New York Times Wants to Censor and Influence Bloggers?

Comments | Add yours

On Saturday, I posted about the New York Times and their coverage that same evening of the BlogHer 08 Conference in their online Fashion & Style section (The Sunday Styles section in the print version). I was particularly upset about where the paper placed the story and the overall tone of the article. I also wrote a brief letter to the editor that day that expressed my thoughts on the topic. You can read my post and my letter to the editor right here.

Yesterday, I got a phone call and an email from a New York Times editor in response to my letter, asking simply if I would please call her. So I did, about an hour later.

The contact is an editor for the Thursday and Sunday editions of the Times’ Styles section (known as the Fashion & Style section on the online version). She said she was contacting me because she wanted me to consider revising the letter I had written to the editor because they couldn’t publish it as it was. (She also mentioned that she had read my post and several others expressing similar criticism for the story and its placement).

So, naturally, I asked why. She said that my letter specifically criticized the placement of the story, which it did. But she went on to explain that the Times’ sections operate somewhat autonomously, and when one section gets a good story, they would never “give it away” to another section. She said that the section in which a story was placed was not something they “controlled”, but that it was based on which section editor got the story or whom the reporter chose to pitch.

Effectively, she told me that they wouldn’t publish my letter if it talked about the placement of the story since the section placement wasn’t “something [they] could respond to” and was something they “don’t have an answer for”. Instead, she suggested that if I framed my letter to focus instead on tone and content of the story itself, I could resubmit it to her directly for publication consideration.

What?

There’s a couple of big lessons to be learned here about proper outreach to your community, and how not to engage with bloggers.

Mistake #1
First of all, a letter to the editor is intended as an expression of opinion by the readership of a paper. A publication could reasonably edit a letter for length, but suggesting that content and intent of a letter be revised and resubmitted for the purposes of making it easier or more palatable to the paper isn’t reasonable (or ethical, in my view).

In this case, the Times didn’t want to publish my criticism of the editorial judgment because they would have then had to explain how and why stories get placed in specific sections. They also might have had to defend the content of their Style section and justify why it was a suitable place for the BlogHer story after all. So they’ve made my letter to the editor about what it does (or doesn’t do) for them, instead of about engaging and including the voice of their readers.

Lesson: When engage in dialogue with your community, you lose credibility and respect when you try to censor or influence that conversation just because you don’t like what’s being said.

Mistake #2
In our follow up correspondence after the phone call, the editor asked that, should I choose to blog again on this topic, I not reveal her name because she’s “not a higher-up in the section” and would “rather not be seen as speaking on behalf of the section in print.” However, her phone call to me was from her desk at the Times, and her email to me was from her New York Times email account. In both cases, she was clearly presenting herself as a representative of the paper whose duties, per her email to me, “include [responding] to letter writers.”

They say in journalism that nothing is ever truly off the record. The Times, however, via this editor, is asking to be exactly that.

Lesson: If you’re going to be a part of the conversation, be transparent. Own your viewpoint and speak as yourself. Otherwise, your community questions your motives and you lose their trust.

So what should they have done?

Here’s my take:

• Either chosen to publish my letter as it was, or chosen not to publish it as is their prerogative (after all, publication isn’t guaranteed). But never should their response have been to try and convince me to amend my opinion because they didn’t have a suitable response.

• Commented on my post. The editor mentioned that she’d read my blog post about it, and that gave her and the Times the perfect opportunity to engage in the conversation and contribute their perspective.

• Respected my stance rather than trying to influence it. They didn’t have to agree with me. But trying to get me to revise my letter to the editor or suggest how I should treat future blog posts tells me that they’d rather control the message than have a discussion.

Let me be clear that I think the Times, in theory, made the right move by reaching out to someone who is clearly speaking up about them, and to them. Engagement is much better than ignoring. But the question becomes what does more damage: Not responding at all, or responding and trying to influence a letter writer or blogger to amend their content?

I think the piece itself and the editor’s response to my letter underscores the lack of respect that the Times has for bloggers, their readers, and their influence within the larger media community. The overall tone of the exchange with the editor, while courteous and friendly on the surface, leads me to think that the Times not only wants to unduly influence the conversation, but that they might be taking this ill-advised approach with other bloggers, too.

