Now that she mentions it…

Via Washington Examiner:

The first step is admitting you have a problem, and the New York Times has a problem, the paper’s public editor suggested this weekend.

Though she doesn’t quite come out and say it, Liz Spayd seemingly agree with the many irate readers who say the Times could have done a better job covering the 2016 presidential election.

They “complain that The Times’s attempt to tap the sentiments of Trump supporters was lacking. And they complain about the liberal tint The Times applies to its coverage, without awareness that it does,” she wrote.

“Few could deny that if Trump’s more moderate supporters are feeling bruised right now, the blame lies partly with their candidate and his penchant for inflammatory rhetoric. But the media is at fault too, for turning his remarks into a grim caricature that it applied to those who backed him. What struck me is how many liberal voters I spoke with felt so, too. They were Clinton backers, but, they want a news source that fairly covers people across the spectrum,” Spayd added.

Though readers have called, emailed and even left notes in the comments section voicing their general dissatisfaction for the Times’ election coverage, the paper still saw a notable uptick in subscriptions following Donald Trump’s surprise victory over Clinton.

Nevertheless, Spayd advised, the paper cannot allow its subscription bump to distract from taking a long, hard look at what it got wrong in the election.

“I hope any chest thumping about the impressive subscriber bump won’t obscure a hard-eyed look at coverage. Because from my conversations with readers, and from the emails that have come into my office, I can tell you there is a searing level of dissatisfaction out there with many aspects of the coverage,” she wrote.

Keep reading…