Like many of you I am in rapture over the present Krugman - Orkent dual going on at Calame's
column echem...blog. But more interesting than the debate I think is the fact that the public editor now has a blog. It is interesting because it comes with this peculiar statement:
Byron Calame, the public editor for The New York Times, comments here on matters that aren't appropriate for his column in the Sunday Op-Ed pages, or won't fit into it. He may address issues raised in reader e-mail or post e-mail from readers and responses to them.
Readers are invited to respond to the public editor's comments in this Web Journal by e-mailing public@nytimes.com.
I find this amusing that he has both a column and blog. Of course around here nobody would ever have both a column and a blog, because then one would have 2 columns/blogs. DUH! I think this just wonderful evidence of the inevitable breakdown of the NYTime's top down media model. A letter I wrote to Mr. Calame expands on this more after the click, which hopefully he or someone over at the Times will finally understand.
My letter to Mr. Calame:
Welcome new public editor. My question, as I am enjoying the Krugman Orkent debate is why, why, why, why can the NYTimes not get with the technology. It would be very easy to hash out, and resolve, this dispute if your blog (like all the successful blogs on the internet) had comments enabled for both the readers and Mr.Krugman and Mr.Orkent. In stead currently everyone is forced to labour under an old model, which makes drawing conclusions and understanding difficult. This may be good for sustaining the drama of a conversation, but it is no good for serving enlightenment or the public. I strongly encourage you to talk to your IT department and have them implement comments on your blog (which BTW is now your column, your "column" on sunday is just an artifact of an old outdated media. I know you guys are having trouble understanding this, but you will soon see it in "hits" -- you're already converting despite your (that is the Times) resistance).
While I have your attention, please let me highlight that the same is true for the rest of the paper. It is a mystery why comments do not also exists for all the stories published by the NYTimes. Instead the Times has its silly Forum model which sometimes is tethered to a story, but only when the Times authoritatively gives "permission". So considerate, and yet so humorous. Doesn't the Times realize it can not hide from the new paradigm. For example I am posting a copy of this email to DailyKos where if I am lucky it will be read and recommended and widely discussed by hundreds if not thousands of people, just as many stories are discussed around the web each day. Of course there is also http://annotatedtimes.blogrunner.com/ for a more thorough digesting of the paper. The NYTimes can resist, but it can not hide. As usual I and many others like me encourage the Times to stop being so resistant, just make it easier for eveyone, open the publishing model, open the opportunity for enlightment.
(Note: all text is free to copy, except the spelling errors which are exclusively mine.)