This whole situation highlights an archaic and potentially damaging system that papers like the Times are using to determine where their stories run. I think they ought to be rethinking this for the sake of integrity.

So what do you think? How would you have reacted to such a request? Do you think the New York Times handled this correctly? If not, what should they have done differently and what are the lessons to be learned?

Photo by Anderson Mancini

Find more like this: Blogging, Social media

Newer Comments →
  • Laura Pritchard

    you go Amber! I wholeheartedly agree with you!

  • Laura Pritchard

    you go Amber! I wholeheartedly agree with you!

  • Jennifer Leggio

    Overall I agree. This was a terrible approach which shows the ignorance of the editor in question. I am also starting to wonder if it was more personal agenda because she might’ve had her hand in this story and didn’t want any public criticism. Which would make me think she shouldn’t be an editor in the first place.

    However, I do not think it’s indicative of the Times’ overall. Much like their news budgets are determined by sections at times, so are their philosophies and approaches to producing news. Right or wrong, each section editor is responsible to some degree to keeping its regular advertisers happy so they do in some ways compete for more highly read content. It’s also possible that since BlogHer appeals to a niche audience, that the news editors and such did not want to include it in their sections (something I personally think is a mistake, just postulating).

    I didn’t see the article so I can’t comment on the tone, but again I agree that this editor is way off the mark with how she communicated about this issue. Her karma, methinks, will be getting left behind as journalism continues to evolve. Kudos to you for not just sitting back on the issue.

  • Jennifer Leggio

    Overall I agree. This was a terrible approach which shows the ignorance of the editor in question. I am also starting to wonder if it was more personal agenda because she might’ve had her hand in this story and didn’t want any public criticism. Which would make me think she shouldn’t be an editor in the first place.However, I do not think it’s indicative of the Times’ overall. Much like their news budgets are determined by sections at times, so are their philosophies and approaches to producing news. Right or wrong, each section editor is responsible to some degree to keeping its regular advertisers happy so they do in some ways compete for more highly read content. It’s also possible that since BlogHer appeals to a niche audience, that the news editors and such did not want to include it in their sections (something I personally think is a mistake, just postulating). I didn’t see the article so I can’t comment on the tone, but again I agree that this editor is way off the mark with how she communicated about this issue. Her karma, methinks, will be getting left behind as journalism continues to evolve. Kudos to you for not just sitting back on the issue.

  • Teeg

    Great article once again, Amber!

    I am just amazed that someone from the NYT would call and ask you to change your letter! As a blogger, could you imagine asking someone to change a comment because they think you should put different tags on a post?

    I could understand their reaction if you’d said it should have been published in the Wall Street Journal or somewhere else instead of the NYT, but suggesting that all the departments of a newspaper aren’t even connected enough to publish a story in the best section for it???

    Does that mean that if a Style editor gets hold of an article about Obama visiting other countries, it will be published in the Style section and talk about what he wears each day and what restroom conditions are like around the world? Somehow I seriously doubt it.

  • Teeg

    Great article once again, Amber!I am just amazed that someone from the NYT would call and ask you to change your letter! As a blogger, could you imagine asking someone to change a comment because they think you should put different tags on a post?I could understand their reaction if you’d said it should have been published in the Wall Street Journal or somewhere else instead of the NYT, but suggesting that all the departments of a newspaper aren’t even connected enough to publish a story in the best section for it??? Does that mean that if a Style editor gets hold of an article about Obama visiting other countries, it will be published in the Style section and talk about what he wears each day and what restroom conditions are like around the world? Somehow I seriously doubt it.

  • Michael Becker

    This is how letters to the editor work at big papers like the New York Times. It’s not like the Podunk Tribune that can publish every single letter about cats in trees and misplaced semicolons it receives or a blog that has the infinite space afforded by the Web.

    Readers expect more from Times letters than they do from other newspapers, meaning that those letters have to add something valuable to the public conversation with a minimum of exposition (i.e., explaining how the placement of stories in the Times works).

