New York Times Greatly Compounds Embarrassing Publishing Error With Poor Twitter Reply
New York Times
There is a big, noticeable difference between making an error that hurts someone and apologizing for it and making an error and manufacturing a weak, uncaring reply to end the conversation.
The New York Times knew it made an significant mistake that made it look unprofessional. It upset the subject of the story and a lot of readers and the general public.
The newspaper published a story about Serena Williams early-stage venture capital firm, its significant fundraising and its important mission was for the money, and added a headshot within the article to highlight Serena. The problem was that the image was of her sister, Venus. They are sisters yet aren’t twins. They don’t look that much alike.
Now clearly that was unintended. Mistakes happen. Yet, for a news publication and industry that prides itself on its commitment to fact checking, proofreading, layout and editing, it was a clear failure. Serena Williams was not happy that a big story about her organization and mission included such a visible error, with the photograph, so she voiced her hurt and discontent.
Someone at the New York Times replied. That reply was not good, not good at all.
Its attempted apology was not an apology, or anything resembling one. Instead, it was a cold explanation for what happened. That’s not what people who are upset want to hear first and foremost.
For a news organization that is eager to report other people’s shortcomings when it comes to apology, it was blind to its own behavior and lack of sensitivity and apology.
The person responding for the newspaper on Twitter did a very poor job in their communication.
First, let’s look at the newspaper article and photo (column on the right):
That’s not Serena, New York Times. It’s her sister, Venus.
Serena Williams tweeted: “No matter how far we come, we get reminded that it's not enough. This is why I raised $111M for @serenaventures. To support the founders who are overlooked by engrained systems woefully unaware of their biases. Because even I am overlooked. You can do better, @nytimes.”
That’s how she felt. Was her perception entirely accurate? Maybe not. Serena is “enough,” and I’d wager the newspaper says so too. Yet that doesn’t matter in the moment. It was a really big faux pas by the people at the paper. The representative of the New York Times had a golden opportunity to show compassion, remorse and professionalism and help heal a hurt.
That person instead communicated: “This was our mistake. It was due to an error when selecting photos for the print edition, and it did not appear online. A correction will appear in tomorrow’s paper.”
It may have not appeared online yet it appeared.
OK, that person and the newspaper took ownership of the problem. They explained. They talked about what the people at the paper will do next. That’s it though. This person sounds entirely unaffected by the hurt and pain Serena Williams is experiencing. This person is communicating robotically, not with human emotion.
What didn’t this person do though?
Was understanding of the embarrassment and pain Serena Williams was feeling acknowledged? Was any sincere regret, remorse or compassion exhibited? Rhetorical questions obviously.
I suspect the newspaper will make a much, much better follow-up response, after all the negativity they see from both the error and the very low-effort, insensitive Twitter reply. I also will forecast that Ms. Williams will receive a phone call from someone high up in command from the paper and in addition, receive a public comment of regret, remorse and understanding that is far superior to the weak reply it originally offered.
I also suspect the person who tweeted on behalf of the news organization will be either further educated about communicating publicly or will no longer be communicating online.
