It appears the Times has more standards and restrictions for their employees than our Supreme Court justices! I am referring to Clarence Thomas.
“Staff members must be sensitive that perfectly proper political activity by their spouses, family or companions may nevertheless create conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. When such a possibility arises, the staff member should advise his or her department head and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Depending on circumstances, the staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or even move to a job unrelated to the activities in question.”
Indeed! But note that they don't have any standards other than general staff ones for their editorial staff, the real decision makers about the news coverage.
And a pretty good sample letter to the editor from the HCR comment section as inspiration
Dave Dalton
Writes Dave Fake News
19 mins ago
Mike
I subscribe to Wapo. Here’s letter to them
Hello,
As a subscriber, I am disappointed that coverage of national issues fail to adequately inform me of policy issues, economic realities of progress made to increase living wage jobs, combat inflation and bring critical manufacturing capability back within our borders
Instead we are offered clickbait headlines touting a former president’s latest attack on judges, prosecutors, and citizens on his vanity social media, as if this was normal. Your coverage IS normalizing it, which I find disturbingly dangerous to democracy
I find the Horse Race polling and lack of attention to informing us of real policy issue to being lacking in journalistic integrity
Please note the attached article and feel free to respond
A reader on Heather Cox Richardson's substack replied to a comment I made there with a question about the NY Times readership demographics. I found this article and thought I would also post it here.
Here is the skinny on the NY Times readership profile. Might be useful in writing letters to the editor if you are in their target profile demographic.
12. 63% of The New York Times readers are under the age of 50.
(Pew Research Center)
Almost two-thirds of people who get their political news and commentary from The New York Times are under 50 — 34% fall into the 30–49 age group, and 29% are in the 18–29 bracket. As for other readers, 17% are aged 50–64, while the remaining 20% are over 65.
The New York Times’ target audience primarily comprises people under the age of 49, who are also the preferred demographic for most advertisers. This age breakdown shows that the paper has successfully reached its target readership and maintained its interest in the topics it covers.
13. 51% of The Times’ readers are male, and 49% are female.
(Pew Research Center)
There’s no significant gender gap among The New York Times readership, stats show. The difference is much more noticeable in other liberal outlets. For example, ABC News viewers are 60% female and 40% male, whereas CBS News viewers are 70% female and 30% male.
14. The paper’s online male readers are younger than their female counterparts.
(Hitwise)
Interestingly, most of the male readers (49%) fall into the 35–44 age bracket (older millennials and young Gen-Xers), while most females fall into the 55–64 group (baby boomers).
According to The New York Times online readership statistics, men aged 35–44 prefer reading about tech, business, and finance-related topics. Unlike them, women aged 55–64 are more interested in arts, health-related articles, and human interest stories.
15. 91% of The New York Times readers identify as Democrats.
(Pew Research Center)
As for political affiliation, more than 9 in 10 people who cite The New York Times as their go-to news source identify as Democrats. For comparison, only 7% say they’re Republicans, while the rest either identify as Independents or don’t have any political leanings.
16. More than two-thirds of The Times’ readers are white.
(Pew Research Center)
The New York Times audience demographics also reveal a significant discrepancy in its racial and ethnic makeup. According to research, 71% of the paper’s readers are white, 10% are Latino, 4% are Black, and the remaining 15% belong to other groups.
17. 72% of the paper’s readers have at least a university degree.
(Pew Research Center)
Compared to other popular left-leaning outlets, The New York Times has the most educated readership. While 72% of the readers have at least a university degree, another 21% say they’ve finished college. Only 7% of the readership doesn’t have a higher education degree.
18. 38% of The New York Times’ readers earn more than $75,000 a year.
(Pew Research Center)
Not everyone who reads The New York Times comes from an affluent household. According to the most recent survey, 25% of the paper’s readers earn between $30,000 and $74,999 per year, and 26% have an annual household income under $30,000.
19. The average Times reader is well-informed and politically opinionated.
(Hitwise)
Research shows that 40% of the readers care about overseas events, and 24% are also eager to learn about other cultures and lifestyles. Additionally, more than 33% of the paper’s readers say they would participate in civil protests regarding the issues they care about.
20. 49% of Americans believe Times is a trustworthy news source.
(Statista)
Considering how many people read The New York Times, this level of trust among the American public isn’t surprising. While 21% firmly believe Times is a trustworthy news source, 28% describe it as mostly credible. Only 15% of Americans say they don’t trust the paper at all.
21. 55% of Americans supported the paper’s decision to publish Donald Trump’s tax returns data in 2019.
