Subscribers Demand Refunds Over Alaska Investigation
NEW YORK, N.Y. — The New York Times is facing an editorial emergency after accidentally practicing journalism, leaving progressive subscribers bewildered, betrayed and dangerously close to learning something.
Alaska Senate Race Story Sparks Subscriber Revolt
The trouble began when Times reporters investigated an effort by operatives aligned with Democrat Mary Peltola’s Alaska Senate campaign to recruit a candidate named Dan J. Sullivan. Unfortunately for the incumbent Republican senator, his name is Dan S. Sullivan. Apparently, Alaska politics now runs on the same principle as a hotel minibar: everything looks familiar until you read the fine print.
The Times relied on interviews, documents and text messages, and by its own count talked to a dozen people over two months. That was its first mistake. Its second was publishing the findings before Election Day, when political professionals prefer facts to stay in secure storage until nobody can do anything about them.
Readers responded by demanding an explanation. Why investigate Democrats? Why now? And most important, had anybody considered the emotional consequences of a newspaper discovering that people with desirable policy positions might occasionally behave like politicians?
Peltola Denies Knowledge, and the Law Shrugs
Peltola has denied knowing about the alleged recruitment effort. She told a Juneau crowd she was dodging bullets left and right, then asked when the Times became the National Enquirer, according to the Alaska Beacon. That’s an important distinction. So is the fact that Alaska election law doesn’t prohibit recruiting spoiler candidates, and both parties have used the tactic. Neither point gets in the way of the central comedy. Subscribers weren’t scandalized by what the investigation found. They were scandalized that journalists might investigate the wrong team.
Newspaper Explains Why It Committed Journalism
The Times then published a behind-the-scenes account of its reporting decisions. It wasn’t a formal apology, but to the nation’s political humorists it had the irresistible sound of a restaurant manager explaining why a customer got served vegetables.
“We ordered democracy,” complained one subscriber, “and you brought us accountability. There should be a warning on the menu.”
A second demanded that the newspaper replace its corrections desk with an affirmations desk. Under the proposal, every disputed story would get a gentle note reminding readers that their preferred candidate is courageous, their opponents are terrifying and their monthly subscription remains morally superior to cable television.
Leaked Memo Urges Editors to Mind the Reader’s Emotional Runway
An internal memo circulating among newsroom staff, and seen by this reporter, suggests the problem was known well in advance. The document, titled “Sensitive Findings: Audience Readiness Checklist,” asks editors to confirm before publication that a story “does not materially inconvenience the largest segment of our subscriber base within seven days of a vote.” A handwritten note in the margin reads, “Define ‘materially.'” A second note, in different ink, reads, “Too late.”
Subscriber Survey Finds Strong Support for Different Facts
A snap survey of 1,140 current and former subscribers, conducted by a reader-sentiment consultancy, found that 61 percent wanted investigations “limited to the other party.” Another 22 percent wanted both parties covered, “but gently.” The remaining 17 percent couldn’t be reached because they had unsubscribed from the survey.
Customer Care Transcript Shows Cancellation Attempt
A recording of one call to the paper’s customer care line, shared by the caller, runs about as expected.
Agent: Thanks for calling. How can I help?
Caller: I want to cancel. You printed facts.
Agent: Can I ask which facts?
Caller: The ones about my side.
Agent: I can offer you three months at half price and the crossword.
Caller: Does the crossword have facts?
Agent: Only the clues.
Journalism vs. Political Customer Service
The controversy has exposed a growing hazard: the line between journalism and political customer service. Journalism asks whether a claim is true. Customer service asks whether the customer would prefer a different truth, maybe in a soothing font with an organic oat-milk finish.
Picture a fire department running this way. “Yes, your house is burning,” the chief announces, “but the flames have progressive values, so we’re calling it renewable heating.”
Both Sides Get Mad at Inconvenient Facts
Partisans have always preferred newspapers that confirm what they already think. The innovation here is treating an inconvenient investigation as a defective product. A newspaper is no longer expected to tell readers what happened. It has to tell them what happened in a way that protects the emotional integrity of their bumper stickers.
Conservative readers have their own version of this disease, of course. They sometimes react to unwelcome facts as if a reporter broke into the house and insulted the dog. But this outbreak is special because a major newspaper had to publicly explain the extraordinary editorial practice of following evidence, a story that also made the rounds in a New York Post opinion column.
Nobody knows how many subscribers actually canceled. The rumored exodus is far more entertaining than any verified circulation report. Still, industry consultants are already being dispatched to develop a groundbreaking solution: two editions of every article, one with the facts and one with the facts readers would have preferred. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics has yet to weigh in on the second edition.
At the Times, the real scandal wasn’t the Alaska ballot. It was the discovery that the truth occasionally forgets to register as a Democrat.
And somewhere in New York, a subscriber is demanding a refund for the terrible inconvenience of having been informed.
Further reading: Anchorage Daily News on the ballot challenge, NPR’s report on the race, and Alaska’s News Source.
Five Humorous Observations
- You ever notice people say “I just want the truth” like they’re ordering a steak? Medium rare, no gristle, and please don’t mention my guy.
- A man named Dan Sullivan ran against a man named Dan Sullivan, and the only thing everyone agreed on was that the name was great. Somewhere a guy named John Smith is furious he never thought of it.
- Canceling a newspaper over a story is like firing your smoke detector because the house is on fire. Sure, it’s quieter now.
- The Times wrote a whole explanation for why it did journalism. That’s the only job where you have to submit a note saying you did the job.
- Half the country wants the news to be a mirror and the other half wants it to be a hammer. Nobody asked for a window. Windows are drafty.