Yes, but requiring much more time and concern. I do feel the paper has disqualified itself from being my front page news filter; my avoiding it is half petty vindictiveness and half practicality. I just don’t trust their editorial judgement anymore. When they write about transportation I’ll hear about it from weblogs I do trust, and at that point I could offer the feedback you suggest. But that kind of correspondence is a poor value compared to public commenting. I don’t want to spend half an hour or an hour (I have a problem: I edit excessively) on even a short letter to the editor that may never be read seriously by anyone. And the Times does comments absolutely terribly. I’m not going to add my blood to the festering, editorially-inflicted wound below a skewed article about bicycles or MTA finances to protest that very situation. They know exactly what they’re doing and it’s up to them to change course, or devolve into nothing more than a brand that draws just enough habitual viewers (yes, viewers) to pay the hosting bills.

I’ve read similar anecdotes about how the NYC Subway is slower now than in the same time period–for some of the same reasons (indifference, lack of investment) and some different reasons (cars are heavier than ever). Anyway it’s nice (if disheartening) to read some concrete evidence of this phenomenon.

You reminded me of a friend of mine who’s disgusted with the paper’s political coverage (I won’t go into detail). He doesn’t take it lying down. Every time he sees something he doesn’t like, he fires off a letter.

I think he’s writing both to the editorial page (which published at least one letter) as well as to the Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, whose job is to serve as a reader representative or ombudsman who offers independent critiques of the paper’s coverage.

Rather than give up on the Times, a very influential player in local mainstream media, you might opt to struggle against its deficiencies with a stream of emails that are short (so you can do it often), civil (more effective), and pointed (enough to leave an indelible impression). That would make more of a difference than just dropping out of the paper’s readership. Make them care about you. The email addresses are letters@nytimes.com and public@nytimes.com.

A lot of people moved on after the Times’ prelude-to-Iraq cheerleading; I’m a little ashamed that I waited for a wrong that felt more personal. What other critical stories will the paper get fundamentally wrong, and in doing so disastrously affect the events they’re supposed to describe? I’ll be watching this car crash from somewhere else.

I’ll keep looking.

Thanks Eric, I said almost those exact words in my comment to the article. I am very bothered by the piece, and moreso by the vitriol in the comments accompanying the piece. I don’t know why the Times feels the need to run one of these every month, and I love that it was right in the middle of Bike Month. The “study” is flawed in so many ways, and, as you point out, anyone that wants to look at statistics should be ashamed we are even discussing whether people are more afraid of bikes or cars.

Hard to get worked up about that when a cyclist in Midtown may have proceeded through a red light after stopping and looking both ways.

I saw that too. Looks encouraging. I really hope that the city starts to think about the design implications of some of these street plans. For example, I love the idea of the median, but does it have to just be concrete and trees? I know that it’s probably MUCH cheaper than, say, anything else, but it’s just kind of sad looking. Ut would be nice to see hardscapes mixed with softer terrain and places for activities. I think the reliance on inexpensive solutions is only going to take us so far. I like riding int eh ninth avenue bike lane but asphalt and thermoplast aren’t the most fun materials. I’d like to see the same level of innovation that DOT is applying to safer streets applied to the visual language of those streets.

It kills me. On the one hand, there seems to be so much potential (and progress made) to making New York a bike-friendly city. On the other hand, it seems that the public would prefer car-choked streets, and will accept the deaths and injuries inflicted by cars and trucks.

I think TA should turn up the rhetoric. Rather than

39% of NYC Drivers Caught Speeding
Thursday, February 12, 2009

39% of NYC Drivers Engage in Illegal Behavior

or

39% of NYC Drivers Have No Regard for Pedestrian Safety

or

39% of NYC Drivers Routinely Break The Law, Endangering Others

or

39% of NYC Drivers Flout Traffic Safety Laws