It’s refreshing to see the NYTimes Giving Section cover new philanthropy stories with different and refreshing angles (note sarcasm).

Thanks NYTimes - I wasn’t aware Target gave away 5% to charity. Causes let’s people tap social networks to raise money? Fascinating.

I am going to have to check the archives, but I am sure the NYTimes has never written up the WH Office of Social Innovation - that’s huge.

And that story about corporations having to do more than just brand themselves with a cause - I had never considered that. Thanks NYTimes

Dear NYTimes - if you want to continue to be my (or the) paper of record, you have to elevate your game. Start with your Giving section.

Dear NYTimes - why don’t you write up Lucy Bernholz’s ideas for how to re-shape the policy and governance structure behind non-profits?

Dear NYTimes - why don’t you write up the Wal-Mart Foundation’s ideas for how to end hunger, to go beyond just making donations?

Dear NYTimes - how about being a forum for the discussion about activity vs impact (and how many argue online hasn’t made it’s mark yet)?

Dear NYTimes - maybe you could tell us about the innovative mobile programs that enable individuals to volunteer while waiting for a bus?

With all due respect to the NYTimes Giving Section, there are more and better stories out there than what was in the paper today.

I came up with some (not so new, but newer than what is in the paper) better ideas for the NYTimes Giving Section on my walk to work.

Dear NYTimes - your yesterday’s news approach to the Giving Section today proves what everyone says about the print media not getting it.

Dear NYTimes - if you want ideas, or help, covering what is really important in philanthropy, let me know. I will help and others will too.

My frustration is driven by three issues:

1) There are better stories out there. The was little new ground covered in the stories offered by the New York Times as a part of their Giving Section today.  Is the ‘paper of record’ not paying attention to what is going on in the world today?  Do they not read the existing mainstream media coverage of nonprofits and charities, or the blogs and other sites that talk about the philanthropic community?  Not only are there better stories out there - new innovations, different perspectives, approaches that are having more impact, and the like.  But even within the stories that they covered - Causes, Target, the White House Office of Social Innovation, cause marketing and branding for corporations, to name a few - there are other voices and important perspectives that should have been included.  The coverage was stale, incomplete — and barely worth the effort to read it.

2) The New York Times still has influence. Because people still view the New York Times as one of the leading news organizations in the country (and in some ways it still is, but apparently not when it comes to the issues related to philanthropy), their coverage in today’s Giving Section will have legs.  People will read about it, blog about it, talk about it, and shape their plans based on what the New York Times says is important.  But the news they offer is stale, the perspectives are incomplete, and as a result, the potential harm it can do probably outweighs the good.  Nonprofits and charitable institutions continue to struggle - for reasons including (but certainly not limited to) the economy and the rapid changes in technology and how information travels.  The New York Times had an opportunity to elevate the discussion, to change minds, to educate those who don’t have the luxury of being a part of philanthropic community every day, wrestling to figure these things out.  But instead, the New York Times’ contribution to the discussion will do nothing to help any organization understand or deal with those issues, or the countless others that are out there, and probably will stunt the discussion somewhat, because of the need to go back and revisit issues that had, at least in my opinion, already been considered and addressed.

3) We do this to ourselves. Society has changed.  How people get and share information, what we view as important, how we spend our time, energy and money have all changed.  And all those changes are shifting the role and responsibility of the media as well. The New York Times (clearly) is no longer the authority on all issues - and in the case of their coverage of philanthropy, as demonstrated by today’s Giving Section, there are some areas where they are woefully behind the curve.  There are all sorts of new and better sources for information, analysis and insight about the philanthropic community. And yet, for some reason, organizations still look at the New York Times as an important voice in this conversation.  PR firms pitch their stories to the New York Times, even though they know that they don’t have the best examples or the greatest impact. Donors and ‘experts’ will put the groups profiled in today’s Giving Section at the top of their list of success stories, and must support organizations, despite the fact that many other, more compelling opportunities exist - and need help if they are going to break through.  Bloggers, and columnists, and advocates for the nonprofit community will tweet, and re-tweet, and crow about the coverage in the Giving Section, ignoring all the other powerful examples and potentially game-changing opportunities that are out there.  We do this to ourselves.

In the back of our heads, we know that the coverage in the New York Times isn’t good enough, isn’t far-reaching enough, and won’t change anything.  But we let it happen anyway, year after year after year.  Put another way, until the philanthropic community calls the New York Times out for not doing enough, for not covering the best stories in the best ways, the coverage will never change, and the space will never make the leaps forward it needs. So, let me do that now:

November 12, 2009

Dear New York Times:

You can do better.

I expect more of you.

Your truly,

Brian Reich

Subscriber (and someone who is active in, and concerned about, the philanthropic community and the ways in which the media covers its work - and potential).

That’s it.  Now, get to work.