The New York Times announced that it is eliminating its position of public editor. According to the Times, the public editor, “evaluates journalistic integrity and examines both the quality of the journalism and the standards being applied across the newsroom.” It also, “works outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newsroom and receives and answers questions or comments from readers and the public, principally about news and other coverage in The Times.” The elimination of this position was paired with buyouts editors aiming to give the Times ‘more on-the-ground journalists developing original work than ever before.’ Tellingly the public editor’s dismissal was handled in a separate memo and Politico offers some insight as to why. “Liz Spayd, the paper’s sixth public editor, was under fire from some staffers for what they considered overly critical columns about the paper’s news coverage.” No matter the source, criticism is never easy to hear, but in this case was an “extra edge” to the “animosity.” Though it seems logical to presume a connection, Politico’s source claims that her firing ‘had nothing to do’ with the staff complaints. Whatever the truth to the claim, it seems likely that criticism did play a part in her firing, but perhaps not that of the staff’s.

Instead of a public editor, the Times claims it will be able to rely on social media to ‘collectively serve as a modern watchdog.’ Rather than a seasoned professional, the Times appeals to the mob. They are transparent in their process, with publisher Arthur Sulzberger writing, “Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.” Politico’s article also notes a budding partnership with Google to expand the comment section and allow more direct interface with readers.

How does the future public editor view the current occupant? We can see for ourselves in the top rated comments. In a recent piece, Spayd writes on the backlash that arose when a recent hire, Bret Stephens, wrote on the fallibility of climate models. She thoroughly disavowed his opinion, but allowed for the possibility that hearing alternative points of view has some benefit. The response from the coming ‘editor’ was entirely one sided. ‘Chris Field’ had “a hard time grasping” why the Times would allow something published in a way that he believed misrepresented the facts. ‘Kevo’ said publishing Stephens showed the readers a lack of “respect.” The third declared that was no alternative “opinion” on the matter, the issue is settled. The trend holds consistent in her other articles that treat the conservative viewpoint as valid. Even her repeated progressive virtue signaling did not shield her from the new watchdog’s wrath.

It seems clear that the popular opinion of the new watchdog is uniformly from the left and highly critical of even acknowledging ideological alternatives beyond a narrow range. In this, the Times’ new public editor looks astonishingly familiar to the protests making waves on college campuses. This should be heeded as a dire warning. The devolution of rational thought in academia has become more apparent than ever in the age of social media. The biggest targets have been conservative speakers, but even committed leftists are not spared if they don’t support every ideologically inspired action. Diversifying the ideological range of reader criticism will be a major challenge for the Times, though perhaps a surmountable one if they look beyond their readers’ widely popular opinions. On the other hand, reader critiques of published articles doesn’t replace extensive review prior to hitting the press.

In an ironic twist, the article describing the reduction in editors as beneficial was required to issue a correction due to misrepresenting actions of the soon departed Public Editor. Hopefully this does not portend a lack of oversight prior to publishing that caused the need for the position in the first place.