3 Comments

Summary:

Jill Abramson, the executive editor of the New York Times, addressed media trends at Wired’s conference in New York City.

Jill Abramson

When bombs in Boston went off last month, Jill Abramson went in minutes from being a “joyous executive editor” at a ceremony celebrating the New York Times‘ recent Pulitzer Prize wins to overseeing a major story.

Abramson is familiar with working on major news events, including 9/11, but said her primary concerns were different this time.

“In Boston, what was first and foremost was making sure our standards were understood,” Abramson said at the Wired Business conference in New York City on Tuesday.

Abramson said that, for major stories in the past, the only focus was the next day’s paper. This time around, she was preoccupied with ensuring that no one at the paper seized on one of the many thinly sourced rumors flying around on social media.

Abramson, speaking with Wired editor-in-chief Scott Dedich, also addressed other recent trends in media, including a popular marketing trend.

“Native advertising seems to be for the conference set. It’s the buzz word of 2013,” she said, pouring cold water on a term popularized by BuzzFeed and others.

Abramson spoke of the “months and months and months” of effort that went into producing the NYT’s Pulitzer Prize-winning multimedia story “Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek,” but didn’t address how the paper will fund such projects in the future. She did note, though, that technical virtuosity isn’t enough for great journalism.

“I think that what a new editor needs first and foremost, and this sounds old-fashioned, is that gut sense of what’s a great NYT story.”

The discussion didn’t touch on a widely panned Politico report that Abramson was losing the newsroom, but did address her role as first female executive editor of the Times. She said that there was no point being the first woman in anything if there wasn’t going to be a second, but said she was pleased with overall gender roles at the Times.

  1. Social media was the biggest difference? Really? I thought it was that 1000x more people died on 9/11, several planes were hijacked and crashed, and three really big buildings were brought down. And we passed laws that stripped away constitutional protections. Oh, and we haven’t used Boston as an excuse to start any wars. Yet.

    Share
  2. Jeff, with respect this is not an article. It is simply a press release for Wired.

    I thought we were going to get an insight into how the NYT covered the Boston attack compared with how they managed the news flow during 9/11. There was no Twitter at the time of 9/11.

    We didn’t learn much about anything.

    ___________________

    Share
    1. I’ve updated the headline to make it clear that Abramson was talking about how social media has changed editors’ immediate priorities during a major news event.

      Share

Comments have been disabled for this post