On Monday, The New York Times announced that its search for a new public editor had ended with the appointment of Margaret M. Sullivan, editor and vice president of the Buffalo News. She’ll take over for Arthur Brisbane on September 1. Sullivan spoke with CJR about what she hopes to bring to position (hint: It begins with “d” and rhymes with “figital”) and how her Twitter following has increased since the announcement.
How did you get the job? Did the Times reach out to you or vice versa?
I’m happy to say there was mutual interest. I made an overture, and I found out that they were already considering me, so it worked out well that way.
You’ve been a journalist for 32 years. What kind of experience will you bring to this position?
It’s a big change in the sense that I’ve been leading a large newsroom for the past 13 years, and now I’m essentially going into a writing position. I’m really looking forward to that. I’ve enjoyed and felt it was an incredible privilege being the editor of my hometown paper, but I’m really ready for and very excited about the chance to take on what I think just clearly is a unique position in American journalism—the public editor of The New York Times. You know, certainly, all of the experience I’ve had—as a reporter, as a columnist, as editor of the paper and most recently as a blogger—I bring with me. And I think that’s part of why it’s such a good fit.
How will all that experience come into play as the new public editor?
What people have seen of the public editor’s role so far has been an every-other-week column. And while Arthur Brisbane has blogged a little bit, that hasn’t been a focus for him. [I plan] to move the position much more strongly into the digital world. We’re talking about an ongoing conversation with readers about all the issues that come up at the Times. So I would see the blog being a place to aggregate and curate conversation and criticism and discussion about the Times in one place and have plenty of back-and-forth and response, and have it happen in real time.
I noticed you’ve tried to incorporate live chats into your blog at the Buffalo News. Is that something you’re planning to bring to the Times?
We haven’t talked specifically about live chats, but we’ve certainly talked about using all the multimedia and all the digital tools. So I think you can look toward that. But I should say that the Times and I both think it’s important to continue the print column as well. So I intend to and will be writing an every-other-week column. But in between, you’ll see lots of blogging.
You should have plenty to cover on all those media. We’ve seen a lot of questionable ethics in journalism recently—fake bylines, plagiarism charges, incorrect relaying of Supreme Court decisions.
It’s a really critical time for journalism. We are at a tricky place, and I think that the relationship between readers and the news organization is extremely important—that sense of confidence, of credibility, of being transparent with readers, of showing them what’s behind the curtain.
Your Twitter following has increased by leaps and bounds today.
[Laughs] Just today! With no effort whatsoever!
1.Will you have some new staff?
I found some of the staff responses to be honest and useful. You may have to dig deeper to get depth on some of the systemic issues facing the paper and website. The approach of the office has sometimes been a bit old-fashioned.
2.What is the relationship between the Public Editor and The NYT's legal staff? I sensed at times that the legal staff had the power to warn the Public Editor off stories. That is perhaps just an impression.
3.What do you see as the specific weaknesses of The NYT?
I see serious limitations in education. Winerip's good work has been offset by the churning of the mediocrity of university admissions in America at The Choice.
The Book Review is a bit light-weight. So is the Sunday Magazine. Typical is the fact that we had a major excerpt from the new Modern Library "Absalom, Absalom!" without any mention of the mutilated text of the old one (20 major errors in that "corrected text" did not stop distribution right up to this month).
Usually, I buy the Sunday NYT.
Vast areas of human experience remain largely a desert there. Cognition. Language (think the failed On Language, which deserved to fail). Religion (recently I couldn't find a review of the excellent Norton Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible).
In terms of major political and military stories, The NYT is often absorbing. There is also a lot of churning going on in some key areas.
I am going to post an example and ask you to find out why I have not gotten an answer from The NYT.
#1 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Mon 16 Jul 2012 at 04:20 PM
As far as I am concerned, it has been downhill ever since the NY Times first Public Editor, Daniel Okrent - of ourse those were also politically more exciting times! Ms. Miller had been caught with Libby doing yeomans work for the Neo-Con conquest of Iraq.
I'd have to agree with Clayton Burns, or rather go one tougher. The Book Review is now in the hands of Neo-Con Tannenbaum Just look at some of the politically slanted stuff that appear there. Heilbrun of the National Interest appears just about every other week, anything critical of the Zionist hardline gets the most slanted coverage, the Book Review is not just lightweight, or somewhat gray as it has always been, it is reactionary and not in an interesting way. The NY Times Magazne must be a money maker, otherwiwse , well maybe it has one readable interesting story per week. by and large its a throwaway but for the film reviewers and art critics and the writers for the Tuesday science section, rarely in business, it is not a very bood paper any more. i'd fire 3/4 of the columnists. the op-ed stuff is rarely any good. it is/ was entirely partial in its coverage of the Afghanistan war. alas. i keep pointing out some things, such as the coverage of the "surge" in Mariah last year, a fraud if ever there was one. Mr. Brisbane apparently had not the time to dig into it.
#2 Posted by Mike Roloff, CJR on Tue 17 Jul 2012 at 12:35 PM