Consider this constructive criticism because I really do love you. I am not one of those liberals who thinks the Times is terrible, too corporate, too biased, too whatever. I read you guys every single day. Your news is well-reported and your editorial dept. and Opinion pages have helped my thoughts and opinions and political action take shape throughout my adult life.
I often dive down into the archives to learn about the middle east, poverty, education, etc and the rabbit holes I go down rarely disappoint. Some pieces stick out. Like the series on our oceans. I will never, ever buy wet cat food again (sorry, Monte). Like Trymaine Lee writing about his job. Like Gail Collins writing about Hillary’s mom. Like Gail Collins writing about a math teacher from my husband’s hometown who ran for the US Senate. Like your front page coverage of what it is like being a sex slave for ISIS fighters. Like my favorite college professor writing about my all time least-favorite governor. The excellent journalism and opinions I read at the NYT stick with me, they pop up in my mind when I’m making my point, when I’m changing my mind, when I’m teaching my children about the world.
I pay for the online subscription and I have for years. I was disappointed when Jill Abramson was fired, whether it was because she was hard to work with or because she made a stink about her pay gap with prior male editors or some other reason I’m not sure, but I do find it pathetic that she’s the only woman who has ever been executive editor in 160 years.
I like the current editorial board — I typically agree wholeheartedly with them on everything from the refugee crisis to voting rights. The Contributing Editors are also pretty good. I’m troubled by the weekly Opinion columnists, though, and I have been for quite some time. There are eleven and two of them are women. White, middle-aged women.
I can assure you I’m not dying to know what Paul Krugman and David Brooks and Roger Cohen think about the world anymore. They are all talented writers but there is a large gaping whole where diverse female opinions should be. I don’t personally love Maureen Dowd since I’m a Hillary Clinton fangirl but at least Mo critiques the male political traditions and male political culture we are currently stuck with in the US. I never miss a Gail Collins piece, but there should be more voices. Nicholas Kristoff is often the most hardcore feminist on the Opinion page, which is great, but that isn’t enough for me.
Political journalism and TV punditry are both dominated by men. At the Times, more than 67% of the bylines are male. Millions of people listen to the analysis and read the columns these guys put out weekly and vote accordingly. I know this isn’t just a NYT problem but I think as a standard bearer for newsrooms around the country The Times should step it up.
We just nominated the first female presidential candidate and we have a record number (still so low) of women in the Senate. Yet, with something like 100 days before we vote, a bunch of elite dudebros get shared widely on social media, break down the campaigns and shape the opinions of our electorate.
Imagine if we could read four or five women on the illustrious Opinion Columnist pages. Would the public’s understanding of this primary, of this election, be different? Would there be more feminist pieces? Would the overwhelmingly negative coverage of Hillary be complicated by other narratives? Most importantly, would the policies we seek to change, those that would bring about more female representation in government or help women overcome bias in the workplace, be part of the conversation more often? I believe the answers to these questions is a resounding YES.