(Statista)
For comparison, only 29% found it inappropriate to make this information about the then-US president public. People’s opinions on this move depended mainly on their political affiliation. Whereas 80% of Democrats expressed their support for this editorial decision, only 23% of Republicans did the same.
There is a lot more in the article, but these seemed closest to what you were interested in finding out. It was a great question!
A few new rules regarding political coverage for newspaper standards committees to add to their standards occurred to me while reading this:
1. Articles on the front page should be ACTIONABLE by the reader--encouraging them to deepen their understanding and to vote--as opposed to articles that encourage them to remain passive. The horserace articles clearly fall in the latter category--they belong on the inside pages. (If the polls show their state is a close race, that might be mildly motivational for the reader to value his prospective vote a bit more. But that's almost trivial.) Getting education on issues that concern him would be far more motivational regarding his becoming a knowledgeable and active voter. (Who knows? Getting actionable information up front in their newspaper might actually encourage them to become more dedicated readers. Attention marketing department!) U.S. voter participation is mediocre at best. The misguided focus of our newspapers on the horserace is at least partly responsible. They are culpable--Shape up!
2. The newspapers should do the research necessary to make sure they know all the (objective) issues of all the voters. Then, with that global view as background, the standards committee should focus on a daily alternation between different political perspectives. If they want to be fair and objective, this is crucial.
3. Periodically, perhaps at the end of each month, they should publish an analysis, briefly summarizing that month's coverage and evaluating their own performance for the month in adhering to rules 1. and 2. Invite letters to the editor to get feedback from the public about their performance. (Who knows? This participation might even create more loyal followers. Attention marketing department!)
To this point my note above has been entirely non-partisan and perhaps abstract, and thereby avoids the glaringly obvious real problem: sometimes (like now!) there is total imbalance in the political choice, as in "democracy vs. fascism". Perhaps the reason that newspapers focus on the horserace is that it makes it is easy for them to avoid this problem. So how do they venture into this "unbalanced" reality without giving major offense and still being objective? Express the thoughts of those on the dark side with actual quotations of real people, and then analyze those thoughts with charity (to minimize giving offense, but charity should be employed in any case) and objectivity.
The founding fathers put extraordinary hope on journalism to be the wellspring of a healthy functioning democratic system. Our newspapers have done a miserable job of living up to those lofty hopes. They need profound reform.
Thank you, Georgia. The disproportionate amount of money in America is bad for everyone. In my opinion money has replaced any god. It is way past time for all of us to reassess our values. What is more important; a decent lifestyle or supreme wealth.
Georgia, you are very good at research and I very much enjoy the research you have done.
How difficult would it be to assemble a list of the top advertisers for the Times and the WAPO? If the editors won't pay attention to us, their long time subscribers, perhaps we should start a conversation with their advertisers.
Apparently, Bezos is exerting his influence with the editors of the WAPO, perhaps a few of his major advertisers might do the same.
Thank you for this bombshell article from the Columbia Journalism Review. Is there a way to contact the authors of that article? I wonder if they know what parameters the publishers, and their investors follow; whether they know a more effective response that we could take.
Sharing links with my Dem Committee, who are looking for ways to make both media and their community more aware of the issues around media coverage (or failure there-of). These are great ideas for them to hit on in their communications. I think your column is the best: concrete ways to understand what the media is doing, and how we as citizens can intervene. Our letters add up. Thank you.
It appears the Times has more standards and restrictions for their employees than our Supreme Court justices! I am referring to Clarence Thomas.
“Staff members must be sensitive that perfectly proper political activity by their spouses, family or companions may nevertheless create conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. When such a possibility arises, the staff member should advise his or her department head and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Depending on circumstances, the staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or even move to a job unrelated to the activities in question.”
Indeed! But note that they don't have any standards other than general staff ones for their editorial staff, the real decision makers about the news coverage.
Have you written the editors for the Times and the Post? You write so well.
To get them to notice, maybe we should start a petition?
Thank you for coalescing people around this issue. Did you know the new editor at the Washington Post was a former Murdoch employee? Sheez.
