hellsheet

The NYT starts blogging: Times on the Trail

The New York Times started blogging awhile back, in, of course, a New York Times way -- which means not very blog-like. Still, The New York Times: Times on the Trail, the Times' political blog, is definitely a step in the right direction.

And this interview with Len Apcar, editor in chief of NYTimes.com, indicates it may well be a model for Times blogs in other fields -- maybe even opera.

Now if we could just get Times' "public editor" Daniel Okrent to start one.

The Public Editor: All the News That’s Fit to Print? Or Just Our News?

As a former columnist myself, I can attest that one of the hardest acts in journalism is finding one's sea legs. It takes several columns to develop a "voice" and a rhythm. This difficulty is heightened when the column is unprecedented.

Thus I've been willing to cut a lot of slack to Daniel Okrent, The Times' "public editor" or ombudsman. The Times has never had a "public editor" and doesn't have a culture of examining and explaining its practices to the public. Okrent's initial columns were hesitant, his punches pulled.

That's over now. Okrent's column in Sunday's paper, The Public Editor: All the News That’s Fit to Print? Or Just Our News?, is a fine piece of journalistic criticism.

Okrent takes on the Not-Invented-Here syndrome. He provides chapter-and-verse on the institutional hubris that won't allow The Times to build on the work of other news organizations and calls for changes.

What could Okrent do better? Write more often. Okrent writes a single long column once every two weeks. That's not enough. Many other journalist bloggers have suggested, correctly, that Okrent should have The Times' first blog, where he can have a much more direct relationship with the readers, at any time and to whatever length required.

THE PUBLIC EDITOR: Dr. Dean Assumes His Place on the Examining Table

In today's Public Editor column, THE PUBLIC EDITOR: Dr. Dean Assumes His Place on the Examining Table, Daniel Okrent addresses the widespread dissatisfaction with the Times' coverage of Howard Dean. In general it's an OK column -- Okrent does acknowledge some problems. I thought it a little too light on the criticism, but reasonable people can differ on that.

However, in re-reading it for this posting I concluded there were some asides that are themselves questionable.

1. "An article detailing what Dean's opponents perceive to be his weaknesses is legitimate news." Why? Opponents, after all, exist for one reason: to oppose. Long ago in journalism we defined news as "man bites dog." Dog biting man isn't news and neither is "opponents oppose." Or, to reverse the situation (something Okrent calls on readers to do) why aren't opponents quizzed about the other guy's strengths? (see Jay Rosen's Horse Race Now! Horse Race tomorrow! Horse Race Forever! for a more full description of the pernicious "race" and "battle" metaphors.

2. In another aside Okrent defends use of the term "Deaniacs" in an article with the justification that many Dean supporters themselves use the term. I was willing to go along with this until I thought about it. Members of many sub-cultures use disparaging terms ironically. Use of the term indicates membership in the group, and these may only be legitimately used by members of the sub-culture. Some examples: " nigger," " 'ho," " bitch" and others come to mind. But the Times writer wasn't using "Deaniac" ironically. Hence it's inherently pejorative.

Incidentally, Okrent has posted a clarification to his column. One of the reporters he quoted believed the abbreviated quote distorted his meaning.

Brooks: I was foolish to write neocon column the way I did

David Brooks apologizes for inapt reference involving Jews and neo-conservatives, reports Poynter Institute's Jim Romenesko. Brooks: I was foolish to write neocon column the way I did

"I am still on the learning curve here, and I do realize that mixture of a crack with a serious accusation [in Tuesday's column on neocons and their critics] was incredibly stupid on my part," writes New York Times columnist David Brooks in a note to public editor Daniel Okrent. "Please do pass along to readers that I'm aware of how foolish I was to write the column in the way I did."

New media columnist J.D. Lasica wonders why the Times' new "public editor" (ombudsman) deals with this in private email when posting on a blog makes more sense. JD's New Media Musings: Brooks cops to 'foolishness'

A Face Lift for The Times, Typographically, That Is

The Times unveils a "new look" -- albeit one nigh onto invisible to those of us who aren't typographers. A Face Lift for The Times, Typographically, That Is

The changes are subtle. The article, strangely, has no byline. But there's good explanation of the typographical changes. The print edition contains a side-by-side graphic of the changes, and the graphic is available as a pop-up from the web page.