Translation
May 7, 2022

New York Times의 2020 리포트

Too often, digital progress has been accomplished through workarounds; now we must tear apart the barriers. We must differentiate between mission and tradition: what we do because it’s essential to our values and what we do because we’ve always done it.
디지털 전환을 성공적으로 달성했다고 평가받는 뉴욕타임스 내부적으로, ‘디지털 전환'이 차선책을 기반으로 달성 되었다고 스스로 비판하는 점이 인상적이다.
We are not trying to maximize clicks and sell low-margin advertising against them. We are not trying to win a pageviews arms race. We believe that the more sound business strategy for The Times is to provide journalism so strong that several million people around the world are willing to pay for it. Of course, this strategy is also deeply in tune with our longtime values. Our incentives point us toward journalistic excellence.
뉴욕타임스, 기자/직원들의 ‘Why’ ⇒ Journalistic Excellence. 페이지뷰를 따내기 위한 경쟁, 더러운 광고는 뉴욕타임스가 가고자 하는 방향이 아니고, 이들은 사람들이 사랑하는 ‘탁월한 저널리즘'을 제공하는 것을 사명으로 삼고 있다.
No newsroom in the world has more journalists who can code
Our work too often instead reflects conventions built up over many decades, when we spoke to our readers once a day, when we cultivated an aura of detachment from them and when by far our most powerful tool was the written word. To keep our current readers and attract new ones we must more often apply Times values to the new forms of journalism now available to us.
우리의 작업은 수십 년 간 이어져온 관행을 반영한다 - 하루에 한 번만 독자들에게 글을 제공하던, 거리두기를 통해 아우라를 만들고, 글이 가장 강력한 도구 였던 시절.
three broad areas of change are necessary. Our report must change. Our staff must change. And the way we work must change.
기사가 바껴야 하고, 스태프가 변해야 하며, 우리가 일하는 방식이 바껴야 한다.
Stories written in a dense, institutional language that fails to clarify important subjects and feels alien to younger readers. A long string of text, when a photograph, video or chart would be more eloquent.
We devote a large amount of resources to stories that relatively few people read. Except in some mission-driven areas or in areas where evidence suggests that the articles have disproportionate value to subscribers, there is little justification for this. It wastes time — of reporters, backfielders, copy editors, photo editors and others — and dilutes our report.
We also need to become more comfortable with our photographers, videographers and graphics editors playing the primary role covering some stories, rather than a secondary role. The excellent journalism already being produced by these desks serves as a model.
We need more journalistic forms that make The Times a habit by frequently enlightening readers on major running stories, through email newsletters, alerts, FAQs, scoreboards, audio, video and forms yet to be invented.
The Internet is brutal to mediocrity. When journalists make mistakes, miss nuances or lack sharpness, they’re called out quickly on Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere. Free alternatives abound, often reporting the same commoditized information. As a result, the returns to expertise have risen.