Archive

Tag Archives: New York Times

car

Seth D. Michael tweeted after seeing this in Thursday’s New York Times Bits section: “Extremely optimistic NYT illustration has a guy in a driverless car reading a print-edition newspaper.” Was it the artist’s idea, or Times editors’? I wondered. Did he consider a drawing a tablet instead of a newspaper? Here’s what illustrator Bob Scott tells Romenesko readers:

Yes, that was my idea. I thought the concept of having this driver in the future still reading a newspaper (no doubt the NY Times) was amusing, but had no idea it would get such a big reaction. [Over 4,000 retweets for Michaels, and check out the replies!]

I never seriously considered a tablet, or any other high tech device for this and was glad that the editors went along with it. In a small way it was also an homage to printed publications- with the hope that they will still be around in the future.

* Tipping point in transit (nytimes.com)




* New York Times corrections for June 8, 2015 (nytimes.com)

Earlier on “Rex Parker Does the NYT Crossword Puzzle”:
* “I think the right answer is Yes sir, Yes sir. I always thought the questioner starts with BAA, BAA”
* “Good catch. I say, ‘Baa baa black sheep, have you any wool?’ And the sheep responds, ‘Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full…'”

New: “The Times regrets that it has readers for whom this correction is necessary,” and more comments (facebook.com)




Memo from New York Times business editor Dean Murphy:

From: “Murphy, Dean”
Date: Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:27 PM
Subject: New roles for David Gelles and Brian Chen
To: “!NYHQ-bizstaff”

We are pleased to announce that David Gelles and Brian Chen are taking on new roles for BizDay.

David will write regularly for Sunday Business about finance and other Wall Street and business subjects, drawing upon his experience covering M&A, media, marketing and tech. Since joining The Times two years ago, David has untangled complex business subjects for our readers, both on deadline and in long-form features, demonstrating over and over again that financial journalism can be engaging and compelling./CONTINUES Read More

From Wednesday’s New York Times:
source

* Commodes have improved at Port Authority bus terminal (nytimes.com)

Update: Times public editor Margaret Sullivan writes: “The article has a light touch, and Mr. Barron — the rewrite man who can turn mush into poetry — was probably just sending up the whole matter of how freely anonymity is granted and for what absurd reasons.”

New: Read the comments from my Facebook friends and subscribers




animate
* The firing of Jill Abramson, as depicted by Taiwanese Animators (youtube.com)
* New York mag: Abramson was fired; Ira Glass: “I have no idea what you’re talking about” (nymag.com)




Emily Steel is leaving the Financial Times to cover the TV industry for the New York Times. “Just thrilled about the opportunity,” she tweets. “It’s a dream job,” former Times TV-beat reporter Brian Stelter tells her.

This note went to Times staffers this morning:

May 16, 2014

Emily Steel to Join Media Desk
We are pleased to announce that Emily Steel will join The New York Times as a media reporter covering the television industry. Read more in this note from Peter Lattman, Bill Brink and Craig Hunter.

Emily Steel

Emily Steel

The cheers you’re now hearing around the newsroom are from our colleagues who once worked with Emily at The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. They had urged us to hire Emily, and having competed against her, it didn’t take much convincing.

Emily spent six years at the Journal and the last two at the FT as its media and marketing correspondent. At the Journal, she contributed several stories to the paper’s Pulitzer-finalist “End of Privacy” series about the pervasive tracking of Americans online, including her high-impact piece about privacy breaches at Facebook. Her media reporting at the FT has been topnotch, including her recent coverage of the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger.

She will be a triple threat on this beat, with deep experience covering the traditional broadcast and cable networks; the disruptive forces in television (Netflix, Amazon, Aereo, etc.); and all facets of the advertising business.

Emily was born in Salt Lake City, spent her grade school years in Lincoln, Neb., and then moved to East Lyme, Conn., for junior high and high school. She graduated from the University of North Carolina, where she was a top editor at the Daily Tar Heel.

She starts June 16. Please help us welcome her.

— Peter, Bill and Craig

My tipster writes: “That’s five reporters the Times has taken from the FT in the last year: Alexandra Stevenson and David Gelles for Dealbook, Vanessa Friedman to lead fashion coverage, Alan Rappeport to work on a new DC project, and now Emily for Brian Stelter’s old job.”




Longtime New York Times tech columnist David Pogue is leaving the New York Times for Yahoo — “a company that’s young, revitalized, aggressive …[and] razor-focused,” he says. || Pogue’s announcement and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer’s statement.

