Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 362)

A Wall Street sign is pictured outside the New York Stock Exchange in New York, October 28, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)

A Wall Street sign is pictured outside the New York Stock Exchange in New York, October 28, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)

The Nasdaq Composite (INDEXNASDAQ:.IXIC) and S&P 500 (INDEXSP:.INX) hit new record highs during late afternoon trading on Thursday.

As of 1:53 PM EST, the Nasdaq Composite was up 31.19, or 0.50% to 6,229.73 after hitting a new record of 6,233.42. The S&P 500 was up 13.08, or 0.54% to 2,424.93, but hit the record high 2,426.07 prior.

UPDATE: The S&P 500 broke through the previous record set earlier in the day, rising +14.55 to 2,426.35 at 2:14 PM EST.

UPDATE: The Nasdaq Composite broke through the previous record set earlier in the day, rising to 6,235.51 at 2:07 PM EST.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDEXDJX:.DJI) was flirting with new highs, up 112.06 points, or 0.53% to 21,120.71.

The bull market took off after the ADP National Employment Report released earlier Thursday morning showed the U.S. private sector added 253,000 jobs in May, far more than the 170,000 median consensus estimate. With construction adding a whopping 37,000 new jobs in May alone, stocks like Deere & Company (NYSE:DE) led the way.

Shares of the construction and equipment operations company were up 2.86 points, or 2.34% to 125.32.

The Nasdaq Composite (INDEXNASDAQ:.IXIC) and S&P 500

The aftermath outside the Manchester Arena, where U.S. singer Ariana Grande had been performing in northern England on May 23, 2017. A suicide bomber killed 22 people and injured dozens of others.

The aftermath outside the Manchester Arena, where U.S. singer Ariana Grande had been performing in northern England on May 23, 2017. A suicide bomber killed 22 people and injured dozens of others.

Whenever there’s a terrorist attack, I automatically feel a combination of anger, horror, and sadness. Like all normal people. But it’s then just a matter of time before I also begin wonder whether we’ll learn that the dirtbag terrorist was financed by welfare.

Which is an understandable reaction since that’s now the normal pattern. Over and over and over and over and over again, we learn that taxpayers were supporting these murderous losers while they plotted and planned their mayhem.

And it’s not random. They’re actually told by hate-filled Imams to sign up for handouts. And European courts protect terrorist households that use welfare to finance death and destruction.

It’s gotten to the point where I even created a special terror wing in the Moocher Hall of Fame.

And it’s happened again. The piece of human filth who murdered 22 people at a concert in Manchester was able to finance his terrorism with handouts from the British government.

The Telegraph has some of the odious details about tax-financed death and destruction.

Salman Abedi is understood to have received thousands of pounds in state funding in the run up to Monday’s atrocity even while he was overseas receiving bomb-making training. Police are investigating Abedi’s finances, including how he paid for frequent trips to Libya where he is thought to have been taught to make bombs at a jihadist training camp. …Abedi’s finances are a major ‘theme’ of the police inquiry amid growing alarm over the ease with which jihadists are able to manipulate Britain’s welfare and student loans system to secure financing. One former detective said jihadists were enrolling on university courses to collect the student loans “often with no intention of turning up”.

But he probably accessed other types of benefits as well, particularly since he never worked and had plenty of cash.

…the Department for Work and Pensions refused to say if Abedi had received any benefits, including housing benefit and income support worth up to £250 a week, during 2015 and 2016. Abedi, 22, never held down a job, according to neighbours and friends, but was able to travel regularly between the UK and Libya. Abedi also had sufficient funds to buy materials for his sophisticated bomb while living in a rented house in south Manchester. Six weeks before the bombing Abedi rented a second property in a block of flats in Blackley eight miles from his home, paying £700 in cash. He had enough money to rent a third property in the centre of Manchester from where he set off with a backpack containing the bomb. Abedi also withdrew £250 in cash three days before the attack and transferred £2,500 to his younger brother Hashim in Libya

Time for another example. Remember the piece of human garbage in London who mowed down some innocent people with his car before murdering a policeman?

Well, he also was subsidized by taxpayers.

Khalid Masood, the radical ISIS terrorist responsible for London’s Westminster terror attack, did not have a job and was receiving government benefits before engaging in his attack. …Masood had a violent criminal history, including several knife attacks. …Terrorists receiving government welfare is a common theme discovered in many post-terror attack investigations.

