This story was originally published and last updated .
I watch YouTube videos in two distinct ways: If it's a song I like or creator I enjoy, I'll watch the whole thing; but if I was searching for a tutorial or more info about a topic, I usually just fast-forward or skip through it to get to the parts that matter. Google is now preparing a cool improvement to help is with that second kind of situation: video chapters.
Chapters are starting to show up for some YouTube viewers on some channels. They're generated based on the timestamps that creators include in their video's description, where they specify, for example, that you'll find an intro at 0:00, a review at 1:32, a pros and cons list at 6:54, and a conclusion at 9:10. Sadly, not all creators bother with timestamps, and if they're not included in the description, YouTube will not try to guess or insert chapter markers on its own (at least for now).
For us, users, the UI looks slightly different in the video player. The scrubbing timeline is divided into sections for each chapter, and hovering over one reveals the chapter's title (again, taken from the description) and your progress through that particular section. I couldn't get these to show up on any video on mobile or desktop, so I may not be part of the initial rollout, but @podcastage noticed them earlier today and they seem to be working on one of his videos with timestamps. Try that out and see it works for you.
One of our readers has shared a screenshot showing how these video chapters appear on mobile. He's running a slightly older v15.14.33 of the app (APK Mirror) and only sees it on one of his accounts. So the change seems to be controlled server-side, by account. Thanks, João!
Video chapters in YouTube on mobile.
YouTube has officially announced video chapters on Twitter, explaining that the feature is rolling out to the desktop, Android, and iOS. They will only appear when creators add timestamp data to their description starting with position 00:00. Timestamp collections that don't start there will not be converted into chapters automatically, allowing YouTubers to opt out of the feature.
New today – Creator timestamps from their video description now automatically turn into Video Chapters in the progress bar!
Oil companies are famous for approaching hapless farmers and buying drilling rights for their properties for next to nothing.
The farmers don’t realize they are sitting on tens of millions of dollars of oil, so they accept a $50,000 one-time payment.
It feels like a huge win...
Until they realize that they just lost out on tens of millions of dollars of oil riches.
That’s Joe Rogan right now.
In September, I wrote a post about how Howard Stern is getting ripped off by Sirius. I made the case that Howard Stern is making $90 million a year when he could be making 2-3x by cutting out the middle-man and doing a subscription podcast.
In that post, I also speculated that Joe Rogan—the largest podcaster in the world—was likely a billionaire. Even though he probably didn’t realize it.
Apparently, Joe Rogan didn’t read my post. But someone else definitely did:
If the numbers are to be believed, it’s a steal of a deal for Spotify: for $100-$200mm they secured the largest podcast audience in the world.
I’m not exaggerating. Spotify’s market cap jumped by $3 billion in the 24h after the news of this deal broke.
The market saw what Rogan missed: Spotify took his oil.
To the untrained eye, this looks pretty good for Rogan. His listeners can still access the podcast for free—as long as they use Spotify. Spotify premium subscribers get the podcast without ads, but free users will have to listen to ads (presumably sold by Spotify).
In my last post I estimated Rogan was making around $64MM/year.
In contrast, the Spotify deal gets him 2-4x what he was making before, and as a bonus he doesn't have to worry about the business side.
Not bad, right?
Here’s why this is a bad deal for Rogan:
1. He lost control over his audience.
The magic of podcasting is that it's free, open, and decentralized. Like email, when you have an audience (subscribers), you can reach them directly at any time, without any middle-man or algorithm (Facebook, Google, etc) getting in the way.
You own the relationship, and this is profoundly valuable. You can’t be screwed over by an aggregator getting in your way.
When you’re a podcaster, subscribers are your currency. They are what make your podcast valuable.
By doing this deal, Rogan gives up control over his subscriber relationship. Any new audience he builds from here on out, he loses. His existing podcast feed will likely die as most people eventually unsubscribe due to inactivity.
If he goes back to being independent and ditches Spotify in 3 years, he has lost all of his new subscribers during that time, and some of his original subscribers as well.
It's like Disney licensing their Disney+ content to Netflix. It might net a big one-time payout, but it completely erodes the business value that would otherwise accrue to them.
And make no mistake: Joe Rogan is a business. As I said in my last post, were he to build the level of advertising and subscription revenue I think he is capable of, his corporation would easily be valued at over $1,000,000,000...
2. Spotify gets Rogan’s recurring revenue
Like the farmer, Rogan didn't realize he was sitting on oil. He didn’t value it.
