'I get the sense that at last some of your erstwhile colleagues on the science desk share our concerns to the point of embarrassment,' the scientist wrote, according to McNeil. The scientist added that other experts had reached out to Times science journalists to complain. We also try to debunk some of the alarmism that naturally circulates among people during a crisis.'ĭonald McNeil Jr., a former New York Times science writer, told Insider that he received a note in late April from a scientist raising accuracy issues about two of Leonhardt's pandemic-related newsletters, one on the UK's vaccine rollout and one on India's COVID wave. 'We describe as the worst pandemic in a century, one that has caused horrific amounts of death and illness and disrupted daily life. 'The Morning' tries to avoid that,' Leonhardt said. And sometimes those of us in journalism – as well as some experts – have a bias toward bad news. 'One principle that's guided our coverage is that bad news and good news deserve similar weight. On Twitter, he has faced criticism at times from health experts for 'armchair epidemiology.' Some readers, however, have lauded his more relaxed tone that has sought to calm readers on topics like the risk of a breakthrough infection or advise Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients on booster shots. According to Times insiders, some staffers have been irked that Leonhardt, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his economics writing but is not a science reporter, has such a large Times platform to give his opinion. Not surprisingly for a territorial newsroom like the Times, Leonhardt's pandemic writing has become an internal sticking point. An editor in London, Claire Moses, adds news from overnight and sends out the newsletter at 6:30 a.m.

'The Morning' team functions like a small newsroom within a newsroom, convening in morning and afternoon news meetings to discuss the daily 'lead' item, where Leonhardt analyzes the biggest news of the day in a few hundred words, often focusing on the coronavirus pandemic. The newsletter's pandemic coverage has been controversial internally

'There was this absolutely massive audience sitting there waiting to be written for,' he told Insider.

Leonhardt said that when he first discussed writing the newsletter with Sam Dolnick, a Times assistant managing editor overseeing digital products, and Adam Pasick, who leads newsletter efforts, the decision was easy. On Friday, the Times announced that Amy Fiscus, the paper's national security editor, will move to 'The Morning' to help lead the effort. It will expand from six to eight full-time staffers and launch Saturday and Sunday editions. More than 5 million people on average read 'The Morning' every day, making it the Times most widely-read newsletter and many readers' first daily interaction with the paper's journalism. Renamed 'The Morning,' Leonhardt's newsletter has quickly become an influential - and, on occasion, controversial - product within the Times, similar to how Michael Barbaro's 'The Daily' podcast quickly became a force within the newsroom thanks to its reach. The paper's huge legacy morning newsletter carried 17 million subscribers, the largest audience of any Times product, but it was a generic news summary in a Substack era driven by big-name, voicey writers.Įager to forge a standalone brand, they handed the morning newsletter to David Leonhardt, a Times veteran who has worked as an Opinion columnist, launched the data analysis section The Upshot, and led the Washington bureau. Last year, editors at The New York Times saw an opportunity. Leonhardt's writing about the pandemic has created some internal gripes at the paper.The newsletter's team is set to expand from six to eight staffers and launch a weekend edition.Written by David Leonhardt, The Morning newsletter has more than 5 million daily readers on average.Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders.

Nytimes morning newsletter