Yahoo’s release:

YAHOO HIRES DAVID POGUE TO LEAD CONSUMER TECH COVERAGE

SUNNYVALE, Calif. (October 21, 2013) — Yahoo today announced that technology columnist, best-selling author and television host David Pogue will join Yahoo to spearhead the company’s consumer technology content. David will lead a major expansion of consumer tech coverage on Yahoo and will publish columns, blog posts, video stories and more, starting later this year.

“Yahoo is a company that’s young, revitalized, aggressive and, under Marissa Mayer’s leadership, razor-focused,” David said. “We all thrive on new experiences, and as someone who loves to build cool new stuff, I’m excited to jump in head first.”

“Yahoo is in a unique position to bring to life great editorial about the technology consumers are using every day,” said Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo. “David is tremendously talented, has a great sense of humor, and is one of the best technology experts I’ve ever encountered. I can’t think of a more perfect person to make technology more accessible and helpful for the hundreds of millions of people who come to Yahoo every day.”

David has covered the consumer technology industry for more than 25 years, most recently as a columnist for the New York Times.




Jason Feifer emails: “I just tweeted this out and then thought, hey, I bet Jim Romenesko would be interested in this question too!

“Nicholas Confessore’s wedding was included in the Sunday Styles section [last Sunday].justasking I wonder how the Times makes the decision to include or exclude its reporters’ weddings. Must be a spirited debate, to say the least.”

New York Times society editor Bob Woletz tells Feifer and other Romenesko readers:

We do not offer guarantees to anyone – staffers included – – that an item about any particular wedding will appear. And just like all of the other couples who submit their weddings for consideration, staffers must also fill out the online form and submit them on deadline to us. Then, as with all submissions, they are judged on a case-by-case basis, with space in that Sunday’s paper and other couples getting married that weekend are key factors in who makes the final cut.

* Anna Hoffman, Nicholas Confessore (nytimes.com)
* Read the comments about this on my Facebook wall (facebook.com)




A Romenesko reader who said she was “too shy” to be named sends this email:

I wonder what you and others think about the story in the New York Times regarding Apple’s business practices in China. The first place I ever heard about the issue was via Mike Daisey’s monologue on Steve Jobs, in which he details nearly everything in the NYT series. It feels as though he got there first, and yet NYT never cites him. Am I mistaken?

I asked Daisey what he thought of the Times’ piece. His response:

I’ve been telling this story nightly for eighteen months, and I’m absolutely thrilled that the NYT is doing this reporting. It’s what I’ve been hoping for — that journalists would dig in and pull this story out by its roots, and the NYT has done that here.

I’m a monologist, and not a journalist in any traditional sense. I see our roles as utterly complementary –journalism reports the facts that fill our world, and I tell stories that create connections that make audiences engage in a human way.

I know that reporters who have worked on this series saw my monologue in the fall, and I spoke with Charles Duhigg then about my experiences. If my work helped them in any way I am very glad.

As a monologist, I’m passionate about stories told fully and deeply, so there can be a way for us to see the truth in a human way. The NYT’s work on this series does that magnificently, and they deserve all the credit for their hard work. I think it’s a great day when a work of art and a piece of journalism can both be in the public sphere affecting change in their own ways. More than anything else, I am grateful to the reporters who are telling this story because when I speak from the stage I feel less alone.

* Visit MikeDaisey.blogspot.com




New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane asked this morning “whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge ‘facts’ that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.”

Reaction to the post came fast. I asked Brisbane if he was surprised by what people were tweeting. His response:

I have to say I did not expect that so many people would interpret me to have asked only: should The Times print the truth and fact-check? Of course, The Times should print the truth, when it can be found, and
fact-check.

What I was trying to ask was whether reporters should always rebut dubious facts in the body of the stories they are writing. I was hoping for diverse and even nuanced responses to what I think is a difficult question. To illustrate the difficulty, the first example I cited involved whether Clarence Thomas “misunderstood” the financial disclosure form when he failed to include his wife’s income. No doubt, many people doubt that he “misunderstood” but to rebut this as false would be difficult indeed, requiring knowledge of Mr. Thomas’s thinking. I was also hoping to stimulate a discussion about the difficulty of selecting which “facts” to rebut, facts being troublesome things that seem to shift depending on the beholder’s perspective. Many readers, in my view, would be skeptical whether The Times would always take a fair-minded approach to rebutting
the right “facts.”

I often get very well-reasoned complaints and questions from readers, but in this case a lot of people responded to a question I was not asking.

* Should the Times be a truth vigilante?
* Yes, NYT should definitely be a truth vigilante
* Props to Brisbane for bringing the issue to the fore
*
NEW: Brisbane updates his post on the Times website