    The fact that the times considered publishing your letter — and even asked you, specifically, to edit it for publication — rather than all the other letters this editor told you they had received testifies to your ability to nail this subject. They didn’t ask you to censor you letter; they asked you to focus on the bigger issue that is more important to the public: the tone of the story.

    It’s a shame that any time someone is asked to revise writing on a subject they feel passionately about, the first instinct is to call it “censorship.” It’s only censorship when the other party has the power to change your writing without permission, and in this case, the Times has made it clear that it’s not going to change your writing without you being involved in the process.

    As for her asking you not to reveal her name: all I can say is so what? So some mid-level editor at the Times didn’t want you to use her name specifically in a story on your blog. This is the kind of hassle that journalists, like me, run into all the time — nobody’s quotable but the chiefs. Is that a firm rule? Hell, no. She knew you were a blogger and writer before she picked up the phone. You could print her name with impunity. But that might burn your source, so to speak, meaning you never hear a word from her again. It’s the game we play.

  • Michael Becker

    This is how letters to the editor work at big papers like the New York Times. It’s not like the Podunk Tribune that can publish every single letter about cats in trees and misplaced semicolons it receives or a blog that has the infinite space afforded by the Web.Readers expect more from Times letters than they do from other newspapers, meaning that those letters have to add something valuable to the public conversation with a minimum of exposition (i.e., explaining how the placement of stories in the Times works).The fact that the times considered publishing your letter — and even asked you, specifically, to edit it for publication — rather than all the other letters this editor told you they had received testifies to your ability to nail this subject. They didn’t ask you to censor you letter; they asked you to focus on the bigger issue that is more important to the public: the tone of the story. It’s a shame that any time someone is asked to revise writing on a subject they feel passionately about, the first instinct is to call it “censorship.” It’s only censorship when the other party has the power to change your writing without permission, and in this case, the Times has made it clear that it’s not going to change your writing without you being involved in the process.As for her asking you not to reveal her name: all I can say is so what? So some mid-level editor at the Times didn’t want you to use her name specifically in a story on your blog. This is the kind of hassle that journalists, like me, run into all the time — nobody’s quotable but the chiefs. Is that a firm rule? Hell, no. She knew you were a blogger and writer before she picked up the phone. You could print her name with impunity. But that might burn your source, so to speak, meaning you never hear a word from her again. It’s the game we play.

  • Mack Collier

    “The fact that the times considered publishing your letter — and even asked you, specifically, to edit it for publication — rather than all the other letters this editor told you they had received testifies to your ability to nail this subject. They didn’t ask you to censor you letter; they asked you to focus on the bigger issue that is more important to the public: the tone of the story.”

    So what about the issue that is important to the bloggers themselves, which is their being potentially misrepresented? Sorry but asking someone to alter their letter to the editor, especially a blogger, isn’t a very good practice, IMO. The NYT’s tone comes across as condescending and borderline bullying, IMO.

    It’s always better to attempt to ENGAGE bloggers in conversations, not shut down or influence that exchange. And I commend Amber on the even-handedness of the post and she offers great teaching examples that companies should heed when dealing with bloggers.

  • Mack Collier

    “The fact that the times considered publishing your letter — and even asked you, specifically, to edit it for publication — rather than all the other letters this editor told you they had received testifies to your ability to nail this subject. They didn’t ask you to censor you letter; they asked you to focus on the bigger issue that is more important to the public: the tone of the story.”So what about the issue that is important to the bloggers themselves, which is their being potentially misrepresented? Sorry but asking someone to alter their letter to the editor, especially a blogger, isn’t a very good practice, IMO. The NYT’s tone comes across as condescending and borderline bullying, IMO.It’s always better to attempt to ENGAGE bloggers in conversations, not shut down or influence that exchange. And I commend Amber on the even-handedness of the post and she offers great teaching examples that companies should heed when dealing with bloggers.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE.

    Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.

    I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE.

    Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.

    I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE.

    Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.

    I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE.

    Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.

    I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE.

    Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.