And a pretty good sample letter to the editor from the HCR comment section as inspiration
Dave Dalton
Writes Dave Fake News
19 mins ago
Mike
I subscribe to Wapo. Here’s letter to them
Hello,
As a subscriber, I am disappointed that coverage of national issues fail to adequately inform me of policy issues, economic realities of progress made to increase living wage jobs, combat inflation and bring critical manufacturing capability back within our borders
Instead we are offered clickbait headlines touting a former president’s latest attack on judges, prosecutors, and citizens on his vanity social media, as if this was normal. Your coverage IS normalizing it, which I find disturbingly dangerous to democracy
I find the Horse Race polling and lack of attention to informing us of real policy issue to being lacking in journalistic integrity
Please note the attached article and feel free to respond
AP20273438792058-800x431.jpg
Warped Front Pages
cjr.org
I desire a newspaper, not a tabloid designed for grocery store checkout aisles
Thank you
Dave Dalton
Subscriber
Sent from my iPhone
info on NY Times ad revenue
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/media/new-york-times-q2-earnings.html
There is info on Statista on how NYTimes ad revenue has decreased since 2006 but you need a premium account.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/192907/advertising-revenue-of-the-new-york-times-company-since-2006/
A better breakdown of NY Times revenue sources
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/new-york-times-revenue-chart/
This was also posted in response to the comment thread over on HCRs stack with a useful reference on advertisers on the Times.
Gary Loft
Writes Gary’s Substack
2 hrs ago
It may be of some benefit to write to the major advertisers of the WAPO, NYT and a few other publications.
Recently we have seen stories https://www.reuters.com/technology/x-may-lose-up-75-mln-by-year-end-advertiser-exodus-nyt-2023-11-24/ about the loss of advertisers in the Times.
Perhaps the WAPO and Times could "benefit" from similar pullback from their advertisers.
A reader on Heather Cox Richardson's substack replied to a comment I made there with a question about the NY Times readership demographics. I found this article and thought I would also post it here.
Here is the skinny on the NY Times readership profile. Might be useful in writing letters to the editor if you are in their target profile demographic.
https://letter.ly/new-york-times-readership-statistics/#:~:text=According%20to%20The%20New%20York,dropped%20by%207.4%25%20in%202020.
this article was updated in 2023.
12. 63% of The New York Times readers are under the age of 50.
(Pew Research Center)
Almost two-thirds of people who get their political news and commentary from The New York Times are under 50 — 34% fall into the 30–49 age group, and 29% are in the 18–29 bracket. As for other readers, 17% are aged 50–64, while the remaining 20% are over 65.
The New York Times’ target audience primarily comprises people under the age of 49, who are also the preferred demographic for most advertisers. This age breakdown shows that the paper has successfully reached its target readership and maintained its interest in the topics it covers.
13. 51% of The Times’ readers are male, and 49% are female.
(Pew Research Center)
There’s no significant gender gap among The New York Times readership, stats show. The difference is much more noticeable in other liberal outlets. For example, ABC News viewers are 60% female and 40% male, whereas CBS News viewers are 70% female and 30% male.
14. The paper’s online male readers are younger than their female counterparts.
(Hitwise)
Interestingly, most of the male readers (49%) fall into the 35–44 age bracket (older millennials and young Gen-Xers), while most females fall into the 55–64 group (baby boomers).
According to The New York Times online readership statistics, men aged 35–44 prefer reading about tech, business, and finance-related topics. Unlike them, women aged 55–64 are more interested in arts, health-related articles, and human interest stories.
15. 91% of The New York Times readers identify as Democrats.
(Pew Research Center)
As for political affiliation, more than 9 in 10 people who cite The New York Times as their go-to news source identify as Democrats. For comparison, only 7% say they’re Republicans, while the rest either identify as Independents or don’t have any political leanings.
16. More than two-thirds of The Times’ readers are white.
(Pew Research Center)
The New York Times audience demographics also reveal a significant discrepancy in its racial and ethnic makeup. According to research, 71% of the paper’s readers are white, 10% are Latino, 4% are Black, and the remaining 15% belong to other groups.
17. 72% of the paper’s readers have at least a university degree.
(Pew Research Center)
Compared to other popular left-leaning outlets, The New York Times has the most educated readership. While 72% of the readers have at least a university degree, another 21% say they’ve finished college. Only 7% of the readership doesn’t have a higher education degree.
18. 38% of The New York Times’ readers earn more than $75,000 a year.
(Pew Research Center)
Not everyone who reads The New York Times comes from an affluent household. According to the most recent survey, 25% of the paper’s readers earn between $30,000 and $74,999 per year, and 26% have an annual household income under $30,000.
19. The average Times reader is well-informed and politically opinionated.
(Hitwise)
Research shows that 40% of the readers care about overseas events, and 24% are also eager to learn about other cultures and lifestyles. Additionally, more than 33% of the paper’s readers say they would participate in civil protests regarding the issues they care about.
