4 ms·

There's a pretty big effort jump between writing an article and approving it for editing, in addition to writing involving you intently think about the story fo

There's a pretty big effort jump between writing an article and approving it for editing, in addition to writing involving you intently think about the story for a significant amount of time. This means that any ethical, financial, pr - related concerns are applied longer for the writer. NYT writers are highly motivated and competitive people, and would worry about even the occasional negative piece. Bay Citizen writers aren't held to the same requirements, since they're aren't viewed in the same critical way. Editors, since they simply have to review the piece and what gets on the page is whatever is the best to choose from, are a lot more likely to approve a piece.

natrius 15y ago
Editors, since they simply have to review the piece and what gets on the page is whatever is the best to choose from, are a lot more likely to approve a piece. Your view of the role of an editor is incorrect. My observations of the newsroom I work in (as a developer) are quite different. My organization has a similar partnership with the New York Times, and some of our stories have made the front page of the national edition, not just the regional edition. Your view of The New York Times's willingness to publish pieces that don't meet its standards are based on speculation.