TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.08.2008
The Poll Truth, and Nothing But

Earlier today, Vanity Fair’s Bruce Feirstein pointed out a humorous and somewhat bizarre reader survey conducted by the New York Times last week. The survey, a pop-up on the Times website, solicited feedback from readers on their opinions on the Times, which isn't that unusual. But the poll's references to recent newsroom controversies including Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, MoveOn's "General Betray-Us" ad, and the NSA wiretapping exposé, were downright shocking for Times Kremlinologists, for whom the survey seemed to offer an unlikely window onto the paper’s Id. The list of topics on which readers were polled potentially indicated which incidents insiders considered the most damaging to the paper's reputation. And there are other oddities. The paper's infamous, artfully-worded 2004 Editor's Note-cum-mea culpa explaining the flawed W.M.D coverage didn’t name names. But the online survey bluntly states that Judith Miller’s Iraq stories “turned out to be wrong.” The survey also misspelled Jayson Blair’s name, referring to the Times fabulist as “Jason Blair.” 

Times spokesperson Catherine Mathis declined to discuss the provenance of the survey. “We do reader polls on a regular basis,” she told me. “We have done polls on circulation, on advertising, polls that have been on the content. We’ve conducted surveys on people's viewing habits, and on what publications they read.” And she dismissed the Blair misspelling. “It's not uncommon to misspell Jayson Blair's name. Vanity Fair misspelled it on their website.” (They've since corrected it.)

Times deputy managing editor Jon Landman, who oversees the Times’s web operations, said the newsroom had nothing to do with the survey. “These are done by the marketing department. It’s got nothing to do with the editorial side," he told me. Landman, who famously wrote an April 2002 e-mail saying ''We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now,” laughed when I asked him about Blair misspelling. “That proves they didn't run it by me! I know how to spell it,” he said.

One Times newsroom staffer sniffed at the survey: “Some knucklehead in the business department must have done it.”

--Gabriel Sherman

Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:16 PM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

From a marketing standpoint, it's not a weird survey at all. An excellent one, actually, that gets to how the brand is positioned and makes the reader ponder some of his or her assumptions about the role of the Times and its future in our society. Reading through it and thinking about my own answers made me realize:

a) the Times' OpEd pages and columnists offer little in the way of real differentiation or real value. I'd never pay for that content, wouldn't really miss it if it migrated to another site altogether.

b) the Times' content on specialized subjects like Health, Science, Technology (Pogue, Markoff) and overseas coverage, such as still remains, is outstanding. As in, standing out from the ocean of noise and junk that characterizes unedited, unprofessional conent on each of these subjects, with the possible exception of Tech. I would definitely pay for this content if it were packaged, deepened, and personalized intelligently.

c) the scandals about Blair, Miller et al have not changed my opinion about the Times. They screw up now and then. They're still about 99% more reliable, professional and credible than the amateur junk on the web, and more reliable than their peers in TV and cable.

d) in ranking the relative credibility of the choices offered-- WaPo WSJ USAT; CNN, Fox, BBC; "bloggers" like KosTownhallHuffPoDrudge-- I realize that WaPo NYT and WSJ are an order of magnitude or more above the others in terms of depth, quality, veracity, and value.

These three should  seek to cooperate, not compete, in every area they possibly can, beginning wih foreign bureau cost-sharing. They're an extremely valuable resource and will beback on their feet again when they can figure out how to package their content in a much more user-centric, on demand manner.

August 6, 2008 5:31 PM

Prescott Shibles - B2B Internet Marketing and Media Insight said:

-There's only one sports story that interests the journalists in Beijing: Brett Favre's blockbuster trade to the New York Jets. The Australians are talking about it, for God's sake. [NYP] -Somebody in The New York Times's marketing department issued a

August 8, 2008 12:18 PM