The Times\'s Agenda Project for Campaign: Some Readers Vote Yes, Some Scoff

By ARTHUR S. BRISBANE

Included below is Some reader responses to my column, “Resetting the Campaign Agenda”, on July 29:

I thought your editorial piece yesterday was spot on. I can think of no greater calling for the Fourth Estate than to force our current presidential candidates to talk about the issues that really matter and their detailed plans for dealing with them. For some time I have thought that a journal of national stature such as The Times should have the candidates address one important topic a week chosen by you with their responses containing a brief opening position statement followed by as many action specifics as possible. These candidate statements would be published in The Times on Sunday and then the public could respond to those comments over the balance of the week.

With fourteen weeks remaining in the campaign, there should be no shortage of topics to discuss. For the good of the democratic process, somethi ng needs to be done and you are in a position to make it happen.

Dick Johannesen
Stowe, Vermont

Thank you for some fine reporting regarding The Agenda.

Does the New York Times still have the power to elevate political debate? Your article confirms the difficulties will be substantial. It also revealed a true jewel of an insight from Geneva Overholser, one that warrants systematic consideration by the parties charged with executing The Agenda. Specifically, her idea that “capturing the value of reader perspective requires more than just opening blog posts up to comments” truly crystallizes a key aspect of the challenges ahead.

The NYT writers involved in the initiative can legitimately argue that by examining responses to articles/blog posts and distilling them into new content reflecting the combined contributions of the paper and its public, they are doing far more than just allowing comments. I agree, but respectfully request the situa tion be viewed from a different perspective.

I suggest that despite allowing for reader comments, The Agenda remains in essence a classic ‘top-down' flow; the paper creates, the public consumes. Perhaps you will consider inverting this model for some portions of your effort. Envisioning NYT products as not always the apex of a tree, but as its vital informational roots may help you utilize reporting as a basis to spur organic growth in public discussions through new communications modes.

How can that goal be reached? Encourage people not only to read and react to your work, but to transmit your messages as well as build on them. For example, why not at the end of each article ask bloggers who have built on your original work to provide feedback describing what they created? Whenever you find important contributions, incorporate them into new NYT articles (as already planned), but also blast a Tweet through Twitter announcing each gem to the world. And send a personal e-mail to let those creators know you value their help and express hope they will continue the partnership. By highlighting the best observations and content extensions (with links, please) you expand your network outward, empower creators and incentivize sustained participation. And exploit all public input as a golden opportunity to recruit additional voices to amplify the effect of future NYT articles. The NYT puts out a fine product; imagine a super-powered form of grass roots global syndication in which the type of reporting citizens can't do becomes the instigator of a creative chain reaction to which they can add real value. There is no limit to the amount of information that can be produced and every aspect of content [blogs, e-mail, Twitter, letters to the editor (of other papers) comments, videos] represents potential amplification opportunities rooted to NYT reporting. Make it easy for content creators to let you know what they have done and take f ull advantage of their efforts.

How about this? As debates or town hall meetings get scheduled during the campaign, why not establish a Twitter hashtag “I'd like to know…” to enable people to submit questions they wish the candidates would answer. Make this a self-building conversation by mining the public input for pertinent new article ideas and writing about how the candidates fared if and when they deal with the questions. And keep a continuously updated candidate answer score card. Imagine the power of questions multiplied hundreds or thousands of times tweeted from every corner of our nation. Could the candidates ignore that clamor? Here is the first question I would tweet to Mr. Romney if I had the chance: “Will your tax plan make it possible to move your overseas assets back to the US?”

Can the NYT elevate the political debate of our nation? I firmly believe you have something few others possess; a tremendous collection of talented and ac tive journalists. Perhaps by augmenting that solid journalistic nucleus with new communications technologies where appropriate and amplifying the signal through teaming and co-creating with the public, it will happen. But, I doubt it will happen on its own; it may take some active recruitment efforts and nurturing. Please request explicitly that readers, bloggers, Twitter users, etc. help you in this daunting and critical undertaking. In so many ways it really is up to the public.

Tyler Kokjohn
Professor of Microbiology
Midwestern University
Glendale, AZ

I read with interest your column today regarding “Resetting the Campaign Agenda.” Excuse me, but I had to laugh a bit. You state in the fifth paragraph that, “The Times, which many people look to for coverage on substantive issues….” I truly think that today that is a very false premise. It might have been true in the long distant past but this past week that New York Times clearly de monstrated that it is certainly not interested in covering substantive issues regarding the current presidential campaign.