    I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE. Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE. Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE. Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE. Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    I don’t think it is appropriate for an editor to call someone and try to influence the writing of their LTE. Separately, clearly this journalist forgot that she was speaking with another journalist, realizing this after the fact, she asked to remain anonymous. Sure you protect your source, but the fact that she made such a call without requesting anonymity, then asked for it later makes me wonder if she should have been contacting the writer in the first place.I don’t buy the “get over it, this is how it is argument.” No one expects that every letter they write is going to get published, but they do expect to be treated with respect and professionalism.

  • Mack Collier

    “It’s a shame that any time someone is asked to revise writing on a subject they feel passionately about, the first instinct is to call it “censorship.”"

    BTW, if we are indeed to focus on what the public wants and believes, then I think that the average American that submitted a letter to Letters to the Editor, would expect it to be published without an email from the paper asking for a revision before it can be published. That may indeed be what the NYT does, but again, if we are going to focus on the public, I don’t think the general public would be too ok with that practice, and I think many would indeed feel that was ‘censorship’.

    All about where you are coming from.

  • Mack Collier

    “It’s a shame that any time someone is asked to revise writing on a subject they feel passionately about, the first instinct is to call it “censorship.”"BTW, if we are indeed to focus on what the public wants and believes, then I think that the average American that submitted a letter to Letters to the Editor, would expect it to be published without an email from the paper asking for a revision before it can be published. That may indeed be what the NYT does, but again, if we are going to focus on the public, I don’t think the general public would be too ok with that practice, and I think many would indeed feel that was ‘censorship’. All about where you are coming from.

  • John Hopkins

    We are in this period of newspapers and bloggers competing for users attention yet still trying to work together. Sort of like two land masses colliding to form one island. Eventually it will all come together, but initially the tremors are going to be substantial.

  • John Hopkins

    We are in this period of newspapers and bloggers competing for users attention yet still trying to work together. Sort of like two land masses colliding to form one island. Eventually it will all come together, but initially the tremors are going to be substantial.

  • elizs

    This sounds like something for the NYTimes Public Editor to take on – along with the whole BlogHer coverage issue. You might try contacting him.

  • elizs

    This sounds like something for the NYTimes Public Editor to take on – along with the whole BlogHer coverage issue. You might try contacting him.

  • thePuck

    I think that this really draws out the differences between old and new media. Transparency vs. control of image and spin-doctoring.

    The demand has been there for a long time for transparent media and politics (which go hand in hand) and I think that the increasing strain the blogosphere and other social media is putting on the old media is very telling.

    As the judge in that old Twilight Zone episode said: “Obsolete”.

  • thePuck

    I think that this really draws out the differences between old and new media. Transparency vs. control of image and spin-doctoring. The demand has been there for a long time for transparent media and politics (which go hand in hand) and I think that the increasing strain the blogosphere and other social media is putting on the old media is very telling.As the judge in that old Twilight Zone episode said: “Obsolete”.

  • TexasBrian

    This is called “overreacting,” and it is becoming epidemic among bloggers.

    It begins in the headline. I don’t see where the NYT tried to “censor” the blog.

    The newspaper extended the courtesy of a phone call to explain its process of how the story was placed, which most papers wouldn’t even do, much less in print. You’re lucky to get a response at all, much less a phone call.

    You got your explanation to a much more personal degree than you would have in a print piece, so now to print a letter asking for that same explanation seems pointless. Content questions are valid, but letters asking how the newspaper works aren’t so much “opinion” based as much as asking as what the ingredients are in a soft drink. It almost seems as though now you’re teetering on the verge of grandstanding.

    And yes, letters to the editor remain outlets of reader opinion, and newspapers have traditionally edited for length and grammar concerns, but with all of the letters coming into a paper the size of the NYT, just the fact that it wasn’t immediately disregarded is a testament that you’re not being “censored” or [insert First Amendment argument here].

    What you call “Mistake #2″ is a bizarre argument. you say that because she called you from The Times, that she shouldn’t ask not to be included in the blog. Of course she called you from the NYT and used their e-mail. Was she supposed to whip out her cell phone on company time? She just didn’t want to get dragged into your blog war while doing her job. She is trying to communicate to you that she isn’t the one making these decisions (remember the adage, “Don’t shoot the messenger”?) and would prefer not to be in the blog. That seems simple enough to me.

