last week, our first friday mailbag was mostly election themed, with donald trump<u+2019>s surprise victory occupying most readers<u+2019> minds. this week has been no different: the number of letters only increased over the weekend and during the first half of the week, coming in <u+2014> at their highest rate <u+2014> at around 500 per day. many readers were still questioning the times<u+2019>s election coverage <u+2014> more on that in sunday<u+2019>s public editor column. another related topic was the paper<u+2019>s plans to cover the trump presidency over the next four years. some offered suggestions. it seems to me that the best approach to covering trump is to be absolutely objective. for example, the story about the transition being in <u+201c>disarray<u+201d> suggests that his team and efforts are falling apart. are the efforts really falling apart or is there just some rough going? just report what he does, no slant, no judgment. that gives him one less scapegoat to accuse for whatever failures he makes. janet schrader, alexandria, va. several other writers proposed methods for responding to a president whose falsehoods, thus far, have been difficult to keep up with. trump recently lied when he declared your subscription base has declined since the election. how about creating a nyt <u+201c>trump lies accumulator<u+201d>? only verifiable lies could be reported. i would see this as a public service that would allow us citizens to track the veracity of our new president. chuck loeffel, st. louis others offered words of encouragement in response to the president-elect<u+2019>s barrage of angry tweets about the times. one reader wrote: the more trump complains about you the more you know you are doing something right! alan levy, manitoba, canada when the times reported on trump<u+2019>s first white house appointees, many readers believed that the paper was already normalizing trump<u+2019>s presidency by inaccurately describing them. on the times<u+2019>s description of trump<u+2019>s pick to reshape the environmental protection agency, myron ebell, as a climate <u+201c>contrarian<u+201d>: please ensure the times does not sanitize anything about the incoming administration<u+2019>s utter contempt for science. there<u+2019>s no such thing as a climate contrarian. climate change denier is the only accurate term for this. alina baciu, washington, d.c. a contrarian opposes public opinion, and seems quaint. a science-denialist opposes scientific consensus and is potentially dangerous. would the nyt allow a headline to label andrew wakefield or other anti-vaccine advocates a contrarian? would the nyt print a headline from a doctor denying the carcinogenic effects of tobacco during the tobacco trials a <u+201c>contrarian?<u+201d> jeremiah schuur, cambridge, mass. (a memo that went out to times editors last year advised that the paper <u+201c>should not use the shorthand <u+2018>climate skeptics<u+2019> except when referring to the (relatively few) trained scientists who see only moderate consequences in global warming. other doubters <u+2014> political, religious, whatever <u+2014> need a more deliberate description, like <u+2018>people who reject established climate science<u+2019> or, subsequently, <u+2018>climate denialists<u+2019> or <u+2018>climate contrarians.<u+2019> <u+201d>) on the times<u+2019>s description of trump<u+2019>s pick for a top white house post, stephen bannon, as <u+201c>a right-wing media provocateur<u+201d> and <u+201c>a nationalist media mogul<u+201d> : this is a gross understatement at best. mr. bannon<u+2019>s racism and anti-semitism is a matter of public record. his ex-wife testified under oath that he <u+201c>doesn<u+2019>t like jews,<u+201d> and he has been a stalwart champion of the so-called alt-right (as white supremacists seem to have rebranded themselves these days). laura santel, cambridge, mass. some readers were mystified by the times<u+2019>s postelection analysis. several were concerned with a story that featured a map describing two separate americas: one hillary clinton<u+2019>s, one trump<u+2019>s. i found this article and graphic ridiculous. i may not have voted for mr. trump, but in the last week, i sat with trump voters at rotary, i worshiped with them at church, i chatted with them at the grocery store and the dentist office, and we worked together with each other on common projects in the neighborhood. dennis boen, wooster, ohio a story on the trump camp<u+2019>s refusal to close the door on putting hillary clinton in jail raised readers<u+2019> eyebrows when it compared trump<u+2019>s possible investigation to president obama<u+2019>s decision over whether to investigate the george w. bush administration for torture. the sentence has since been updated , though readers were not notified . the earlier sentence read: <u+201c>the decision [trump] faces echoes one confronted by mr. obama and his first attorney general, eric h. holder jr., over whether to investigate bush administration officials for extreme interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects that the obama administration later deemed to be torture.<u+201d> it was changed to: <u+201c>when mr. obama took office, he and his first attorney general, eric h. holder jr., also faced a decision over whether to investigate the previous administration.<u+201d> one reader wrote: re ally?? are your writers and editors seriously equating these two?? this is shocking, and shows considerable lack of judgment on all fronts. mary mcdevitt, palo alto, calif. the public editor<u+2019>s take : the editors were wise to rethink their apples-to-watermelons comparison. equating clinton<u+2019>s email travails to the actions of c.i.a. water boarders just doesn<u+2019>t hold up. after a times live briefing included the term <u+201c>death tax,<u+201d> a slew of readers wrote in to point out the misstep. one reader wrote: i was really quite surprised to read <u+201c>death tax<u+201d> instead of <u+201c>estate tax<u+201d> in your coverage. <u+201c>death tax<u+201d> is conservative framing to advance a political position on the estate tax; it is not the name of the tax. cathy silber, stillwater, n.y. we raised the concern with the editor of the briefing; he told us that the term had slipped by, and that he<u+2019>d discuss it with the author. (the term still remains in the briefing at time of publication.) notwithstanding the various complaints <u+2014> and trump<u+2019>s claim otherwise <u+2014> the times this week reported a drastic uptick in paid subscriptions since the election <u+2014> 41,000, to be exact. many of the new subscribers wrote in to our office to explain their decisions. just wanted everyone at nyt to know that all is not lost in the rust belt (although i hate that term), from a loyal reader who welcomed the discounted digital subscription and was happy to help bump your subscription rate up. you<u+2019>re all doing great. the best ever. believe me. cathy dee, ft. wayne, ind. one reader even asked how he could go a step further: realizing the financial situation of my beloved nyt, has the times considered simply adding an additional contribution check-off as an option? in other words, readers could choose to contribute over and beyond their subscription, similar to a conservation check-off. the nyt is a near-sacred thing to many of us, vitally important, and i for one would be delighted to have an easy mechanism to contribute more. michael jones, sun prairie, wis. another reader said she would will be relying on the times not just for its reporting but also for inspiration. if the nyt stays strong and fierce in its reporting, i will be able to continue my work in the world as a mother, teacher, and believer in human goodness. i write this letter with tears in my eyes and fear in my gut. beth ellyn lorey, oakland, calif. although we can<u+2019>t speak for the newsroom, we can promise beth that the public editor<u+2019>s office will do its best to help the newsroom answer the call. each friday, evan gershkovich, in the office of public editor liz spayd, surfaces some of the more thoughtful and provocative complaints that come in <u+2014> some of which are edited for clarity and length. to be featured here, email the public editor at public@nytimes.com . follow the public editor on twitter @spaydl .
friday mailbag: no more politics. just kidding.
liz spayd with evan gershkovich