20. 49% of Americans believe Times is a trustworthy news source.
(Statista)
Considering how many people read The New York Times, this level of trust among the American public isn’t surprising. While 21% firmly believe Times is a trustworthy news source, 28% describe it as mostly credible. Only 15% of Americans say they don’t trust the paper at all.
https://letter.ly/new-york-times-readership-statistics/#:~:text=According%20to%20The%20New%20York,dropped%20by%207.4%25%20in%202020.
21. 55% of Americans supported the paper’s decision to publish Donald Trump’s tax returns data in 2019.
(Statista)
For comparison, only 29% found it inappropriate to make this information about the then-US president public. People’s opinions on this move depended mainly on their political affiliation. Whereas 80% of Democrats expressed their support for this editorial decision, only 23% of Republicans did the same.
There is a lot more in the article, but these seemed closest to what you were interested in finding out. It was a great question!
Here is the link from the New York Times on writing letters to the editor(s)
https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014925288-Submit-a-Letter-to-the-Editor#:~:text=Search-,Submit%20a%20Letter%20to%20The%20Editor,-Learn%20how%20to
and
The Washington Post
https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014925288-Submit-a-Letter-to-the-Editor#:~:text=Search-,Submit%20a%20Letter%20to%20The%20Editor,-Learn%20how%20to
Thanks!
This is the best news coverage I’ve seen since Watergate. Thank you Georgia.
Georgia,
A few new rules regarding political coverage for newspaper standards committees to add to their standards occurred to me while reading this:
1. Articles on the front page should be ACTIONABLE by the reader--encouraging them to deepen their understanding and to vote--as opposed to articles that encourage them to remain passive. The horserace articles clearly fall in the latter category--they belong on the inside pages. (If the polls show their state is a close race, that might be mildly motivational for the reader to value his prospective vote a bit more. But that's almost trivial.) Getting education on issues that concern him would be far more motivational regarding his becoming a knowledgeable and active voter. (Who knows? Getting actionable information up front in their newspaper might actually encourage them to become more dedicated readers. Attention marketing department!) U.S. voter participation is mediocre at best. The misguided focus of our newspapers on the horserace is at least partly responsible. They are culpable--Shape up!
2. The newspapers should do the research necessary to make sure they know all the (objective) issues of all the voters. Then, with that global view as background, the standards committee should focus on a daily alternation between different political perspectives. If they want to be fair and objective, this is crucial.
3. Periodically, perhaps at the end of each month, they should publish an analysis, briefly summarizing that month's coverage and evaluating their own performance for the month in adhering to rules 1. and 2. Invite letters to the editor to get feedback from the public about their performance. (Who knows? This participation might even create more loyal followers. Attention marketing department!)
To this point my note above has been entirely non-partisan and perhaps abstract, and thereby avoids the glaringly obvious real problem: sometimes (like now!) there is total imbalance in the political choice, as in "democracy vs. fascism". Perhaps the reason that newspapers focus on the horserace is that it makes it is easy for them to avoid this problem. So how do they venture into this "unbalanced" reality without giving major offense and still being objective? Express the thoughts of those on the dark side with actual quotations of real people, and then analyze those thoughts with charity (to minimize giving offense, but charity should be employed in any case) and objectivity.
The founding fathers put extraordinary hope on journalism to be the wellspring of a healthy functioning democratic system. Our newspapers have done a miserable job of living up to those lofty hopes. They need profound reform.
Thank you, Georgia. The disproportionate amount of money in America is bad for everyone. In my opinion money has replaced any god. It is way past time for all of us to reassess our values. What is more important; a decent lifestyle or supreme wealth.
Georgia, you are very good at research and I very much enjoy the research you have done.
How difficult would it be to assemble a list of the top advertisers for the Times and the WAPO? If the editors won't pay attention to us, their long time subscribers, perhaps we should start a conversation with their advertisers.
Apparently, Bezos is exerting his influence with the editors of the WAPO, perhaps a few of his major advertisers might do the same.
Thank you for this bombshell article from the Columbia Journalism Review. Is there a way to contact the authors of that article? I wonder if they know what parameters the publishers, and their investors follow; whether they know a more effective response that we could take.
Sharing links with my Dem Committee, who are looking for ways to make both media and their community more aware of the issues around media coverage (or failure there-of). These are great ideas for them to hit on in their communications. I think your column is the best: concrete ways to understand what the media is doing, and how we as citizens can intervene. Our letters add up. Thank you.