Times Says Goodbye to Regional Editorial Page
MORE Off the Record
Those hyper-local opinion pages in The New York Times—lamenting global warming’s toll on a Maplewood, N.J. lake, or complaining about traffic in southern Connecticut, or opposing a plan to impose tolls on the East River bridges—are now a thing of the past. Over the weekend, readers found a note in each regional edition declaring that the local op-ed sections were being eliminated starting this week.
It was a move the paper’s editorial board had been mulling for a while. “It took about six months to make this decision, and we had to satisfy ourselves that it was the right thing to do from a business perspective,” Andrew Rosenthal, The Times’ editorial-page editor, told Off the Record. “We had to ask: Well, does it take a journalistic hit? Well, there is one. There’s no question about it. But I’m very serious about my commitment to the regions.”
The decision, naturally, came down to money. Mr. Rosenthal said he wants to expand the Op-Ed brand overall—The Times now features online-only columnists, and it recently hired Bill Kristol to write a regular column for the paper—meaning something had to be cut.
“The resources we were spending on the regionals might be spent elsewhere for the greater good of what we pursue,” Mr. Rosenthal said.
The local opinion pages—the City section, New Jersey, Westchester, Connecticut, and Long Island—were a recent innovation from the Gail Collins era. The move to eliminate those pages comes on top of last year’s decision to scale back stories that are specific to each region, in favor of packaged material that can run in all four of the suburban sections.
Mr. Rosenthal expressed his commitment to the regions, but didn’t offer specifics. He said that two writers—Richard Benfield and Maura Casey—have been hired to write editorials, under their own bylines, for the news pages of the New Jersey and Connecticut sections. And he added that there would always be a place for significant local stories on the main Op-Ed page.
Perhaps Mr. Rosenthal would be happier at the Weekly Standard... no... wait...
They can now say "goodbye" to my subscription.
In a time when paying subscribers are leaving print newspapers in droves for online interactive newspapers that allow ANYONE to voice their opinions in comment sections after EVERY article and oped, the NYT is rearranging their deck chairs even as they are floating away from the sinking MSM ship.
This is why the NYT and the MSM will not survive the decade in its present form. The NYT is too stubborn to change with the changing times. They are too afraid of allowing their subscription base to voice their own opinion. They are too arrogant to listen to the wishes of their own subscription base because the NYT actually think they have a monopoly on news distribution.
Hey NYT, I have some news for you, GAME OVER! I wrote this comment on my Iphone.
This is not a well thought out change. Removing op ed space from regional voices to make room for William Kristol's words seems like a rationalization for a decision but this thinking is too weak to support the changes. If readers are going to be subjected to Kristol's idealogy, isn't it logical to balance/extend such opinions with opinions that more closely respond to regional issues?
This is bad news from my favorite news source. I can accept the fact that the NYT editors chose to publish Kristol even though I don't like it. What I can't swallow is how that choice eliminates the space for voices and arguments that are less idealogical and more focused on specific issues.
National papers need to become more localized. This is a step in the wrong direction.
That the hiring of Wm. Kristol and the resulting killing of the incisive and necessary LI editorials and letter sections is an act of cowardice on the part of Times editors.It wasn't "business" but a way of appeasing the ultra- rightwing fringe. Hey, Rosenthal: Who's next--Rush, Sean, Coulter and after the 2008 election why not our current Veep?
For shame!
The NY Times editorial "Looking at America," sums up the terrible state of our Nation after being entrusted to the Republicans and their intellectual allies, the neo conservatives. As a reader of the New York Times for at least 10 years, I felt a bit of pride that my newspaper of choice would come out so strongly against the Bush Administration. How short-lived my pride was when I heard that the New York Times would be giving a prominent place on its editorial page to Bill Kristol, one of the architects of the very policies that the Times deplored in its current editorial. There is no excuse or explanation that I will accept for this act. The Times already has numerous right-wing conservatives that it gives credence to on its op-ed page, and it certainly doesn't need one more to claim diversity. As of January 7, 2008, I will cancel my subscription to the Times, unless the paper rescinds its offer to Kristol. I will not support this cynical irresponsible war monger or the paper who employees him. I canceled a free subscription to Newsweek after it employed Karl Rove, another architect of the Bush policies, so this will not be my first cancellation. I am only hoping that numerous other subscribers will be inclined to do the same so that we can save this newspaper from itself.
Just what the readers of the NYT want: a smarmy, unpleasant little neo-con, who's been so wrong for so long it boggles the mind that anyone would give a platform to this mental midget. It's like they want to go down in flames and have decided to quicken the pace of their demise.
After cheer-leading for Bush's war by typing the dictated WH lies and helping him win the 2004 election by not publishing the story of the illegal wiretaps until after the election (at Bush's request, after a personal visit by Karl Rove). Bill KKKristol and the NYT: the nail in the coffin. No wait! Here's another cunning plan: you post the transcript of Rush Limbaugh's program in the op-ed page everyday. You can then fire more staffers and save even more money. Because the last place you want (real) journalists and writers is a newspaper, right?
So long it's been good to know ya!
C'mon, guys, get your head out of the sand. Why are you afraid of William Kristol in the light of day? If he's the enemy, let's hear what the enemy wants us to believe. And if he turns out to be just another blowsy William Safire or flabby David Brooks, you can always just not read him. Saves time for The Nation.
You sugggest we buy the Times and then just "ignore" Kristol. That's all well and good but why would I spend my money on something I think supports someone like Mr. Kristol? I don't think I want to SUPPORT any organization that supports someone like Bill Kristol..with my money...thank you very much. I feel sorry for the grunts.
Right on! Hyperlocal journalism is what readers want, not more of the same old national news, and not syndicated regional news, which can never be local enough. The New York Times is increasingly irrelevant to readers not interested in its consumer sections, not interested in opinion masquerading as reportage,and not interested in "bloat," to use the term applied to The Times by a magazine editor. With its latest evisceration, The Times's print edition seems to be continuing its way along a slippery slope to oblivion.
hello mr rosenthal, mr murdoch, mr AOL, Mr. Disney, Mr. Viacom, Mr. AT&T,
Why does everything have to be about money?
Of course the NYTimes cannot take the place of a good local news source, but it continues to lurch from one wrong-headed approach to another with its regional section. Lumping all the metropolitan suburbs into one category - and then having much of the coverage be about parenting, soccer or pre-teen shopping - is quite an insult to its regional readers. Having the editorials be about Albany (as if only the regions and not the city readers care about NY state affairs) is also bizarre. Cutting the news and including so many first person columns (which are not necessarily cheap to support) turns the section into a generic, stale style magazine.
Hey NYTimes leaders! Listen up. You've got some wonderful writers (and readers) out here in the suburbs. Give us an editor who understands the specific region and can work with the local writers; give the editor some space; and give the format some time to mature.
Oh, yeah - and give us an opinion page full of local op-eds and letters/ You can even forget the high-priced editorials and just use all that free content. A high-traffic opinion page would pay for itself with advertisers wanting to be nearby.
One person's free advice, for what it's worth.