Changing with the Times

A bit of disclosure is necessary before I begin: my favorite newspaper is the New York Times.\nThe Times has long been at the cornerstone of American journalism, with mendacious reporting and unparalleled reach. Many other newspapers excel in various departments, and many papers consistently outrun the Times. But for overall content, style, breadth and analysis, I prefer the Times.\nThis fondness for the Times, however, is not without a realization of the paper's troubling faults. The Times' prominence has magnified the hardest damages it has incurred -- namely make-believe reporter Jayson Blair helming a ship of shoddy journalism that includes a less-than probing analysis of the claims which lead to the Iraq war. And then there's always the persistent (and frequently undefended) charge of liberal bias.\nTo counter these recent snafus, the Times ordered a committee to investigate how the paper can preserve readers' trust. The committee filed its 14-page report -- entitled, not surprisingly, "Preserving Our Readers' Trust" -- earlier this month. Among the committee's recommendations: hold online Q&A forums with readers; increase efforts across the board to avoid plagiarism and reduce factual errors; create a blog; reduce anonymous sources; and -- something the IDS has done for years -- provide e-mail addresses with reporters' bylines to increase contact with readers.\nThe report seems to be as much of an attempt to bridge the Times' gap with the right as with the left. Both liberals and conservatives have their respective beefs with the paper, each claiming in its own ironic way the Times is "too soft" on the other side. For these critics, little will ever be done, short of stopping the press permanently, to convince them the Times will ever be a credible paper.\nBy and large, I believe the recommendations are a solid step forward in the evolving field of journalism. Some of the Times' problems are regrettably bush-league. But it is in understanding these problems that a newspaper can perform optimally. Having this report may not be trailblazing, but it shows a desire to improve and not ignore shortcomings and critics.\nAnother change at the Times is less embraceable. By September 2005, the paper will charge online readers $49.95 per year to read its columnists and select writers. (The Web site's news, less sexy than Maureen Dowd, will remain free to online readers.)\nMy gut reaction to this move was anxiety. First, I don't have an extra $50 lying around. But with the changing landscape of journalism, newspapers might find financial trouble down the road without at least considering charging for aspects of their online content.\n"If you believe, as I do, that basically there is going to come a time when people are not going to read print newspapers anymore, someone has to figure out a way to get income for news gathering," Times columnist Frank Rich told Salon.com. "Because who's going to pay for that bureau in Iraq?" \nWhile Rich might be premature in his prognostication, and while I'll fight for free news online to the end, the vicious cycle might nevertheless emerge: when newspapers lose revenue, they lose content; when they lose \ncontent, they lose readers; when they lose readers, they lose advertising, which loses more revenue. Burn-out follows. It's a problem worth examining. The makeover report and charging-for-columnists are undoubtedly hefty decisions for the 154-year-old paper. But any way you slice it, these steps show a paper that's not only thinking about its future, but the future of journalism.