Readership at the New York Times is down because Americans are either watching the evening news or just simply aren't interested in the way the paper chooses to convery their stories. As a result of declining popularity, the Times is advertising. This wouldn't be such a problem however, I am confused as to who exactly they are targeting. On Tuesday, they ran a special section of advertisement which highlights reporters that work at the Times. It was an attempt to showcase the best of their talent and hopefully bring some interest to the Times. However, the entire spread showcased white men and women mostly over the age of forty. They spotlighted two black men but other than that there was no representation of the city on which the Times is based. I feel the Times is trying to cater to its base of readers, which judging from the advertisement contains mostly white middle-aged people. What does this say to the rest of us? The Time's slogan (These times demand the Times) is false advertising. These times, as the slogan begins with, evokes visual images of a struggle. It suggests that something powerful is happening. Based on their recent advertising I do not get this same feel. I think the Times should be representative of its demographic which is obviously very ethnically diverse. If people of color are not represented as being a part of the production of newspaper then what meaning does the slogan have? So when the Times has a chance to be validated as catering to all demographics, it chooses to show primarily white middle aged men and women. Does that demographic say anything about New York City? Is it representative of the population? No, it isn't. This cannot be an oversight because it is painfully obvious that there aren't satisfactory representations of people of color. How are we supposed to trust the paper if it clearly is not meant for us to read?
Advertising to Whom?
Nadia Taha @ September 20, 2006 - 10:59pm
The way the Times chooses to represent itself to its own readers (this was an advertisement for the Times, in the Times, mind you) speaks volumes about how they wish to be perceived. Of course they and their advertisers are aware of the demographics of their current audience, and it is obvious that what they are trying to do here is energize their base. While all reporters should be able to cover a diverse range of communities, reader confidence is at stake in a press where newsrooms (especially at stodgy old-school papers like the Times) are losing authority and credibility for not reflecting these (changing) times.
Conor Friedersdorf @ September 20, 2006 - 11:26pm
Nadia,
As I reread the post I'm a bit unclear on whether Crystal meant to criticize only the advertisement, or the actual ethnic makeup of the Times staff and its effect on coverage. Perhaps my reply didn't respond to a point she was actually trying to make.
In any case, I agree that confidence in the Times is waning, and that the image it puts forth in advertisements can affect that image.
Whether the image put forth by the advertising agency hired by the business people at the Times reflects the content produced by reporters on the other side of the business/editorial wall is another matter.
Conor Friedersdorf @ September 20, 2006 - 10:46pm
Your post seems predicated on the assumption that newspaper articles are only meant to be read by people who share the race of those who write them! I dissent from that position.
Whether or not a newspaper adequately covers a city and its many communities is a function of the substance of its content, not the skin color of those who produce it.
The NYT is available Online and archived daily. I'm certainly prepared to believe that it inadequately covers some New York communities. But aren't the archives themselves the best evidence of the adequacy or inadequacy of Times coverage?
I long for a world where racial disparities in income, education and professional status have disappeared from American life and American newsrooms. But The New York Times isn't a world unto itself, and despite an aggressive effort at affirmative action -- itself open to principled and pragmatic criticism -- the Times continues to reflect the disparities of American society.
I don't think that should cause us to assume anything about the Times coverage, just as I don't think we should assume the inadequacy of the Times religious coverage simply because its staff is less religious than America generally, or the inadequacy of the Times political coverage because its staff is far more liberal than America generally.
The best grounds on which to laud or lambaste a newspaper are the articles and photographs themselves.
»