Dear Dean and Joe,
We write to you as the saved – those whose copy, facts and sometimes the intelligibility of a sentence or
two have been hammered into shape by our friends and colleagues on the editing desks. Our editors ask
smart questions, engage passionately with our copy, and serve as our safety nets. Editors – and yes, that
especially means copy editors – save reporters and The Times every day from countless errors, large and
small.
Copy and backfield editors, producers and photo editors work in concert with one another and with the
rest of us to make The New York Times the best-written and best-edited daily newspaper in the world.
As hundreds of thousands of new subscribers join us for the first time, we’re left at a loss by our
newspaper’s intent on hacking off one of its own arms.
Like nearly everyone we know in the newsroom, we believe that the plan to eliminate dozens of editing
jobs and do away with the copy desks is ill-conceived and unwise, and will damage the quality of our
product. It will make us sloppier, more error-prone. It will undermine the reputation that generations
have worked to build and maintain, the reputation that keeps readers coming back. You are reducing
the number of people doing the work of editing, which would be harmful enough in itself. But you plan
to take work away from people who do it well, and give it to people who have not developed the same
skills, and who are already over-burdened.
We writers are not in need of a companionable read before someone hits the send button on our
articles. We don’t need a stroke and a purr. We want forceful, focused intellects brought to bear on our
work. We realize that painful change is afoot. We’ve accepted and borne the brunt of many rounds of
layoffs and buyouts. None were as destructive to morale – nor, we fear, as destructive to The Times – as
this one. It is something different in kind.
Your plan adds insult to injury by requiring many longtime, highly skilled employees to apply and
interview for a greatly diminished number of jobs, in sessions that were instantly dubbed "death panels"
in the newsroom. Requiring them to dance for their supper sends a clear message to them, and to us,
that the respect we have shown The Times will not be reciprocated.
What’s more, this change has had only the barest pretense of transparency. From where we sit, the
editing “experiments” looked like flimsy, brief set-pieces, never truly tested under fire – certainly not
something on which to base a whole new system. Nothing we have heard from our editor friends says
otherwise. We have no idea what results they yielded; you have not told us what you believe worked,
what did not, or why. As usual, management sought little input from outside its own ranks.
You are fine journalists with good values, and we prize your leadership. Please reconsider this process,
and the message it sends to every corner of the newsroom and the world.
Sincerely,
The Reporters