Arthur Brisbane has been having a rough week. On January 12th, the NY Times‘ public editor (a position created, you may remember, in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal) used his high-profile soap box to ask the most amazing question: Should the Times be a truth vigilante? Was it incumbent on reporters, he went on to ask, to challenge public figures when their statements were less than accurate?
In itself, it’s not a particularly difficult question. Most NY Times readers answered it quickly and succinctly. No duh, the collective wisdom went. Of course it’s the NY Times‘ job to verify that the facts they print are actually facts—not politically-motivated spin, egregious falsehoods, or just plain old nonsense.
NY Times executive editor Jill Abramson joined the conversation, pointing out that fact checking is central to what journalists—and by extension, the NY Times—do.
The conversation quickly moved from there into a more complicated inquiry. NY Times readers wanted to know why Brisbane was asking the question at all. It’s impossible to get even approximately accurate numbers on reader response, as the paper closed comments within hours of the editorial posting, but it’s not hard to discern the emotional tone of the conversation. Extremely high levels of anger, hostility, and frustration are easy to see.
Where is this emotion coming from?
It’s important to note that Brisbane did more than write an uncomfortable editorial. That in itself would not have been so noteworthy. Instead, he did something far more disruptive: he questioned a fundamental aspect of the NY Times‘ mythos. The mythos is the shared cultural narrative, composed of beliefs held often unconsciously, in common by the NY Times, the NY Times readership, and the community at large.
The Mythos of the NY Times
As a legacy brand, the NY Times has a long and storied history. The “Old Gray Lady” built a reputation as the paper of record. The NY Times brand was more than credible; it was strong enough to serve an editorial role in the national conversation simply by deciding what was included in “All the news that’s fit to print.”
The NY Times has a personality, a history, a known editorial slant and, despite some very well publicized mishaps, a reputation for adhering to rigorous journalistic standards. All of these elements combine in the brand’s mythos, and all of these elements are essential. For any organization, the mythos plays a strong role in defining the brand’s appeal. When an organization’s mythos is as strong and robust as the NY Times, you play with it at your peril.
So Mr. Brisbane has learned. By questioning one of the fundamental aspects of the paper’s mythos—the story that the NY Times is a dependable source of reliable information—he has introduced a tension into the customer/brand relationship. Doubts have crept into a space reserved for certainty.
This isn’t the first time there’s been mayhem in the NY Times‘ mythos, but it’s one of the most troubling. If the leadership at the NY Times can’t believe in and articulate the fundamental aspects that define the paper as something different, special, and remarkable in the media, why should anyone else?