A readers asks The NY Times about their lack of coverage on the Williamsburg stabbings...
Q. Recently, the Gothamist Web site reported a series of crimes in Williamsburg: a shooting on July 20, a fatal shooting on July 12, and a spate of gang-related stabbings that reached a crescendo in June and July. The Times’s coverage of these events has been noticeably absent: searches of the Metro section archive for “Williamsburg shooting” and “Williamsburg stabbing” yield not even one article from 2008.
Clearly, this is a serious story affecting many New Yorkers. Why has The Times failed to cover it?
There are rumors that The Times is protecting property developers by ignoring negative reports from Williamsburg, where many new buildings are under construction. How do you respond to these rumors?
Finally, as you carry out your “strategic reorganization,” how will you ensure that stories like this receive more attention?
— Jonah Burke, Brooklyn
A. We try to stay pretty alert to crime trends that might be alarming.
But of course, we’re not perfect. And one of the newspaper racket’s least perfect performances has historically involved decisions about crime stories — judging whether to run down every report, deciding how many crime stories are too many, balancing people’s urgent concerns (and some people’s plain old natural curiosity) with the daily requirement to put out a newspaper of variety and impact.
So, day in and day out, you do the best you can: be on the lookout, respond to the momentous with energy and commitment, and mix aggressiveness with smarts when considering crime stories that are, however painful and scary, less than fully momentous.