On Friday of this past week, the Commerce Department announced that the U.S. economy grew at a very tepid 1.5%. This story led most broadcast media and on Saturday it was covered on the front pages of a significant number of papers around the country. I would suggest that the reason for this was two- fold. Number one, it is something that affects the lives of every single American â€" not just Democrats or Republicans, not just people who live in California or New York, not just black or white, but everyone no matter where they live or who they are. Number two is that it is the single most important issue, according to every poll, of the current presidential campaign. If you had read the front page of Saturday's New York Times, there was not one single word on the faltering (1.5% growth) economy â€" not one. The most important paper in the country (at least that is what The Times thinks of itself) could not cover a subject that reflects poorly on the current president and that everyone â€"yes, everyone â€" is concerned about. Yes, the story was on the front page of the Business Day section but I would venture to say that significantly fewer people read the Business Day section than read the front page. And, it was not a business story; it was a national story of significant impact.

If The New York Times was truly interested in discussing the agenda of the current election, the current state of the economy would be at the very top of the list. The problem, I suggest, is that is not what The New York Times is actually interested in discussing. It is much more interested in discussing issues that are favorable to the current occupant of the White House rather than highlight what most people believe (again, most polls agree) is a major failure of the Obama presidency.

When The New York Times discusses “Reset ting Campaign Agendas,” it should start with what is most important to every single American. At this point in time, the ECONOMY is it and everything else is a distant second.

Alan Levine
Ocean, NJ

The dearth of substantive political debate in the United States calls to mind Cicero's admonition that emotion (pathos) often overwhelms reason (logos) and integrity (ethos) in the realm of public discourse.

Yet our existential quandary in 2012 goes far beyond staccato sound bites, voter apathy or the candidates' “bumper-sticker rhetoric.”

As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, well-heeled ideologues have poured untold millions into Super Pacs designed to swift-boat the opposition while affording presidential aspirants the patina of plausible deniability. Aided by cable TV pundits and a partisan blogosphere, vitriolic billionaires can reap the sluttish spoils of opportunistic demagoguery.

This election year may well be a watershed in American politics. Should the malefactors of great stealth prevail, the Republic as we know it will not long endure. In this age of political deception, The Times's The Agenda, represents a revolutionary and patriotic act.

Rosario A. Iaconis
Mineola, NY

“Where's the beef?” I've been reading and hearing that all voters are really concerned about is which candidate can do something to improve the economy and reduce unemployment. The list of titles for your elite bloggers does not include these topics. Certainly, their areas of research and expertise are important and they should be included, but the omission of economic proposals and direct comparison of each candidate's position pushes The Agenda to the back pages. Plus, I, for one print subscriber, do not want to have to put down my paper and go fire up my computer to read these authors. In the season where at least 50% of all televised headline news is about the election campaign I don't understand why these REAL issues cannot occupy a section of my front page and continue in National news.

The Agenda is a great idea! Why go to all this effort and then miss the point?

T.C. Breazeale
Boston, MA

The “sophisticated NY Times reader,” along with the sophisticated Wall Street Journal reader, has long since made up his/her mind regarding Obama v. Romney. As have, for the most part, the less sophisticated non NYT /WSJ readers, aka the great unwashed on the right or the so-called independents that lean decidedly left. The election will be decided not on issues but by the negative ads in the states up for grabs. The NYT election coverage is irrelevant. Totally irrelevant.

Bob Raphael
Manhattan

I would certainly appreciate someone forcing substance into the candidates' debate. My biggest concern is whether there would be any credibility if The Times was the one to do the forcing, for the following reasons:
- The T imes is the leading newspaper promoting the progressive (used to be liberal) agenda.
- It seems that the Times advocates every part of the Democratic Party platform.
- The Times consistently attacks the Republican Party and Mitt Romney.

With that concern, how would the paper appear to be objective? Or, in fact, be objective?

Bernard M.Sheridan
Palm Coast, FL

With the exception of your own Gretchen Morgenson, business warrior princess, and some of the environmentalists trying at least to be heard (Bill McKibben; Rolling Stone), there is little journalism that illuminates the “starkly different paths” that you point out, which are truly only an uncomfortable starting point for the path to economic reform and environmental sustainability. A Republican victory would be a disastrous event for the country and the planet. Either pack your bags for the train to Jordan or consider armed rebellion if the blatant corporate champions win this e lection, because the economy and the environment will literally start causing death to those innocent of connections. This is, of course, tremendously frightening and prevents discussions we need into the faults of the current administration.

How do you separate the issues of jobs and the environment, when even the obvious examples are lost on many of those affected the most? For instance, the fishermen that fight government limits on their catches, missing the connection that fewer fish now sustains the source of their jobs into the future. If such a clear cause and effect is unclear or ignored, how can you expect a connection between sustaining the basics of air and water to be made when a well paying drilling or pipeline job, not to mention “cheaper” gas, is in the balance? It's all about money and immediate survival and nobody is able to take one for the team or the children. The conversation has to bring morality or nobility to a basic (or base) conversation . Put this way there seems to be no balance between the two parties.

I appreciate your feelings of responsibility to bring substance into the election discussion, and realization that all illumination doesn't shine from east coast pundits and academics. It is what makes The New York Times great.

Barb Coddington
Glenwood Springs, CO