The New York Times has a great respect and reputation among most journalists. The paper has become in many eyes, the gold standard of investigative reporting and journalism. However, the results of a highly contentious 2016 election has called into question the New York Times ability to cover politics fairly and honestly. So much so, the editor felt the need to address the Time’s subscribers about the matter. In a letter from the editor titled “To Our Readers, From the Publisher and Executive Editor”, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and Executive Editor Dean Baquet both admitted that the Times had strayed from its fundamental mission of reporting “honestly, without fear or favor”. The problems addressed in the letter discuss ethical issues of biased reporting in the 2016 election, as well as failing to understand or comprehend people of differing political beliefs. The Times is directly speaking to it stakeholders, which are their readers and subscribers, in order earn the trust back of individuals who believed the Times failed to report such a pivotal moment in our countries history with the ethics and values that they have come to expect from the New York Times.

           The letter begins with the Times questioning themselves, by asking “Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?” (Sulzberger & Baquet, 2016). The Times did a strong  job in humbling themselves to their readers by not only addressing the issue alone, but asking themselves what factors led to their inability to understand a large segment of Americans. This is a great strategy in humanizing the Times. The question is essentially a self-admission on behalf of the Times that they may have failed to adequately understand the struggles and stances of Americans who supported Trump. These Americans would fall under a public that have a common interest in seeing fair coverage of their political views, but have grown somewhat untrustworthy of the Times due to it’s inability to provide that fair coverage. After reflecting on underestimating a portion of American voters, the Times promised to readers that it would rededicate itself to their mission. “As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism” (Sulzberger & Baquet, 2016). In this statement, the Times do an effective job in utilizing the act/essence strategy of re-legitimation. They identified where they acted wrongly in their coverage, and recognized that focusing on what the original mission of the New York Times is what will help rebuild the trust of readers who have come to expect the Times to act in ways that reflect that mission. However, the letter continued to discuss the election in terms of “divisiveness”, “strains”, and labeling the new president “enigmatic”. Although many of these terms would arguably be a fair assessment of the campaign and our new president, I don’t see why using these strong labels and terms to describe the election belong in a letter to readers who felt ostracized by the Times coverage of the election.

I believe the Times letter is a refining outreach to its readers. However, there are elements to be considered that would have made this letter a more effective way of regaining reader’s trust. The letter would have been strengthened had the Times declared action be taken to ensure that views from different political perspectives would be considered. In Michael Goodwin’s analysis of the letter and the executive editor’s comments, he suggested “As an added guarantee, he must insist that the paper enlarge its thinking about diversity to include journalists who disagree with the Times’ embedded liberal slant” (Goodwin, 2016). A promise to hire conservative journalists who would engage in healthy discourse with the other journalists would have gone a long way in ensuring readers that the Times is willing to make the corrective actions necessary in order to improve their newspaper. The letter also could have done better with directly speaking to the public that was outraged by the Times coverage. On top of speaking of the Times mission, reflecting on the campaign, and loyalty to its readers, the Times could have also spoken to the public that supported Trump. The Times should have addressed this public, who felt middle class Americans only seeking radical change to the system they haven’t benefited from didn’t receive the fair coverage they deserved. Publics like this would fall under diffused linkages, which “are those in which the organization must respond to sporadic publics like activists or special interest groups” (Heath, 2013). If the Times had better identified this linkage and addressed these specific concerns, they may have been able to further close the legitimacy gap created by its coverage.

References

Sulzberger, A., & Baquet, D. (2016, November 14). To our readers, from the publisher and executive editor. Election 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html

Goodwin, M. (2016, November 12). New York times: We blew it on trump. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from New York Post, http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/

Heath, R. L. (Ed.). (2013). Encyclopedia of public relations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.