The NYT have conducted internal investigations like this on a few occasions in my memory. I don't have specific examples right in front of me, but I vaguely rec

The NYT have conducted internal investigations like this on a few occasions in my memory. I don't have specific examples right in front of me, but I vaguely recall reading of several other major internal reviews, all of them with the intention of being 100% honest, no matter what they uncover, to be sure, since 2007. Interestingly, I can't think of a single time where the conclusion was simply the quality of their editorial discretion, i.e. stories they cover, resisting telling a story according to an already familiar, established narrative, etc. Many people on HN are probably familiar with a similar design pattern: hiring consultants to either a.) tell you something you already know or b.) support a competing position with data points from an outside source. In fact, I vaguely recall the outcome of these internal investigations being something to the effect of needing to ramp up in the digital age with more multi-media, fancier toys, and things of that nature. I would argue that just as necessary as streamlining the editorial process to compete with online-only new sources, like Buzz Feed, would be to understand their major failings and differentiate themselves from their competitors by owning up to them with action. I'm in no way an expert on the subject, just a reader like anyone else, but off the top of my head I can remember the misreporting of the evidence behind the need to invade Iraq, and failing to report NSA mass-surveilinance before George Bush's reelection - the same revelations that came back years later from Snowden (along with more). Granted, they did own up to these failings, and others no doubt, but what editorial changes have been made? Why aren't the actual people who choose what news gets reported and how the facts are presented ever included as part of the outcomes of these reports? If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's for the same reason as when a consultant is brought on to figure out how to tease out data points in support of justifying some new (and bold) initiative to, say, dockerize a division's infrastructure vs. actually getting to the bottom of why the reliable tooling of yesteryear are slowing development and deployment down. You get praise for doing things, and so you pay someone to give you a path towards justifying that. In many cases, I see a parallel between the reporters who lead this investigation and the ones from the NYT who are out there working in the field: to them the truth is all the news that's fit for their editors to print.