To him, the only way to make money from his farm was by harvesting vegetables (advertising). It’s back-breaking labor in the sun (doing ad sales is a pain in the ass).
What he didn't realize was that just under his feet, was a pool of oil so vast that it would immediately catapult him to billionaire status with minimal effort and build tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars of recurring revenue.
Let's make something clear: Joe Rogan is the new Howard Stern.
His audience is 10-12x larger than Howard Stern's, and Sirius makes an estimated $290 million in revenue from selling subscriptions to Stern.
Let’s look at what Rogan’s recurring revenue could have looked like...
When Sirius did the deal with Stern, they took an all or nothing approach: You can only listen to Stern if you subscribe to Sirius.
Full stop. Zero access.
This wouldn't make sense for Rogan. It's too extreme and it would piss off his fans. Instead, a hybrid approach would make the most sense:
Rogan could have kept selling ads in addition to offering an ad-free stream as well as bonus episodes/extended content/video stream for paying subscribers only.
At just a 5% conversion rate, this is worth over $33mm  in annual recurring revenue.
That might not sound like a ton compared to a deal valued at $100mm+/year, but when you add it to his advertising revenue, it gets him close to $100mm, fully independent of Spotify.
Most importantly Rogan would have been building value and recurring revenue in his own business.
As I pointed out in my last post, if Rogan had added subscription, he would have owned a company that looked like the world’s best SaaS business. Crazy recurring revenue, with low churn and insanely high margins, growing at 25-50% per year as podcasting’s audience grows over time.
This revenue is INSANELY valuable and should be built by him, not Spotify.
Not everyone has their head in the sand...
While deals like this get a lot of press, successful podcasters who understand the value in owning their relationship with their audience are making moves in the space.
Ben Thompson underscores the value of staying independent:
"Owning my own destiny as a publisher means avoiding Aggregators and connecting directly with customers."
Rogan’s friend Sam Harris, who has sworn off advertising and focused on subscription since he started in 2014, just made a much more aggressive push into subscription. In 2019, he started cutting off most episodes halfway through and only letting paying subscribers hear full episodes.
In 2017, Observer reported that Harris was getting about 1 million downloads per episode, so let’s estimate that his 2017 audience was around 1 million listeners.
If we do some rough napkin math and assume that his show grew along with global podcast listeners (which grew 54% since 2017), that would mean that he currently has about 1.54 million monthly listeners.
Applying a 5% conversion rate with a price of $5/month to this works out to about $4.6 million in annual recurring revenue.
Applying a 20% conversion rate—which I would expect him to get given his more aggressive push to subscription—works out to $18.4 million in annual recurring revenue.
With an estimated 12 million monthly listeners, Rogan’s recurring revenue potential is at least 8-12x what Sam Harris has been able to achieve.
3. He is Massively Shrinking his Audience and Impact
Restricting his listeners to people who use Spotify will dramatically lower his addressable audience, and I have no doubt that Spotify will eventually gate his content to paid Spotify subscribers in some way (extra episodes, video, ad-free, etc).
Make no mistake: Spotify’s endgame is to add Spotify subscribers. That’s their north star.
For context, Howard Stern—who just before his Sirius deal was one of the most widely listened to radio personalities in the world—now has an audience of less than 1 million per episode. When I tell most people my age (early 30’s) that I love Howard Stern, I get a blank stare.
Nobody knows who he is. Stern has lost his impact on culture in exchange for a big upfront payment.
Let’s be real: Stern and Rogan are already super rich. The difference between $50mm/year of profit and $100mm means zero to their day-to-day lifestyle. What I imagine does matter to them is the size of their audience and their impact, and both made choices that will limit that forever.
Let's compare the two paths that Rogan could have gone down:
However you run the math, this was a coup for Spotify.
I hope that the reported numbers are low, because I don’t think even $100mm/year provides Rogan with enough upside to accommodate the trade offs:
Losing his relationship with his subscribers
Building someone else’s business/recurring revenue instead of his own
A smaller audience and less impact
He’s going to be just fine either way. I’m not shedding any tears for Joe, but as a business person I can’t help but shake my head at the lost potential.
The world’s largest podcasters are sitting on oil. There’s a reason Spotify is writing these seemingly insane checks: they’ve done the geological surveys. They are trying to cut deals with as many hapless farmers as they can before they all catch on. Spotify will spend hundreds of millions to reap billions.
Most people will look at Rogan and think he’s a genius living the dream.
I think he’s a farmer who just got taken by Daniel Ek.
