Each Friday, 'New York Times' deputy managing editor Jonathan Landman and NYT.com General Manager Vivian Schiller write an in-house email on the subject of The Future and The Internet and The Newsroom. This week: Why is everyone ragging on 'T' magazine? A rebuttal!
Guess what professional interrogator Deborah Solomon happened to mention when she stopped by a Columbia j-school class last week! Her New York Times mag Q&As, which caught the eye—and the cover—of the New York Press earlier this month for her standards and practices. Well, turns out the column is going to have a itty-bitty disclaimer printed before it each and every time it runs.
Among the pissing and moaning in the wake of new Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt's gentle suggestion that the paper might want to cover the saga of the Sulzberger family and its struggle to maintain control of the paper, reader Daniel Waitzman sends a missive that we think encapsulates the mindset of a huge swath of the paper's demographic. An excerpt:
New NYT ombudsman Clark Hoyt suggests that the paper might try covering the Ochs-Sulzberger family in the same way they cover other stories. He didn't get very far with Pinch, though: "Sulzberger wouldn't talk about his family's trust in any detail, like how the family divides the income." Mmhmm. [NYT]
New Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt passes along a reader query about columnists' outside income to editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal. Rosenthal patiently explains that columnists cannot take money for anything except books they publish, academic work, and the occasional "reasonable" speaking fee. Oh, also: