MEDIA

When it Rains, it Pours: The New York Times Fumbles into the New Year

December 29, 2011   ·   1 Comments

Source: NYTX

By Chris Spannos:

The New York Times has experienced a dramatic series of changes closing out this year and that seem to cast the shadow of instability over the “paper of record” as it enters into 2012.

This month alone delivered news of massive changes including CEO Janet Robinson’s departure from the Times, as well as more than ten buyouts of long-time columnists and editorial staffers.

If this news wasn’t enough, the Times also recently announced the sale of 16 local papers that made up its regional media group, and the Newspaper Guild of New York has strongly expressed worker dissatisfaction with Times managerial practices.

The Times put icing on its own cake yesterday when it mistakenly sent 8.6 million confusing e-mails notifying recipients that they, the subscriber, had requested cancellation of their own home delivery service.

The e-mail, which was supposed to be sent to only 300 recipients but was mailed to anyone who had an e-mail on the Times list, explained:

“Our records indicate that you recently requested to cancel your home delivery subscription.”

The Times was offering these cancelation requests a deal to stay on:

“As a valued Times reader we invite you to continue your current subscription at an exclusive rate of 50% off for 16 weeks.”

Tweets fluttered around wondering if the e-mail was authentic and if the Times had been hacked.

The Times immediately put the cherry on top, with a second error, explaining that the first e-mail was spam and that it was not from them:

But the e-mail was from them. Later in the afternoon the Times Media Decoder blog explained that they had:

“accidentally sent e-mails on Wednesday to more than eight million people who had shared their information with the company, erroneously informing them they had canceled home delivery of the newspaper.”

The Times Company, which initially mischaracterized the mishap as spam, apologized for sending the e-mails.

The Times then sent another e-mail, to everyone who received the first, to explain their error:

While the Times reassures their subscribers not to worry and that their personal information has not been hacked, a friend who also received the e-mail wrote to me wondering if a substantial fraction of subscribers might cancel their subscriptions to take advantage of the Times offer.

Pulling from the Associated Press, The Australian reports:

The damage had already been done…

Many people called or wrote in. The newspaper initially honored the discount, even to people who were already paying full price and had no plans to cancel. [Eileen Murphy] said the newspaper stopped giving out discounts to people who received the email in error by early afternoon. She did not say how much the gaffe cost the company or specify how many people contacted the newspaper.

Whatever the outcome, the Times screw-up will not help their relations with readers, which has also had its share of turbulence this year.

Since having launched NYT eXaminer (NYTX) about ten weeks ago (Oct. 14) many people have written to us with comments and complaints about the Times.

Some of these readers complain about the Times recent implementation of an elitist “trusted” commenter policy that has driven away some of their commenters, including Marie Burns who Times readers often voted among the most popular on op-ed pieces.

Marie, who has since become a regular NYTX columnist, has explained her reasons for leaving the Times comments section here and here.

Some who write to NYTX express their pleasant surprise when they find this project. Others wonder about our mission in relation to current changes at the Times.

One person in particular, let’s call her “Jane,”  wrote to tell us that she is a current reader of the New York Times—not just its articles, Editorial’s and Op-Ed columns, but also of their comments section too.

Jane writes,

“I have come here in search of Marie Burns and I have enjoyed what I have been reading from other contributors.”

Jane says that she is writing to lets us know that where she is at in Indianapolis, “having the New York Times as a counterbalance to our lame local paper is so great.”

I imagine that the Times plays a similar role for many people in diverse places across the country where there are conservative and commercial interests dominating the local media.

But then Jane asks,

“While I realize that the Times falls short and some of the columnists make me crazy—Brooks for one—if the Times were to disappear where would we be then?”

On the one hand, responding to this imaginary scenario is difficult because, in our current media landscape, the loss of the Times would leave a huge vacuum of news, opinion, and investigative reporting that would not be easily replaced.

Additionally, the loss of the Times would certainly open up a very large market for other media moguls, and probably to the chagrin of many Times readers—imagine, for example, Rupert Murdoch buying into this newly available news real estate and who’s News of the World phone hacking scandal is but one illustration of how a different media standard may replace the journalistic tradition, institutional memory, and conservative standards of the Times. (Of course this scenario would cause Adolph Ochs, who purchased the Times as a failing newspaper in 1896 and turned it around, to rollover in his grave.)

On the other hand, Jane says that she expects the NYTX project to be “a way of making the Times better and smarter and less superficial.” Indeed, the NYTX mission is to advocate for new media standards, not only at the Times, but across mainstream media generally, and to create new media too, that are consistent with our proposed standards.

These standards include international law regarding aggressive war and occupation, scientific consensus regarding climate change, human rights, labor standards, social justice, and more.

In addition to new editorial standards, NYTX also aspires to support those who work inside the Times and who do good work, while also critiquing Times managerial practices towards its workforce and its policies towards its readers and subscribers.

Even with our aspirations of creating new and improving existing media, the scale of some of the Times own institutional problems are beyond the scope of our project.

2011 has not been a complete flop for the Times. They introduced their user paywall, which is generally considered a path-breaking success.

The Times was also able to pay off their $250 million debt to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim five months earlier than they had expected.

The Times is undoubtedly reconfiguring itself for a more digital future. How its own institutional failings, including its managerial practices and treatment of its readers, will play out in 2012 is yet to be seen.

Chris Spannos is Editor of NYT eXaminer (NYTX).

By cspannos

Readers Comments (1)