    To ask the NYT to respond to your post is not realistic, and for you to suggest that as a solution is another thing I find just strange. They have their own publication to put out, and for you to suggest they spend manhours in the blogosphere responding to various blogs is counterproductive to their mission and a waste of their time. You have your publication; they have theirs. You chose to engage them.

    I think they respected your stance by answering it with a personal phone call and answering your questions. That’s more than I get from most businesses I deal with, much less a leading newspaper.

    The bigger issue here is that you feel they are trying to influence you. Just from reading what you have posted, which is only one side, I can see that clearly they are telling you that they are happy to print criticism of their content, but they can’t respond to the inner machinations of the newsroom. If anything, it sounds like she was trying to let you know that if you focus your letter — and what blogger doesn’t need more editing? — on the more relevant issues of content that will appeal to a broader audience, you will have a better chance of seeing print.

    It’s the same advice a book author would get from an editor — do this so you will appeal to a broader audience.

    Don’t get mired in taking things so personally. It’s easy to do. But in looking at the broader picture, I see someone who actually gave you tips on how to get your message out there for the masses, instead of just flushing it away, which was her right.

    And that deserves a note of gratitude, not vitriol.

  • TexasBrian

    This is called “overreacting,” and it is becoming epidemic among bloggers.It begins in the headline. I don’t see where the NYT tried to “censor” the blog.The newspaper extended the courtesy of a phone call to explain its process of how the story was placed, which most papers wouldn’t even do, much less in print. You’re lucky to get a response at all, much less a phone call.You got your explanation to a much more personal degree than you would have in a print piece, so now to print a letter asking for that same explanation seems pointless. Content questions are valid, but letters asking how the newspaper works aren’t so much “opinion” based as much as asking as what the ingredients are in a soft drink. It almost seems as though now you’re teetering on the verge of grandstanding.And yes, letters to the editor remain outlets of reader opinion, and newspapers have traditionally edited for length and grammar concerns, but with all of the letters coming into a paper the size of the NYT, just the fact that it wasn’t immediately disregarded is a testament that you’re not being “censored” or [insert First Amendment argument here].What you call “Mistake #2″ is a bizarre argument. you say that because she called you from The Times, that she shouldn’t ask not to be included in the blog. Of course she called you from the NYT and used their e-mail. Was she supposed to whip out her cell phone on company time? She just didn’t want to get dragged into your blog war while doing her job. She is trying to communicate to you that she isn’t the one making these decisions (remember the adage, “Don’t shoot the messenger”?) and would prefer not to be in the blog. That seems simple enough to me.To ask the NYT to respond to your post is not realistic, and for you to suggest that as a solution is another thing I find just strange. They have their own publication to put out, and for you to suggest they spend manhours in the blogosphere responding to various blogs is counterproductive to their mission and a waste of their time. You have your publication; they have theirs. You chose to engage them.I think they respected your stance by answering it with a personal phone call and answering your questions. That’s more than I get from most businesses I deal with, much less a leading newspaper.The bigger issue here is that you feel they are trying to influence you. Just from reading what you have posted, which is only one side, I can see that clearly they are telling you that they are happy to print criticism of their content, but they can’t respond to the inner machinations of the newsroom. If anything, it sounds like she was trying to let you know that if you focus your letter — and what blogger doesn’t need more editing? — on the more relevant issues of content that will appeal to a broader audience, you will have a better chance of seeing print.It’s the same advice a book author would get from an editor — do this so you will appeal to a broader audience.Don’t get mired in taking things so personally. It’s easy to do. But in looking at the broader picture, I see someone who actually gave you tips on how to get your message out there for the masses, instead of just flushing it away, which was her right.And that deserves a note of gratitude, not vitriol.

  • Amie Gillingham

    Michael Becker said: It’s a shame that any time someone is asked to revise writing on a subject they feel passionately about, the first instinct is to call it “censorship.” It’s only censorship when the other party has the power to change your writing without permission, and in this case, the Times has made it clear that it’s not going to change your writing without you being involved in the process.

