When The New York Times made Buffalo News editor Margaret Sullivan its new public editor in September, there seemed to be a general consensus that she couldn’t do much worse than outgoing Arthur Brisbane, lover of truth vigilantism and hater of the Internet. So far, she’s done everything she promised. Along with the bimonthly print column, she updates the public editor blog almost daily and keeps her Twitter feed fresh, with entertaining retweets, links to interesting articles, and replies to her readers. Whereas her predecessor told Poynter that social media was an “alien realm” for him and didn’t see his role as part of a “conversation,” Sullivan has embraced both—which seems a necessary part of the job these days, especially at a publication like the Times that is on the cutting edge of Internet journalism. A Laurel to her for her job so far.
Sometimes, sitting here at my desk, I wonder: Is this my life’s calling? Why am I typing and earning a paycheck when I could be bearing children, my true—and only—role in society? Fortunately, at times like these, there are men like Tim Dewar out there to remind me that the fairer sex is capable of more.
The Ojai Valley News publisher recently wrote an editorial for the paper’s annual “Women of the Ojai Valley” supplement titled “Womens’ [sic] contributions go way beyond childbearing.” Thanks, Mr. Dewar! Here is a Dart pie I made while barefoot in the kitchen.
Brisbane was not exactly a lover of truth vigilantism, just deeply, deeply confused about it. And use of social media is not in itself a particularly useful metric for the effectiveness a public editor, although it should certainly be an important component of any contemporary media. The right metric is whether the public editor is adequately and appropriately representing the needs of the readership, and making the New York Times more accountable. Period. Sullivan has so far been pretty good on this score. If social media are helping her gauge the needs and desires of the readership, in order to better represent them, then that is fantastic, and if social media are letting the readership be heard, more directly and more broadly, that's also fantastic (and I believe both of these are true)-- but don't get confused over which of these is the actual job, and which is just a tool to help do that job. Giving the readers a voice is the job; more importantly, making the NYT accountable is the job. Making sure her twitter feed is frequently updated is not the job.
#1 Posted by kabosht, CJR on Wed 7 Nov 2012 at 12:55 PM
I never said it was. I said it was important for a public editor at NYT to embrace social media and be part of her readers' conversations; to be engaged and open with them. I think Twitter is a big part of that effort these days, and Sullivan is using it well.
#2 Posted by Sara Morrison, CJR on Wed 7 Nov 2012 at 05:20 PM
Fair enough, but there seems to be a pretty dominant narrative among media types, CJR sometimes among them, that somehow social media is a solution to a problem, rather than a tool; I read your article, maybe somewhat unfairly, as part of this. There's no technological fix to terrible journalism. That's why I thought giving her a laurel "for her work so far" while only discussing the social media aspects of that actual work was a little odd, and I though it was quite reasonable to suggest that perhaps the laurel should focus on the whole of the job, not one tool used for it.
#3 Posted by kabosht, CJR on Thu 8 Nov 2012 at 01:54 PM
That's interesting ... I wonder how much of that narrative is being relayed through social media types, the nature of whose job tends to make them the loudest voice with the most visible platform?
#4 Posted by Sara Morrison, CJR on Thu 8 Nov 2012 at 04:26 PM