Transparency at the Times

As one of the last great bastions of journalistic integrity, The New York Times doesn’t seem to give a hoot about transparency as it applies to a particularly important area: readers’ wallets.

According to Jeff Bercovici’s “Mixed Media” blog:

During a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood New York conference, Gerald Marzorati, the Times’s assistant managing editor for new media and strategic initiatives, explained why the paper’s print business is still robust. “We have north of 800,000 subscribers paying north of $700 a year for home delivery,” Marzorati said. “Of course, they don’t seem to know that.”

Marzorati (pictured left) would then go on to explain what happened when the paper raised its home-delivery price by 5 percent during the recession: Only 0.01 percent of subscribers canceled.

“I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they’re literally not understanding what they’re paying,” he said. “That’s the beauty of the credit card.”

Does it bother anyone else that Marzorati, a man who drives the news philosophy in the company’s new media enterprises, seems to care so little about reader wellbeing or full transparency? Granted, readers share most of the blame here; they’re ultimately the ones who should keep a closer eye on personal finances. And I guess there’s no reason to think that’s not the case. Maybe these readers did notice the price increase but are such loyal Times readers that they didn’t cancel their subscription or raise a voice of protest.

But this view gives the reader too much credit—or at least Marzorati appears to think so. His blunt note of condescension suggests a callous disregard or respect for his audience. I don’t know what’s worse: the man’s arrogance or his lack of any effort to communicate the price change with readers.

After all, you’d want to know when any recurring payment goes up in price. Just think if a university tried to silently raise tuition by a few hundred dollars. Not only would students be outraged, but the underhanded deception of the university would serve as media fodder for weeks.

It would be interesting if a Times staffer turned around and uncovered the company’s own deception. But then again, I’m sure such reporting would be a bit too transparent for the likes of Marzorati. I guess that even for a venerable legacy player like the Times, transparency is purely elective.