Seems like Abedi and Masood should have had their own episode of “Benefits Street.”

There are also new reports on welfare-subsidized terror from continental Europe.

story in USA Today offers a depressing summary.

Governments across Europe have accidentally paid taxpayer-funded welfare benefits such as unemployment funds, disability pensions and housing allowances to Islamic State militants who have used the money to wage war in Iraq and Syria, authorities and terrorism experts say. Danish officials said this week that 29 citizens were given $100,000 in public pension benefits because they were considered too ill or disabled to work, and they then fled to Syria to fight for the radical group. …Other countries that also have paid benefits to Islamic State fighters…It took eight months before welfare authorities cut off benefits paid to a Swedish national who had joined the terror group in its Syrian stronghold Raqqa. …Authorities concluded that several of the plotters in the Brussels and Paris terror attacks that killed 162 people in 2015 and 2016 were partly financed by Belgium’s social welfare system while they planned their atrocities. …radical Islamic cleric Anjem Choudary, who was jailed for terrorist activities, urged followers to claim “jihadiseeker’s allowance” — a reference to the nation’s welfare system. His phrase echoes a manual released by the militant group in 2015. How to Survive in the West: A Mujahid Guide advises that “if you can claim extra benefits from a government, then do so.”

By the way, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about the Belgian government’s response.

Are they reducing the welfare state? Of course not.

But you’ll be happy to know that imprisoned radicals lose access to the government teat.

Philippe de Koster, director of Belgium’s agency that fights money laundering and terrorism financing, said steps have since been taken to prevent that from happening again. For example, those convicted of terrorism can no longer receive benefits while in jail.

I’ve already written about welfare-subsidized terrorism in the Nordic nations.

Here’s another story about developments in Scandinavia.

The report examined hundreds of individuals who left to join extremist groups such as Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) between 2013 and 2016. Commissioned at the request of the Financial Supervisory Authority, it has found that the majority was still receiving living allowance, child benefit, maintenance support and parental benefits while abroad, having other people handle their mail to make it look like they were still at home.

The problem seems especially acute in Sweden.

Close to every person who left Sweden to fight for terror groups in the Middle East received welfare to support themselves abroad, according to a new government report. A study of 300 Swedish citizens who fought in Syria and Iraq between 2013 and 2016 shows jihadis are getting increasingly good at getting away with welfare fraud. The individuals often use a person in Sweden to handle paperwork and create the illusion that they’re still in the country. …The most attractive option are government loans to study abroad. The loans are easy to get and thousands of dollars are paid out at once. …The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) recently identified several cases of Danish citizens receiving early pension because they were deemed too sick or disabled to work. They later left the country to fight for Islamic State while the payments continue to get deposited into their accounts. …PET has tried to cut off the benefits since 2014, but current legislation doesn’t allow the payment agency to cut early pensions simply because the recipient is believed to be a terrorist.

Let’s close with something that it either astounding or depressing, or actually both. All of the examples cited above are nations with bloated welfare states. Governments in all those countries consume more than 40 percent of economic output, and more than 50 percent of GDP in some cases.

Belgium is in that latter category, yet one official actually said that it was very difficult to fight terrorism “due to the small size of the Belgian government.”

To me, this is a reminder that the natural incompetence of government becomes worse the bigger it gets.

Salman Abedi is the latest in a

Protestors at the Sacramento Convention Center show support for the state's single-payer healthcare legislation. (Photo: AP)

Protestors at the Sacramento Convention Center show support for the state’s single-payer healthcare legislation. (Photo: AP)

In the Dirty Harry movies, one of Clint Eastwood’s famous lines is “Go ahead, make my day.” I’m tempted to say the same thing when I read about politicians proposing economically destructive policies.

Indeed, I sometimes even relish the opportunity. I endorsed Francois Hollande back in 2012, for instance, because I was confident he would make the awful French tax system even worse, thus giving me lots of additional evidence against class-warfare policies.

Mission accomplished!

Now we have another example. Politicians in California, unfazed by the disaster of ObamaCare (or the nightmare of the British system), want to create a “single-payer” healthcare scheme for the Golden State.