    I think the point of Amber’s letter has been lost on you. Her letter to the editor wasn’t just a criticism of the patronizing tone of the original Blogher article; it was valid criticism of the article’s placement in the Times. The fact that Amber was told outright that she is not welcome to criticize the article’s placement IS a huge issue of censorship. I respect that they tried to reach out to Amber, but honestly, the NYT’s method of “damage control” is worse than the original problem her LTE addressed!

  • Amie Gillingham

    Michael Becker said: It’s a shame that any time someone is asked to revise writing on a subject they feel passionately about, the first instinct is to call it “censorship.” It’s only censorship when the other party has the power to change your writing without permission, and in this case, the Times has made it clear that it’s not going to change your writing without you being involved in the process.I think the point of Amber’s letter has been lost on you. Her letter to the editor wasn’t just a criticism of the patronizing tone of the original Blogher article; it was valid criticism of the article’s placement in the Times. The fact that Amber was told outright that she is not welcome to criticize the article’s placement IS a huge issue of censorship. I respect that they tried to reach out to Amber, but honestly, the NYT’s method of “damage control” is worse than the original problem her LTE addressed!

  • Connie Reece

    “You have your publication; they have theirs. You chose to engage them.”

    TexasBrian – when a New York Times editor calls you up and spends 40 minutes of company time trying to deflect criticism of their policy, SHE chooses to engage YOU. They had no obligation to print the letter and could have left it at that, then there would probably not have been a follow-up blog post.

    “And that deserves a note of gratitude, not vitriol.”

    I would hardly call this blog post vitriol. The tone was quite civil, in my opinion.

  • Connie Reece

    “You have your publication; they have theirs. You chose to engage them.”TexasBrian – when a New York Times editor calls you up and spends 40 minutes of company time trying to deflect criticism of their policy, SHE chooses to engage YOU. They had no obligation to print the letter and could have left it at that, then there would probably not have been a follow-up blog post.”And that deserves a note of gratitude, not vitriol.”I would hardly call this blog post vitriol. The tone was quite civil, in my opinion.

  • Mack Collier

    “The newspaper extended the courtesy of a phone call to explain its process of how the story was placed, which most papers wouldn’t even do, much less in print. You’re lucky to get a response at all, much less a phone call.”

    Wow, it’s like we just slid backwards 3 years. The newspaper should WANT to contact bloggers such as Amber that are creating content about their paper. They aren’t doing Amber any favors, they are doing THEMSELVES a favor.

    If ANY business has bloggers that are posting about them, they should make EVERY effort to engage those bloggers and get a dialogue started with them. Attempting to shut-down or influence an interaction is the quickest way to inflame it, as we saw here. If the NYT had put aside their ego and tried to work WITH Amber to get a dialogue started, instead of adding hoops for her to jump through, then this issue would be in a completely different place right now.

  • Mack Collier

    “The newspaper extended the courtesy of a phone call to explain its process of how the story was placed, which most papers wouldn’t even do, much less in print. You’re lucky to get a response at all, much less a phone call.”Wow, it’s like we just slid backwards 3 years. The newspaper should WANT to contact bloggers such as Amber that are creating content about their paper. They aren’t doing Amber any favors, they are doing THEMSELVES a favor. If ANY business has bloggers that are posting about them, they should make EVERY effort to engage those bloggers and get a dialogue started with them. Attempting to shut-down or influence an interaction is the quickest way to inflame it, as we saw here. If the NYT had put aside their ego and tried to work WITH Amber to get a dialogue started, instead of adding hoops for her to jump through, then this issue would be in a completely different place right now.

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post.

    What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post.

    What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post.

    What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post.

    What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post.

    What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post. What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post. What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post. What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post. What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • I Can’t Keep Up

    You know, I don’t see any vitriol in Amber’s post. What I do see is a fault line between traditional media and new media. It’s great if reaching out to a blogger is a phone call asking for more information or to connect. Trying to persuade her to take a different stance, then ask her not to use her name is inappropriate. If it wasn’t, why didn’t the editor want their name used?

