I found this article in the NYT to be particularly interesting being that I'm currently in the publishing industry. As technology progresses, businesses must take a hard look at current processes vs. innovation. In the NYT's case, the integrity of the content they publish is embedded in their current processes- layers of editors review content before its published in print. With a heavy shift in readership moving to digital, The NYT is now working to significantly change its editing system to center around digital publishing over print publishing. The changes are meant to expedite content to the web as quickly and efficiently as possible, while still working to maintain the quality of their content.
The new technology would be one of the largest overhauls to the NYT operations in years and will allow for a staffing reduction.
I'm curious to see what people outside of the industry think about this- Should an organization like the NYT, a company known for high-quality, reliable content, "streamline" its editorial practices to keep up with the digital evolution?
Article Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/public-editor/a-hard-look-at-times-editing-in-the-digital-era.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FMedia&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection
Thanks Mark, it's an interesting read, and makes you ponder.
ReplyDeleteThe article begins by commending NYT's impeccable editing and I agree that that's what readers pay for: a high level of consistency and polish across it's entire report.
I, too, rely on it's accuracy and it's quality content. This is the goal of journalism. Even the tiniest of errors appear in the corrections section the next day, but who cares about them. It's rather unchallenging to deliver new fast, in the form of a timely but unedited or poorly edited piece of news. I'd rather wait to get the real deal with flawless writing, which is the case with NYT (atleast until now).
I believe that in order to keep up with the digital revolution, what's needed is even better editors, and more of them. NYT should not change just for the sake of the trend, it's a question of their credibility. People depend on them for receiving in-depth coverage of the most important events in the world, and wait to read them.
Editors are the heart of a publication like this, they should not be bypassed by reporters or first-look people. Their skills and dedication can certainly not be replaced by spell-checkers.
What do you guys think?
Hi Mark! Great selection.
ReplyDeleteThere was one quote that really stuck out to me “It will be a change in the way we produce journalism." With the ever growing statement being "Print is dying." I would have to challenge that. I think the NYT is doing something interesting by experimenting on HOW it fits into this digital age. HOW can we have an effective presence online quickly and still be present in the print industry. HOW do our customers best prefer to receive their news. etc.
By being open to experimentation and redefining how an individuals role fits into the production of top quality stories could allow for the NYT to lead the pack in regards to making high quality news more available in real time.
All companies continue to strive to make sure their processes are the most effective when producing a product for their audience. This seems to be an area where tradition has triumphed and now the digital age is forcing them to reevaluate.
I think the NYT can produce new production procedures and still maintain their status as being a top ranked quality paper for news.