administration. Did no one write to oppose The Times or support the administration's view? No one at all? I find that difficult to believe, especially in this e-mail age.

Tell me, New York Times that 463 letters came in on a subject. Tell me 38 agreed with an editorial and 425 opposed it and the rest were neutral. Then, when you only print six favorable letters, I'll have some context.

This would, of course, require the transparency that the NYT so famously demands of others, but won't always apply to itself.

I stand slightly corrected. Among more recent lett...

2007-09-18T01:32:00.000-04:00

I stand slightly corrected. Among more recent letters, I am able to access some through a Google search, but only those that have not been put into the archives and behind the Times Select paywall.

Method: I took key phrases from pairs of letters on the same or close dates for this past June and July. Those not indicated on the Times' site as being Times Select came up. Those requiring a Times Select subscription did not.

I then put in word pairs, not quoted phrases, from letters, such as the term nontheist prejudice as a regular searcher might do, and those that were available generally came up by the second page.

I could not find anywhere on the Times site an explanation for what letters it decides to put in the paid archive and what ones it does not.

So my general observations hold: If the Times were to open access to all its letters and allow commenting (even under what I am sure would be a restrictive protocol), then online letters would, to me, be far more valuable.
- Doug

I can't totally agree with you Bill.Print is a nic...

2007-09-18T01:09:00.000-04:00

I can't totally agree with you Bill.

Print is a nice ego booster. But if I want my voice to be heard -- and continue to be heard long into the future -- and if I want feedback on my ideas instead of just casting them to the wind, these days I go to the Web.

The Times has letters dating to 1981 online. I am unclear, however, whether it allows them to be indexed by search engines (I can't recall ever seeing one come up in a search, which is surprising given how far back they go).

I suspect, however, it does not because of its log-in wall. (I just did some Googling using rather unusual phrases in some of the older letters, and nothing came up.)

To me, that -- and not allowing comments on the letters so there is robust debate on one of the premier news sites in the world -- is the greater failure here.

-Doug Fisher