  • New York City’s Watchdog

    This is called “overreacting,” and it is becoming epidemic among bloggers.

    It begins in the headline. I don’t see where the NYT tried to “censor” the blog.
    -Texas Brian

    I believe Texas Brian hit it on the head. This is an overreaction to “old media” reaching out, just as the initial reaction about where the NYT placed the article to begin with was an overreaction considering that in all probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business, and BlogHer does not to my knowledge have any of the influential female tech bloggers on their rosters (where is Cali Lewis, Lorrelle VanFossen, or Skellie?). Your letter and blog post remain your words on your forum… they simply asked you to perhaps refocus on the substance of the article instead of something that really is trivial and petty.

    As for the NYT trying to influence bloggers… did they give bloggers a $500 gift card to their new line of home furnishings the same way that JCPenney did for 20 members of BlogHer? Is the NYT really wrong for placing them in the Style & Fashion section as you claim?

    I tend to think the NYT, whether they knew it or not, put that article exactly where it belonged.

  • New York City’s Watchdog

    This is called “overreacting,” and it is becoming epidemic among bloggers.

    It begins in the headline. I don’t see where the NYT tried to “censor” the blog.
    -Texas Brian

    I believe Texas Brian hit it on the head. This is an overreaction to “old media” reaching out, just as the initial reaction about where the NYT placed the article to begin with was an overreaction considering that in all probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business, and BlogHer does not to my knowledge have any of the influential female tech bloggers on their rosters (where is Cali Lewis, Lorrelle VanFossen, or Skellie?). Your letter and blog post remain your words on your forum… they simply asked you to perhaps refocus on the substance of the article instead of something that really is trivial and petty.

    As for the NYT trying to influence bloggers… did they give bloggers a $500 gift card to their new line of home furnishings the same way that JCPenney did for 20 members of BlogHer? Is the NYT really wrong for placing them in the Style & Fashion section as you claim?

    I tend to think the NYT, whether they knew it or not, put that article exactly where it belonged.

  • New York City’s Watchdog

    This is called “overreacting,” and it is becoming epidemic among bloggers.

    It begins in the headline. I don’t see where the NYT tried to “censor” the blog.
    -Texas Brian

    I believe Texas Brian hit it on the head. This is an overreaction to “old media” reaching out, just as the initial reaction about where the NYT placed the article to begin with was an overreaction considering that in all probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business, and BlogHer does not to my knowledge have any of the influential female tech bloggers on their rosters (where is Cali Lewis, Lorrelle VanFossen, or Skellie?). Your letter and blog post remain your words on your forum… they simply asked you to perhaps refocus on the substance of the article instead of something that really is trivial and petty.

    As for the NYT trying to influence bloggers… did they give bloggers a $500 gift card to their new line of home furnishings the same way that JCPenney did for 20 members of BlogHer? Is the NYT really wrong for placing them in the Style & Fashion section as you claim?

    I tend to think the NYT, whether they knew it or not, put that article exactly where it belonged.

  • New York City’s Watchdog

    This is called “overreacting,” and it is becoming epidemic among bloggers.

    It begins in the headline. I don’t see where the NYT tried to “censor” the blog.
    -Texas Brian

    I believe Texas Brian hit it on the head. This is an overreaction to “old media” reaching out, just as the initial reaction about where the NYT placed the article to begin with was an overreaction considering that in all probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business, and BlogHer does not to my knowledge have any of the influential female tech bloggers on their rosters (where is Cali Lewis, Lorrelle VanFossen, or Skellie?). Your letter and blog post remain your words on your forum… they simply asked you to perhaps refocus on the substance of the article instead of something that really is trivial and petty.

    As for the NYT trying to influence bloggers… did they give bloggers a $500 gift card to their new line of home furnishings the same way that JCPenney did for 20 members of BlogHer? Is the NYT really wrong for placing them in the Style & Fashion section as you claim?

    I tend to think the NYT, whether they knew it or not, put that article exactly where it belonged.

Newer Comments →