Here’s a description of the proposal from Sacramento Bee.

It would cost $400 billion to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal health care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday. California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. …Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1. …Lara and Atkins say they are driven by the belief that health care is a human right and should be guaranteed to everyone, similar to public services like safe roads and clean drinking water. …Business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, have deemed the bill a “job-killer.” …“It will cost employers and taxpayers billions of dollars and result in significant loss of jobs in the state,” the Chamber of Commerce said in its opposition letter.

Yes, you read correctly. In one fell swoop, California politicians would more than double the fiscal burden of government. Without doubt, the state would take over the bottom spot in fiscal rankings (it’s already close anyhow).

Part of me hopes they do it. The economic consequences would be so catastrophic that it would serve as a powerful warning about the downside of statism.

The Wall Street Journal opines that this is a crazy idea, and wonders if California Democrats are crazy enough to enact it.

…it’s instructive, if not surprising, that Golden State Democrats are responding to the failure of ObamaCare by embracing single-payer health care. This proves the truism that the liberal solution to every government failure is always more government. …California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, the frontrunner to succeed Jerry Brown as Governor next year, is running on single-payer, which shows the idea is going mainstream. At the state Democratic convention last weekend, protesters shouted down speakers who dared to ask about paying for it. The state Senate Appropriations Committee passed a single-payer bill this week, and it has a fair chance of getting to Mr. Brown’s desk.

I semi-joked that California was committing slow-motion suicide when the top income tax rate was increased to 13.3 percent.

As the editorial implies, the state’s death will come much faster if this legislation is adopted.

A $200 billion tax hike would be equivalent to a 15% payroll tax, which would come on top of the current 15.3% federal payroll tax. …The report dryly concludes that “the state-wide economic impacts of such an overall tax increase on employment is beyond the scope of this analysis.”

California’s forecasting bureaucrats may not be willing to predict the economic fallout from this scheme, but it’s not beyond the scope of my analysis.

If this legislation is adopted, the migration of taxpayers out of California will accelerate, the costs will be higher than advertised, and I’ll have a powerful new example of why big government is a disaster.

Ed Morrissey, in a column for The Week, explains why this proposal is bad news. He starts by observing that other states have toyed with the idea and wisely backed away.

Vermont had to abandon its attempts to impose a single-payer health-care system when its greatest champion, Gov. Peter Shumlin, discovered that it would cost far more than he had anticipated. Similarly, last year Colorado voters resoundingly rejected ColoradoCare when a study discovered that even tripling taxes wouldn’t be enough to keep up with the costs.

So what happens if single payer is enacted by a state and costs are higher than projected and revenues are lower than projected (both very safe assumptions)?

The solutions for…fiscal meltdown in a single-payer system…all unpleasant. One option would be to cut benefits of the universal coverage, and hiking co-pays to provide disincentives for using health care. …The state could raise taxes for the health-care system as deficits increased, which would amount to ironic premium hikes from a system designed to be a response to premium hikes from insurers. Another option: Reduce the payments provided to doctors, clinics, and hospitals for their services, which would almost certainly drive providers to either reduce their access or leave the state for greener pastures.

By the way, I previously wrote about how Vermont’s leftists wisely backed off single-payer and explained that this was a great example of why federalism is a good idea.

Simply stated, even left-wing politicians understand that it’s easy to move across state lines to escape extortionary fiscal policy. And that puts pressure on them to be less greedy.

This is one of the main reasons I want toeliminate DC-based redistribution and let states be in charge of social welfare policy.

Using the same reasoning, I’ve also explained why it would be good news if California seceded. People tend to be a bit more rationalwhen it’s more obvious that they’re voting to spend their own money.

Though maybe there’s no hope for California. Let’s close by noting that some Democrat politicians in the state want to compensate for the possible repeal of the federal death tax by imposing a huge state death tax.

In a column for Forbes, Robert Wood has some of the sordid details.

California…sure does like tax increases. …The latest is a move by the Golden State to tax estates, even if the feds do not. …A bill was introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), asking voters to keep the estate tax after all. …if the feds repeal it, and California enacts its own estate tax replacement, will all the billionaires remain, or will high California taxes spark an exodus? It isn’t a silly question.

