Last March, I noted that the New York Times magazine had been running an unusually large number of science, medical, and environmental stories. I counted five from Jan. 27 to Mar. 10, including three on the cover.
I also noted that the magazine sometimes runs into trouble with its stories, and suggested that it should hire a science or medical editor qualified to catch mistakes before they appear in print.
I don't think that's been on the mind of the folks who edit the Times magazine, but it seems that big changes are coming.
In November, the Times announced that the magazine's editor, Hugo Lindgren, would be leaving at the end of the year, and it began a search for a replacement. Last Thursday, Poynter published an unusual memo that the executive editor of the Times, Jill Abramson, issued to the magazine's staff, in which Abramson said, "I owe you more than a new editor."
The editorship of the magazine "is one of the true jewels in journalism left to covet," she wrote, in a classic case of Times tunnel vision. Yes, it's a good job; but there are more than a few good jobs left to covet, and the Times is far from having a monopoly on them. But Abramson has been talking to people about the job and she apparently wants to do more than simply hire an editor to continue business as usual.
She wrote:
The more I listened , the more I came to believe that I owe you more than a new editor. I owe you more clarity on how the magazine relates to the rest of our news report and how it can be the most distinctive, edifying, pleasurable part of our news offerings. That’s what the magazine has always been and must remain. There are urgent issues and questions: how to make the magazine the fount of our richest, most immersive multimedia reading; which long reads belong in the A book and which might fare better with editing and presentation in the magazine; should there be more dedicated staff writers, how do we forge stronger relationships with the best of our freelancers in an ever more competitive environment?
These issues are so pressing, she continued, that they cannot be left to the new editor to resolve. She announced the formation of a committee to explore the issues for three months, while two current editors, Lauren Kern and Joel Lovell, keep the magazine afloat.
It's hard to extract the tea from these leaves, but change is good, especially in 21st century journalism. I hope Abramson brings a lot of it to the new New York Times magazine.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply