HOME
          
LATEST STORY
The newsonomics of MLB’s pioneering mobile experience
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
March 4, 2011, 6 p.m.

Why the NYT Mag’s editor credits are a great idea

“I would make it illegal to reveal the names of editors if I were dictator of the world,” says Jack Shafer, reacting to the New York Times Magazine’s introduction of editor credits to its features. The move, he notes, is among other things, reflective of something nefarious: “the growing fetishization of credit-making and -taking in our culture.”

Sure. But wait a second: Is the magazine giving its editors credits or bylines?

That’s not just a semantic distinction. Because it comes down to the difference between taking credit for stories and demonstrating accountability for them. To news-nerd out for a moment: Bylines, though they didn’t arrive in standard form until the professionalization period of the 1920s and 1930s, emerged as appendices to journalistic narratives around the Civil War period — not as a way to give authors credit for their work, but as a way to hold them accountable for it. The line between journalism and fabulism, back then, wasn’t as stark as the Super Sharpied one we draw today; bylines were initially a means of, essentially, tracing the origins of printed exaggerations and lies back to a single source.

Today, bylines — while, sure, they’re also about crediting authorship — still carry that accountability function. While they’re not about tracing the origins of made-up news stories (um, we hope), they are about providing source material for stories — metadata, essentially, in analog form.

And, when it comes to stories’ editorial processes, that info is nice to have, for a few reasons. First is the obvious: Editors, like writers, have their own styles and voices that insinuate themselves, in ways both big and subtle, into drafts of journalism. For a reader, it’s instructive, and interesting, to know who it was who helped the writer guide a story into its final form. Second, yep, the credit thing: It’s nice to give editors a little nod for the work they do — to rescue them, just a little bit, from the obscurity of anonymity.

Much, much more importantly, though: Bylines for the editor are a gesture of respect to the reader. They’re saying, “I care enough about your intelligence, and care enough about winning your trust, that I’m trying to give you as much background information as I can about my work. Without, you know, being annoying about it.”

In survey after survey, after all, Americans rank their esteem for journalists way below the meager respect they hold for lawyers and tax collectors. (And once puppy-kickers and granny-robbers professionalize, they’ll rank journos below them, too.) The reasons for the media-directed misanthropy are many, and way beyond the auspices of a blog post; but one of the biggest and most obvious is the public perception of journalistic entitlement when it comes to truth itself. And that’s the way it is, etc. Journalists see themselves as — pride themselves on — telling the tales of human events as honestly as they can; their audiences, though, tend to resent the implication of nepotism between a profession and reality. A monthly paycheck from The New York Times Company, they seem to feel, is not an inside track to truth.

But journalists, of course, the good ones, are anything but cavalier about the responsibilities their jobs give them. They often agonize over finding just the right framing — just the right image, just the right word — that will tell their stories in the most accurate, evocative way possible. They go through drafts. They go through second drafts. And thirds. And fourths. Journo Agonistes. Because they really do care.

Credits-for-editors are a small — okay, tiny — nod to that investment. They’re a reminder to the reader of the dynamic elements of journalism — that news isn’t simply a product, rendered in the head of Zeus and then delivered upon us, fully formed, from Mt. Olympus. Journalism is a process, a practice, a series of negotiations and conversations — and something that is, at its best, a labor of love.

Will editorial credits do anything to raise the overall public perception of journalists? Nope, probably not. But, just maybe, they’ll remind people of the work that goes into works of journalism themselves. “There’s a symbolic aspect to it,” new NYT mag editor Hugo Lindgren told AdWeek of the credit additions, and they’re certainly a step in the right direction. This post, by the way, was edited by Joshua Benton. Who loves puppies. Thanks.

POSTED     March 4, 2011, 6 p.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
The newsonomics of MLB’s pioneering mobile experience
Running a sports league and running a news operation aren’t the same thing. But there are lessons to be learned from baseball’s success in navigating mobile.
Why The New York Times built a tool for crowdsourced time travel
Madison, a new tool that asks readers to help identify ads in the Times archives, is part of a new open source platform for crowdsourcing built by the company’s R&D Lab.
Opening up the archives: JSTOR wants to tie a library to the news
Its new site JSTOR Daily highlights interesting research and offers background and context on current events.
What to read next
1020
tweets
The newsonomics of the millennial moment
The new wave of news startups is aiming at a younger audience. But do legacy media companies have a chance at earning their attention?
803A mixed bag on apps: What The New York Times learned with NYT Opinion and NYT Now
The two apps were part of the paper’s plan to increase digital subscribers through smaller, targeted offerings. Now, with staff cutbacks on the way, one app is being shuttered and the other is being adjusted.
413The new Vox daily email, explained
The company’s newsletter, Vox Sentences, enters an increasingly crowded inbox. Can concise writing and smart aggregation on the day’s news help expand their audience?
These stories are our most popular on Twitter over the past 30 days.
See all our most recent pieces ➚
Encyclo is our encyclopedia of the future of news, chronicling the key players in journalism’s evolution.
Here are a few of the entries you’ll find in Encyclo.   Get the full Encyclo ➚
Ars Technica
BBC News
NPR
The Christian Science Monitor
FactCheck.org
Wikipedia
Press+
Newsweek
The Daily
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Chicago Tribune
Mozilla