Of course billionaires will leave the state. And so will many millionaires. Yes, the weather and scenery are nice, but at some point rich people will do a cost-benefit analysis and decide it’s time to move.

And lots of middle-class jobs will move as well. That’s the inevitable consequence of class-warfare policy. Politicians say they’re targeting the rich, but the rest of us are the ones who suffer.

Will California politicians actually move forward with this crazy idea? Again, just as part of me hopes the state adopts single-payer, part of me hopes California imposes a confiscatory death tax. It’s useful to have examples of what not to do.

The Golden State already is in trouble. If it becomes an American version of Greece or Venezuela, bad news will become horrible news and I’ll have lots of material for future columns.

If single-payer healthcare legislation is adopted, the

U.S. President Donald Trump (2nd L) shakes hands, after signing the guest book, with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin (2nd R) with his wife Nechama Reuven (R) and first lady Melania Trump (L), in Jerusalem May 22, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

U.S. President Donald Trump (2nd L) shakes hands, after signing the guest book, with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin (2nd R) with his wife Nechama Reuven (R) and first lady Melania Trump (L), in Jerusalem May 22, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald J. Trump on Thursday signed a waiver to delay moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The White House says the decision is meant to “maximize the changes of successfully negotiating a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

President Trump returned from Israel last month on the second leg of his first foreign trip abroad with a renewed for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

“While President Donald J. Trump on Thursday signed the waiver under the Jerusalem Embassy Act and delayed moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said.

In addition to resuming talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the President discussed Israeli settlements in the West Bank and moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Reuven Rivlin. Eventually making the move would not only fulfill a campaign promise, but also a 21-year old promise to the Israelis.

In 1995, Congress passed The Jerusalem Embassy and Relocation Act, which recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and called for moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Waivers are permitted by presidents in the event national security is a concern.

“President Trump made the decision to maximize the changes of successfully negotiating a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn promise to defend America’s national security interests,” Mr. Spicer added. “But, as he has repeatedly stated his intention to move the embassy, the question is not if that happens, but when.”

President Donald J. Trump on Thursday signed

Workers assemble built-in appliances at the Whirlpool manufacturing plant in Cleveland, Tennessee August 21, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)

Workers assemble built-in appliances at the Whirlpool manufacturing plant in Cleveland, Tennessee August 21, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)

The Institute for Supply Management PMI, a gauge of national factory activity, showed the manufacturing sector grew more than expected in May. This is the 8th straight month that the closely-watched manufacturing index surpassed the median forecast.

The ISM manufacturing index, previously known as the NAPM Survey, is a monthly survey. Levels at 50 or above indicate growth in the manufacturing sector. Levels above 43 but below 50 indicates that the U.S. economy is still growing, but the manufacturing sector is contracting. Level below 43 indicates that the economy is in recession.

The details of the report are actually much stronger than the headline number indicates. New orders continued to post at a solid rate (59.5), including exports (57.5), and backlogs are also on the rise (55.0).

Production remains very strong, import orders continue to rise, and deliveries are slowing. These are all signs of a strengthening manufacturing sector. Employment, at 53.5, is also on the rise. Because they are increasing at a higher rate than we saw in April (52.0), we can expect solid numbers for manufacturing payrolls in the Labor Department’s monthly employment report due out tomorrow (Friday).

Of the 18 manufacturing industries, 15 reported growth in May in the following order: Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Furniture & Related Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Machinery; Primary Metals; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Paper Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Computer & Electronic Products; Transportation Equipment; Chemical Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; and Printing & Related Support Activities.

Only two industries–Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; and Textile Mills–reported contraction in May compared to April.

“Comments from the panel generally reflect stable to growing business conditions, with new orders, employment and inventories of raw materials all growing in May compared to April,” said Timothy R. Fiore, Chair of the Institute for Supply Management® (ISM®) Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. “The slowing of pricing pressure, especially in basic commodities, should have a positive impact on margins and buying policies as this moderation moves up the value chain.”

The Institute for Supply Management PMI, a

People browse booths at a military veterans' job fair in Carson, California October 3, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

People browse booths at a military veterans’ job fair in Carson, California October 3, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

The ADP National Employment Report showed the U.S. private sector added 253,000 jobs in May, far more than the 170,000 median consensus estimate.

