The New York Times’ decision to kill the public editor post, which was established 14 years ago in the aftermath of the Jayson Blair scandal, may save the struggling paper some money but will hurt its credibility in our current age of transparency and openness. 

The move flies in the face of the NYT’s bid to cement bonds with readers to forge a sense of trust and community, a vital mission to combat the “false news” mantra of the White House and its supporters.

SulzbergerSulzberger

Though public editor Liz Spayd did not exactly cover herself with glory during her year long run, she was the highly visible go-to person for the beefs of readers. Spayd departs tomorrow. Where does a reader with a gripe go now?

In his memo, Publisher Pinch Sulzberger thanked the Washington Post alum for “her tough passionate work and for raising issues of critical importance to our newsroom.”

Pinch slammed the door on any replacement for Spayd, saying she is “our last public editor.”

That’s too bad.

As Sulzberger noted, the responsibility of the public editor is to “serve as the reader’s representative.”

The ideal PE is an ardent and independent advocate for readers. It's a person with the clout to challenge editors and reporters on what goes into the NYT whether its print, online or mobile.

Since he or she is an experienced and respected journalist who understands the pressures of a newsroom, reporters and editors will act upon the PE’s complaints or criticisms.

In short, the PE simply makes the Times better and more accountable.

Sulzberger believes there is no need for the PE because the NYT has followers on social media and across the Internet who “have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog.” According to Sulzberger, the paper’s mission is to “empower all those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”

The Times certainly attracts a lot of white-hot random noise from cyber-space. The PE, though, is an insider who can knock on an editor’s door and shed light on controversial stories of the NYT. That's an invaluable service.

The NYT has earned accolades for its aggressive coverage of the Trump White House. That hard-nosed coverage has triggered charges that the NYT is biased and unfair to the President. Cutting the PE job makes it look as if the paper is thin-skinned when it comes to handling criticism.

In considering the PE as just one of "layers of editing" to be cut, Sulzberger appears imperious and woefully short-sighted.