According to the New York Observer, the New York Times is considering eliminating the position of Public Editor.
I admit that I long ago stopped reading the columns by the current PE, Byron Calame. I found him dull and he never seemed to write about anything I wanted to read about. Jack Shafer said the same thing, only much better, last May on Slate. However, I did like Calame's predecessor, Daniel Okrent, who was the first to hold the job, and I read his column and blog regularly.
More to the point, I think the position itself is crucial. To be sure, there are any number of media watchdogs, spread across the political spectrum, who help keep the Times honest. But having someone on the inside is a valuable addition for us readers. From the Times's perspective, having a Public Editor improves credibility and gives the paper a good way to defend its editorial decisions. It's a good channel for addressing readers' concerns, much more focused than just accepting Letters to the Editor.
I know cutting staff is the new black for staying in the black at newspapers across the country, but I can't believe the cost of one staff position is going to break the bank for this paper. Hell, charge us another buck a year for TimesSelect if you're really hurting that badly. I'll pay it gladly.
I get the sense from the Observer that Keller doesn't like Calame personally, and perhaps this whole thing stems from that. If so, I hope time and input from interested parties will cool Keller down. In any case, I hope he reconsiders.
If you want to weigh in, you can:
- Send Keller an email at executive-editor@nytimes.com
- Visit the Times's feedback page
- See "How to Contact the News Staff" for more contact info.
Thanks to Rachel Sklar for calling this to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment