On Sunday January 30th in Los Angeles, the New York Times was not delivered due to a “production problem at the plant,” according to the home delivery customer service line. And while Celia and I were able to download Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd, Bill Cunningham and a story by David Hochman about Mommy’s who blog, we were unable to randomly stumble onto stories that we might other wise ignore, which in my opinion, is what makes reading the newspaper enjoyable.
But what is perhaps even more interesting is that there is no easy to locate mention of the New York Times production fumble anywhere in my edition of the Monday paper, which doesn’t seem particularly even handed from a news organization that preaches greater transparency. All Michael Eisner of Michael Ovitz need do is fart and it’s front page news, but miss home delivery in the second largest US market and it’s not even mention, or if it is, it’s buried deep inside.
At the same time, the New York Times was on sale at my local news stand. Now I don’t know about you, but the right thing to do would have been to put make good to subscribers first. As a matter of fact, if enough subscribers get wind of the fact that when the New York Times has a production problem, you can buy it in the store, but they won’t deliver it to your house, why would anyone subscribe, particularly if they have broadband internet access?
If enough people link to this post, this blog could present a public relations problem for the New York Times media relations team. So after watching the EPIC prediction that Andy Lark showed to open his keynote at the NewComm Forum, I am calling on all the conference attendees to help bring this lapes in judgement to the attention of The Times. That means all of you. Bloggers unite!