NYT Trust Quest Misses The Point

Here are the ten steps the NYT thinks will rebuild readers' trust in the Gray Lady:

1. Encourage the executive editor and the two managing editors to share responsibility for writing a regular column that deals with matters concerning the newspaper.

2. Make reporters and editors more easily available through e-mail.

3. Use the Web to provide readers with complete documents used in stories as well as transcripts of interviews.

4. Consider creating a Times blog that promotes interaction with readers.

5. Further curtail the use of anonymous sources.

6. Encourage reporters to confirm the accuracy of articles with sources before publication and to solicit feedback from sources after publication.

7. Set up an error-tracking system to detect patterns and trends.

8. Encourage the development of software to detect plagiarism when accusations arise.

9. Increase coverage of middle America, rural areas and religion.

10. Establish a system for evaluating public attacks on The Times's work and determining whether and how to respond.

Full Text of the Report (h/t Media Bistro)

Let me attempt to state the obvious here. If the NYT were accused with cause of being racist, one of the ten points would be, "Hire more minorities."

The NYT has been shown to be a plagiarizing, self-centered, elitist institution, and to an extent, these ten points may address some of those concerns. But I'd bet that if you could ask each fleeing subscriber why they cancelled, you'd find that the NYT's declining readership is due more to its leftist bias than its plagiarism scandals.

And nowhere on the list is "hire and promote more politically diverse reporters and editors." Until they address the make-up of their rampantly liberal news room staff, trust will continue to be a problem.

For example, #3 and #6 above, which have to do with the studies that are the source of papers, won't help the NYT become fair if the reporters who research the stories read the studies with a consistently leftwing bias. Posting the studies to the Internet seems like a good idea, but it won't immediately show what was quoted and what was not.

In fact, it will create a false assurance of objectivity, since it will show that reporters read materials from differing sides on an issue. It won't show their practice of quoting heavily from flawed studies that support their views, while ignoring better studies that are counter to the opinions they want to seep into their news coverage.