Today's
offering from
The New York Times Public Editor is a...please excuse the upcoming overuse of this word...curious piece. Apparently the "reader's representative" polled various staff members to get a feel for how
they perceived their readership. Let me interject here, I'd be more curious to know how they perceive Judy Miller, but I digress...
So, who are we? According to Executive Editor Bill Keller:
"I think of The Times reader as curious...and a more wide-ranging appetite that can be seduced, surprised, engaged on almost any subject if we present it well."
Indeed, Mr. Keller, The NY Times successfully seduced millions of Americans into supporting the Iraq War with well presented WMD articles.
And what does Deputy Managing Editor Jonathan Landman think?
"They're curious (and this is crucial, and not so common these days), interested in stuff that happens outside their own lives."
And in days gone by people read the newspaper to find out about their own lives? A curious notion...
According to the poll's results, curiosity was the number one characteristic of
NY Times readers that the editors and reporters cited. And public editor Calame was pleased, stating his belief that respecting that curiosity (and intellect and sophistication) is the best way for
The NY Times to serve their readers. I'd settle for accurate, fair, honest and timely.
What I came away with after reading this article? I found it curious that The New York Times apparently isn't interested in fulfilling their actual function (reporting the news) as much as they want to "engage" their curious readers.
National Editor Suzanne Daley believes there are two kinds of readers...judgemental experts
and "your basically curious person." That's who she's going for...she wants to make what she calls "the game," accurate and fun. Being fun is important because that's the only way she sees of hooking those basically curious people. Now I won't argue against the importance of a strong lead to hook a reader, but I'd also like to think that the national editor of a major newspaper is most interested in accuracy, accuracy and accuracy.
Managing Editor Jill Abramson wants to "capture" younger readers...and she gives a rather ironic example after mentioning a young man about to deploy for Iraq:
"...Are we telling a younger reader like him about all the dimensions of geopolitics and culture so he can understand all the dynamics relating to the war he is about to help fight?"
I read that and was curious. Has Ms. Abramson considered that if The NY Times had been doing their job before the invasion, he would probably be reading the paper for the latest sports scores, not the geopolitical and cultural dynamics of Messapotamia?