“May proved to be a very strong month for job growth,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and co-head of the ADP Research Institute. “Professional and business services had the strongest monthly increase since 2014. This may be an indicator of broader strength in the workforce since these services are relied on by many industries.”

Construction added a whopping 37,000 jobs in May after dipping in April by 2,000 and very strong gains in the previous two months. The goods-producing sector overall added 48,000, includes 3,000 in Natural Resources & Mining and another 8,000 in Manufacturing.

“Job growth is rip-roaring,” Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics said. “The current pace of job growth is nearly three times the rate necessary to absorb growth in the labor force. Increasingly, businesses’ number one challenge will be a shortage of labor.”

Small business that employ between 1 and 49 employees added a solid percentage of 83,000 jobs, while mid-size (50-499) added 113,000. Large businesses with 500 employees ore more added 57,000, boding well for wages.

The ADP National Employment Report showed the

Unemployment

The Labor Department said Thursday a heavily estimated first-time jobless claims report for the week ending May 27 showed 248,000, an unexpected gain of 13,000. The shortened week due to a holiday caused 9 states, including California, to estimate data.

That raises the risk of a large revision next week and minimizes the impact of a 13,000 gain in initial claims. Continuing claims, in lagging data for the May 20 week, fell 9,000 to 1.915 million with the unemployment rate for insured workers remaining at just 1.4%.

All the readings in this report over the last year, in confirmation that demand for labor is very strong, have moved to lows not seen since the early 1970s.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending May 13 were in Alaska (3.1), Puerto Rico (2.6), New Jersey (2.2), California (2.1), Connecticut (2.0), Illinois (1.8), Pennsylvania (1.8), Massachusetts (1.7), Nevada (1.7), and Rhode Island (1.7).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending May 20 were in Michigan (+1,634), Missouri (+874), Texas (+652), Vermont (+475), and Mississippi (+459), while the largest decreases were in New York (-1,033), Connecticut (-779), Oregon (-496), Georgia (-440), and New Jersey (-400).

The Labor Department said a heavily estimated

SUV parts are fabricated in the stamping facility at the General Motors Assembly Plant on June 9, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

SUV parts are fabricated in the stamping facility at the General Motors Assembly Plant on June 9, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

The MNI Chicago Business Barometer rose 1.1 point to 59.4 in May from 58.3 in April, a full correction to the highest level since November 2014. A previous report released this morning showed a 3.1 point decline, which turned an unexpected weak report into a very strong one.

“May’s rise in the MNI Chicago Business Barometer provides a further boost to the business environment. Rising pressure on backlogs and delivery times accompanied with higher production levels suggests firms’ expectations of a busy summer,” said Shaily Mittal, senior economist at MNI Indicators.

Backlog orders climbed out of contraction for the first time in 5 months, indicating stronger prospects for future employment. Serving as further evidence of strengthening employment, more than half of respondents said they planned on hiring, another sign businesses were optimistic about labor demand during the summer.

The MNI Chicago Business Barometer rose 1.1

kathy-griffin-trump-head-screengrab-1

Comedian Kathy Griffin. (Photo: Screenshot)

CNN terminated their agreement with Kathy Griffin over backlash to a photo depicting her in an ISIS-like pose holding up President Trump’s severed head. Griffin, a comedian and CNN New Year’s host, set off a firestorm with the photos and offered an equally criticized apology.

“CNN has terminated our agreement with Kathy Griffin to appear on our New Year’s Eve program,” the CNN Public Relations account tweeted.

She appeared in a hastily thrown together video sounding arrogant and aggravated, claiming she “crossed the line” but that she was “a comic.”

“I crossed the line. I move the line.”

It didn’t go over well on Twitter, not with Trump supporters and not even with mediates. President Trump said “Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself” for the photo on Twitter, adding that the picture bothered his children, “especially my 11 year old son, Barron.”

TMZ reported Barron Trump was actually watching television Tuesday at home with First Lady Melania Trump when Kathy Griffin’s photo appeared on the screen. He panicked and screamed, “Mommy, Mommy!”

As it was put to us, “He’s 11. He doesn’t know who Kathy Griffin is and the head she was holding resembled his dad.”

First Lady Trump ripped Griffin on Wednesday, questioning the comedian’s “mental health.”

