Spayd: One thing voters agree on — better campaign coverage was needed

There is a group of 10 friends in Charlotte, N.C., all women, all in their 50s, all white. They’re college educated with successful careers, and they have a message for The New York Times: Come visit us.

Liz Spayd

They voted for Donald Trump and don’t consider themselves homophobic, racist or anti-Muslim. But now, they say, thanks to The Times and its fixation on Trump’s most extreme supporters, most people think they are. They would like a chance to show otherwise, and one of them, Cindy Capwell, wrote my office to extend the invitation.

Since the election, I have been on the phone with many Times readers around the country to discuss their concerns about The Times’ coverage of the presidential election. The number of complaints coming into the public editor’s office is five times the normal level.

Last week, Trump jumped in, tweeting that The Times had lost thousands of subscribers since the election. The paper said quite the opposite is the case.

I assume that The Times has more accurate data than Trump. But I hope any chest thumping about the impressive subscriber bump won’t obscure a hard-eyed look at coverage. Because from my conversations with readers, and from the emails that have come into my office, I can tell you there is a searing level of dissatisfaction out there with many aspects of the coverage.