BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

I second that motion

6 comments on I second that motion

I second that motion

: Jay Rosen writes to praise Dan Okrent not only for the way he did his job but for the way he created the job of public editor at The New York Times. I second everything he says.

Dan did more than change The Times, he changed journalism. He reversed the flow in the pipe and showed the good journalism that can come from conversation.

What made him different from other ombudsman was that he did not just try to represent or explain or slap the paper; he made the public an equal in the conversation and he pushed both sides to do better.

His will be a tough act to follow.

Read Jay’s tribute.

(Dan and I were colleagues and pals at Time Inc. and afterwards.)

6 responses to “I second that motion”

  1. Bill Avatar
    Bill

    I wonder how the guy from San Fran whose name Okrent put in the paper feels. That was such a classy thing for a “public” editor to do.

  2. Gerry Avatar
    Gerry

    I wish I shared your take on his tenure with the Times.
    Unlike you, I am not a personal acquaintance of Mr. Okrent’s. However, I was very inclined to him. I learned to play Rotisserie Baseball from the books he and Glen Waggoner wrote. It was geeky, but I cheered for the Okrent Fenokees. He built a lot of goodwill up with this then-young man.
    I think that, if his work at the Times marked a step forward, then I never fully appreciated just how many steps the institution, and perhaps the profession, need to make. I found that, more often than not, Mr. Okrent failed to address glaring inadequacies, nor even attempt to explain some of the biggest problems with the reporting (rather than the editorial pages) of the paper.
    I still want to like the guy, but my expectations for him were so much higher than anything he accomplished.
    Sincerely,
    Gerry

  3. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    I had high hopes for the new position, but Okrent came across like Alan Alda or Phil Donahue … one of those well-educated guys who specializes in well-intentioned bewilderment. “Gee, is this how this works?” If what you wanted from the position was someone to act as a sort of spokesperson for the reader, I guess that’s a valid approach: Put in a guy who can be as baffled as the average reader. But that’s like a three-dimensional New Yorker cartoon. It’s not advocacy and it doesn’t seem to have made much difference in how the Times does its job.
    Rather than a nice, thoughtful guy with a magazine background, I’d have rather seen somebody with some newsroom experience, a little grit and a sense of purpose, not necessarily to confront anyone at the Times, but to be a little more active in saying, “This wasn’t the best way to do it” or “Hey, give the reporters a break — that’s how life works on deadline,” from a pragmatic street-level viewpoint rather than simply dishing out some vaguely philosophical view of a business he doesn’t quite understand.
    I suspect they’ve replaced him with more of the same, too. Oh well.
    And I agree that he was a jerk to expose that poor guy in San Francisco.

  4. Yehudit Avatar
    Yehudit

    Um, what did he accomplish? I don’t see that anything changed at the NYTimes. You don’t give any examples.

  5. BillG Avatar
    BillG

    >what did he accomplish?
    None of the media elites accomplish much of anything but we always have to bow down to them when they leave as if it’s the end of the world. Case in point — Tom Browkaw.

  6. Steve Schwenk Avatar
    Steve Schwenk

    Danny Boy, we hardly knew ye!
    BTW, is NYT Ethicist Randy Cohen correct that Okrent was censured for his petty smear job?
    http://www.airamericaplace.com.nyud.net:8090/upload/aamr032105.mp3
    [ found at 1:33:55 – 1:38.38]