“As a mother, a wife and a human being, that photo is very disturbing. When you consider some of the atrocities happening in the world today, a photo opportunity like this is simply wrong and makes you wonder about the mental health of the person who did it,” the First Lady said.

Donald Trump Jr. also accused the comedian of giving a “phony apology” and called on CNN to ban the comedian as a commentator on its channel. He responded to hosts Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper’s criticism to the photo shoot on Twitter as well.

CNN terminated their agreement with Kathy Griffin

New York Times (NYT) building in New York City. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

New York Times (NYT) building in New York City. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The New York Times is eliminating the public editor position held by Liz Spayd after she slammed Upshot and their coverage of the 2016 presidential election. Spayd, the paper’s sixth public editor last year, was expected to remain in the position until summer 2018.

She was hard-hitting and frequently came under fire for her writings on the issues of diversity at The New York Times. The Washington Post, Ms. Spayd’s old employer, also eliminated the position of public editor, and WaPo editor Marty Baron said the paper receives plenty of criticism from “all quarters, instantly, in this Internet age.”

Spayd railed against Nate Cohen and Upshot, who gave Hillary Clinton an 84% chance of defeating President Donald J. Trump. In a post-election critique, she agreed with the readers sending them letters that she cited, underscoring how one said the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.”

“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”

The accountability role of public editor was created in the wake of the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal in 2013.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher at The New York Times, revealed the decision in a memo to staff on Wednesday:

Dear Colleagues,

Every one of us at The Times wakes up every day determined to help our audience better understand the world. In return, our subscribers provide much of the funding we need to support our deeply reported, on-the-ground journalism.

There is nothing more important to our mission, or our business, than strengthening our connection with our readers. A relationship that fundamental cannot be outsourced to a single intermediary.

The responsibility of the public editor – to serve as the reader’s representative – has outgrown that one office. Our business requires that we must all seek to hold ourselves accountable to our readers. When our audience has questions or concerns, whether about current events or our coverage decisions, we must answer them ourselves.

To that end, we have decided to eliminate the position of the public editor, while introducing several new reader-focused efforts. We are grateful to Liz Spayd, who has served in the role since last summer, for her tough, passionate work and for raising issues of critical importance to our newsroom. Liz will leave The Times on Friday as our last public editor.

The public editor position, created in the aftermath of a grave journalistic scandal, played a crucial part in rebuilding our readers’ trusts by acting as our in-house watchdog. We welcomed that criticism, even when it stung. But today, our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.

We are dramatically expanding our commenting platform. Currently, we open only 10 percent of our articles to reader comments. Soon, we will open up most of our articles to reader comments. This expansion, made possible by a collaboration with Google, marks a sea change in our ability to serve our readers, to hear from them, and to respond to them.

We will work hard to curate and respond to the thousands of daily comments, but comments will form just one bridge between The Times and our audience. We also, of course, engage with readers around the globe on social media, where we have tens of millions of followers. We publish behind-the-scenes dispatches describing the reporting process and demystifying why we made certain journalistic decisions. We hold our journalism to the highest standards, and we have dedicated significant resources to ensure that remains the case.

Phil Corbett, a masthead editor, is responsible for making sure that our report lives up to our standards of fairness, accuracy and journalistic excellence. His team listens and responds to reader concerns and investigates requests for corrections. Phil anchors a reader-focused operation intent on providing accountability that is already larger than any of our peers. And we are expanding this investment still further.

As the newsroom announced yesterday, we have created a Reader Center led by Hanna Ingber, a senior editor, who will work with Phil and many others to make our report ever more transparent and our journalists more responsive. The Reader Center is the central hub from which we engage readers about our journalism, but the work will be shared by all of us.

It’s also worth noting that we welcome thoughtful criticism from our peers at other news outlets. Fortunately, there is no shortage of those independent critiques.

We are profoundly grateful to our six public editors ― Daniel Okrent, Byron Calame, Clark Hoyt, Arthur Brisbane, Margaret Sullivan and Liz Spayd. These remarkable advocates tirelessly fielded questions from readers all over the world and have held The Times to the highest standards of journalism.

Changes like these offer the strongest paths towards meaningfully engaging with our growing audience of loyal readers, which rightfully demands more of us than ever before. We are up to the challenge.

Arthur

The New York Times is nixing the

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial