On Monday afternoon, New York Times opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury retired the paper’s Op-Ed rubric, which only just passed 50. As she showed the old man the door, thanking him for his service in a 900-word announcement that was posted to the web and will appear in Tuesday print editions, Kingsbury actually avoided explaining the real reasons for giving the Op-Ed appellation the shove.
Opinion has never been more important to the Times’ journalistic mix, Kingsbury averred, and stated that the paper remains committed to running a wide range of views. So why was she ditching the Op-Ed rubric for a new label, “Guest Essay,” that will run above the headlines of pieces by outside writers? To hear Kingsbury tell it, readers seem not to have fully grasped after half a century that pieces appearing in the Times' Op-Ed space were not expressions of Times sentiment and that the “Guest Essay” tag added needed clarity for readers. This is hardly revolutionary. Newspapers in all corners have long called their sections “Opinion.”
Even if you take Kingsbury at face value, you’ve still got to ask why she’s changed the name. And why it needed 900 words to explain. When her piece first appeared on the web at about 1 p.m., its headline called the new treatment a “Redesign,” which at least hints at some bigger changes. But “redesign” was subsequently dropped, leaving readers to wonder what all the fuss is about (the “Redesign” language is still in the URL). Two explanations come to mind. The first is cosmetic. The second indicates yet another transformation of the paper from its old print form to a primarily digital one.
The diplomatic reason for the renaming is that the Times wants to avoid a reprise of the internal and external uprising fomented in June 2020 by its publication of an Op-Ed by Sen. Tom Cotton, (R-Ark.), advocating the invasion of U.S. cities with military troops. The fallout from the piece forced the resignation of Kingsbury’s predecessor, James Bennet, and her ascension. In the previous Times order, the paper’s news and opinion editors put great care and toil into building and maintaining a fence demarcating “news” from “opinion,” but that still didn’t prevent readers from confusing the two journalistic genres and attributing contributor opinions to the paper itself. In the new arrangement, it appears the editors hope the “Guest Essay” label will erect a sturdier fence for the Times between “us” and “them,” and give the paper greater deniability should it publish something that’s as contentious as the Cotton piece. Will Kingsbury ever assign such Cotton-like pieces? Probably not. As she writes in her announcement, “we have our thumb on our scale in the name of progress, fairness and shared humanity.” Progress, fairness and shared humanity aren’t the first words you’d associate with Cotton.
The digital reason for the Op-Ed page’s rebranding arrives in a boxed solicitation after the third paragraph of Kingsbury’s announcement, which invites readers to subscribe to the Times’ “Opinion Today” newsletter. Every digital publisher from POLITICO to the New York Times to Substack to Forbes to the smallest alt-weekly has embraced newsletters as a way to build paying audiences online. The commercial potential of a Times opinion newsletter is real, as Adam Piore argued in a piece for the Columbia Journalism Review last year. “The opinion section was producing less than 10 percent of the Times’ total output, yet opinion pieces represented 20 percent of all stories read by subscribers—which meant that the takes were punching well above their weight,” Piore wrote.
By corralling opinion inside the “Guest Essay” definition and serving it via newsletter as a pure opinion product for subscribers, the paper hopes to drive subscription sales as it has with its Cooking and Games apps. Digiday reported in the first six months of last year that the Times brought in $25.1 million from its standalone subscription products, including cooking, games and audio. That was up from $15.7 million the year before.
Consult internal Times studies, such as the January 2017 “Journalism That Stands Apart” report, or listen to Times executives talk, and you’ll hear the constant refrain that the paper is now a digital-first, subscriber-first enterprise. “We are not trying to win a pageviews arms race,” the 2017 report stated. “We believe that the more sound business strategy for the Times is to provide journalism so strong that several million people around the world are willing to pay for it.” Separating the opinion section from its old Op-Ed moorings and rechristening it as a subscriber-only digital product places it in a flow with the paper’s other successful digital products. “If you go back to the idea of the habitual reader, opinion columnists are precisely the kinds of writers who attract repeat visits and drive habitual behavior,” a former Times editor and VP for product and technology told CJR’s Piore.
It would be a mistake to think of the newsletterification of the Times as a reaction to the recent success places like Substack have reaped and others hope to replicate. No Johnny-come-lately to the form, the paper has been pushing newsletters so hard and so long it now publishes more than 71 of them, according to a recent Digiday story, and now reaches about 28 million subscribers. In 2020, readers opened more than 3.6 billion Times newsletter emails. The strategy here is to use the newsletters to upsell subscriptions to new readers. Of the Times’ 7.5 million subscribers, 6.69 million are digital only, but the newspaper hopes to grow that number tenfold. “With a billion people reading digital news, and an expected 100 million willing to pay for it in English, it’s not hard to imagine that, over time, the Times’ subscriber base could be substantially larger than where we are today,” New York Times Co. President and CEO Meredith Kopit Levien told a Times reporter in February.
Today’s play by the Times can be read as the company’s latest arrivederci to its print form as it continues its digital metamorphosis. Oh, you’ll still be able to read opinion pieces in the paper, but the real story isn’t about the Times going from Op-Ed to Guest Essay but from Op-Ed to ultradigital.
******
My email address groans with the weight of newsletters. Don’t send any more to [email protected]. My email alerts are a kind of newsletter. My Twitter boycotts podcasts (remember them?). My RSS feed calls newsletters a bunch of hooey.
"term" - Google News
April 27, 2021 at 07:00AM
https://ift.tt/3t39qMV
Opinion | The Real Reason the Times Has Quit Using the Term ‘Op-Ed’ - POLITICO
"term" - Google News
https://ift.tt/35lXs52
https://ift.tt/2L1ho5r
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Opinion | The Real Reason the Times Has Quit Using the Term ‘Op-Ed’ - POLITICO"
Post a Comment