Gawker
This week Susan Edgerley, an assistant managing editor, is answering questions from the public on the New York Times' website. Her job, according to her, is "to listen to the career aspirations of the people in the newsroom and help them realize them," and to help the paper integrate its web and print operations more closely. But according to a tipster with a grudge, Edgerley's real title at the Times should be Shouter-In-Chief!:
First, our tipster goes into an overlong rant about how when Edgerley said that there were never separate web and print reporting staffs at the Times, that was a "categorical lie." Whatever. Not really too scandalous. More interesting is the tipster's comment on this portion of one of Edgerley's answers:
It's more like we moved in together and got married. The Web staff used to be in a different building a couple of blocks from our old Times Square office. When we moved into our new building about a year ago, we had the space to sit together for the first time.One of the great things about a newsroom is its sheer open space — the heart of our newsroom is as wide and long as a New York City block and three stories high. And thanks to the open design, I can sit at my desk on the third floor and yell to Sam Sifton, the Culture editor, on the fourth floor. It encourages collaboration.
"Oh, and when she says she can yell from her third-floor desk to the Culture editor on the fourth, she is not exaggerating," writes our tipster. "SHE COULD SHOUT FROM THE BOWERY TO EAST HARLEM AND BE CLEARLY HEARD BY EVERY LIVING SOUL ON THE EAST SIDE!"
So we ask: Is Susan Edgerley the biggest loudmouth at the New York Times? Bigger, even, than Thomas Friedman? Informed arguments and speculation are encouraged. And don't feel bad for Edgerley; she also said this:
When Jamie Lynn Spears announced her pregnancy, I was the one saying it was a Page 1 story. I was persuaded on the walk to school with my 17- and 10-year-old daughters. Listening to them talk about birth control and hearing them wonder aloud how the pregnancy would affect the Nickelodoen show "Zoey 101," I was alternately full of pride and terror. Somewhere, I knew there was a story there.
Comments
When IM is not intrusive enough.
Hilariously, at least to me, my first thought about this woman when I saw the photo was: "She looks like a suburban guidance counselor."
Then, I read:
Her job, according to her, is "to listen to the career aspirations of the people in the newsroom and help them realize them,"
Perfect.
She can shout as loud as a farmer in a hog calling contest for all I care, but anyone who thinks the pregnancy of a 16 year old redneck girl deserves page one at the NYT is too stupid to have the job she has.
Pride AND Terror... sounds like a REALLY big sandwich.
Does she still have a job there? Because, no Spears trailer park pregnancy should ever be P1 in the NYTimes.
@PandoraSpocks: Word.The yelling is fine. Every idiot male editor yells all the time and no one says jack about it, but God forbid a woman should raise her voice.
But being persuaded by a 10 year old and a 17 year old to put Jamie Lynn Spears on p.1 is a sign of being such a bit too suggestible. That's exactly that kind of crap Times navel-gazing that makes the place suck so hard: if it's relevant to the three people around me, it must be relevant to 1 million readers!
When Jamie Lynn Spears announced her pregnancy, I was the one saying it was a page 1 story.
I imagine these words somehow summoning a Mortal Kombat-esque "Gray Lady" out of the ether who, with a righteous and terrible scream, would disembowel Susan Edgerly in the Times newsroom using just a rolled up copy of the book review.
"That's exactly that kind of crap Times navel-gazing that makes the place suck so hard: if it's relevant to the three people around me, it must be relevant to 1 million readers!"
this brings a tear to my eye ... finally someone puts into words what i have felt about that newspaper for a long time, and it's a shame considering what good work they can do.
it's idiotic thinking like this that leads to posts on city room about `winking chefs.' um just because you are fascinated by winking chefs doesn't mean anyone else gives a rats ass.
isn't everyone at the times the loudest person in any room they are in?
The P1 story wasn't the news about the pregnancy. It was a thumb-sucker a day or too after it broke about it being a "teachable moment." It was timely and worthy of its below-the-fold placement. Maybe you should read it first, then comment.
@lawyergay: that is so beautiful. it brought a delicate tear to my eye, which balanced gracefully on my lashes, refracting the afternoon sun into a thousand tiny pieces, each as precious as a jewel
kind of
@Dolomite: it is also the exact perfect definition of a newspaper trend story:
-- something an editor heard their kid and her friend talking about
-- something an editor and their partner/spouse/dog/cat had an argument about
... etc.
@lefty:
Most people don't rely on the Times for teachable moments. That's what the National Inquirer is for.
Uh-oh, I smell an "NYT Kidz!" pullout section being considered.
@lefty: Yeah, I read it, thanks. It was still the usual stupid Times paternalism -- like, if you didn't figure out that this is a good time to talk to your kids, stupid American parents, let us, the New York Times, remind you how to be a good parent. Stupid, condescending, and not at all timely.
@lefty: Also, I will agree it was worthy of being front of Styles, perhaps. But not, ever, p1.
Shame the tipster's comments about Edgerley's "absolute lie" about there never being separate reporters and editors for the Web site being dismissed as "Not really too scandalous." I'm sure those who worked their balls off (and the other things) for day after day after day after day loved hearing their Dishonorable Career Development Officer screaming, "THEY NEVER EXISTED!"
@fileunder:
This is much like a conversation which may or may not take place in our home once a week.
10 Year Old, "Hey, you know what would really help the news ratings? Kids doing sports. You should have kids do the sports."
7 Year Old to 10 year old, "Ya, but I should be the kid because I'm cuter and YOU STINK."
Parent "That's a terrific idea Jimmy and Susie, we'll get right on it."
The only difference between this situation and the NYTimes is that the adult doesn't actually act on what the kids are saying. Instead, the adult wisely (and hypothetically) throws in a hard-hitting investigative piece on Jennifer Aniston and John Mayer to spike the ratings.
See, NYTimes....THAT'S how you do journalism.
It was like that when the newfangled telephone people moved into the telegraph office, too. And since the old people couldn't understand how the new wired horn worked, they did a lot of shouting then, too.
She looks like a nice lady, like someone my mom should be friends with.
Nice ladies don't far at The New York Times. Certainly not to Assistant Managing Editor.
@Hockeymom:
Actually? That's really cute! I'm jealous.
That's okay, my mom's not all that nice, either.
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?