Read my original post about the opportunity of subscription podcastinghere.
PS: If you’re a farmer sitting on some oil, the team at Supercast can help.Get in touch.
“We’re not on Spotify and the reason why we're not on it is because it didn't make any sense. They were like, “We want to put you on, it's gonna be great for you.” How is it great? You guys are gonna make money! You guys are making money and you don't give us any? The whole streaming thing is this weird smoke and mirrors song and dance they put on, “you're gonna be a part of something big” but what are you selling? All you sell is artists' work. You don't have anything to sell and the artists get paid so little, so where is the money going? They're traded and they're worth millions and billions like where's all that money? Where's it going?”
Andrew Wilkinson is the co-founder of Tiny and Supercast. You should follow him onTwitter.
 In an interview with Jordan Peterson, Joe said that he gets over 200 million podcast downloads per month. With 18 episodes per month, that means each episode gets approximately 11MM downloads per episode. 11mm x 5% x $5 x 12 months = $33mm in ARR.
This is new research on a Bluetooth vulnerability (called BIAS) that allows someone to impersonate a trusted device:
Abstract: Bluetooth (BR/EDR) is a pervasive technology for wireless communication used by billions of devices. The Bluetooth standard includes a legacy authentication procedure and a secure authentication procedure, allowing devices to authenticate to each other using a long term key. Those procedures are used during pairing and secure connection establishment to prevent impersonation attacks. In this paper, we show that the Bluetooth specification contains vulnerabilities enabling to perform impersonation attacks during secure connection establishment. Such vulnerabilities include the lack of mandatory mutual authentication, overly permissive role switching, and an authentication procedure downgrade. We describe each vulnerability in detail, and we exploit them to design, implement, and evaluate master and slave impersonation attacks on both the legacy authentication procedure and the secure authentication procedure. We refer to our attacks as Bluetooth Impersonation AttackS (BIAS).
Our attacks are standard compliant, and are therefore effective against any standard compliant Bluetooth device regardless the Bluetooth version, the security mode (e.g., Secure Connections), the device manufacturer, and the implementation details. Our attacks are stealthy because the Bluetooth standard does not require to notify end users about the outcome of an authentication procedure, or the lack of mutual authentication. To confirm that the BIAS attacks are practical, we successfully conduct them against 31 Bluetooth devices (28 unique Bluetooth chips) from major hardware and software vendors, implementing all the major Bluetooth versions, including Apple, Qualcomm, Intel, Cypress, Broadcom, Samsung, and CSR.
There was no draft of this story at NBC that had fewer than two named women, had a wide group of sources from Weinstein’s companies, had an audiotape of Harvey Weinstein admitting to a sexual assault — and you can be the judge of whether that should’ve been on air.
Bolding added to highlight a contention that has come into recent dispute.
New York Times media columnist Ben Smith on Sunday applied nearly 4,000 words of accountability to the journalistic archive of Farrow, who won a Pulitzer Prize for documenting Weinstein’s legacy of sexual assault in the New Yorker, where Farrow fled after months of frustration at NBC News. Wrote Smith of Farrow: “His work, though, reveals the weakness of a kind of resistance journalism that has thrived in the age of Donald Trump: That if reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than essential journalistic imperatives,” wrote Smith, attempting to shoehorn one of those big-picture theses into his investigative project.
The 32-year-old Farrow is big-picture enough on his own terms. And sometimes a story doesn’t need to speak to a broader theme. It just is.
Whatever the framing, an editor at the New Yorker and Farrow both responded Monday on Twitter to Smith’s allegations. Part of the pushback addressed the apparent discrepancy between how Farrow spoke about his NBC News reporting and how NBC News executives described it. Even though Farrow said on NPR that he had no fewer than “two named women” in the piece, Smith reviewed a script that contained “no on-the-record, on-camera interviews.”
In a tweet, Farrow addressed this problem:
Ben notes a Weinstein script from NBC and a radio interview I gave about it. The book discusses that draft and its account is accurate. In the interview, I misspoke. What I should have said was that there were at least two women named or willing to be named, as the book lays out.
As any journalist knows, “willing to be named” sources are not the same as “named” sources. If Farrow concedes that he “misspoke” in that NPR interview, he has a misspeaking problem. Compare the NPR comment to comments he made while promoting “Catch and Kill,” the book he wrote about reeling in the Weinstein story. Have a look:
NPR: “There was no draft of this story at NBC that had fewer than two named women.”
“The View”: “I think the reporting is unimpeachable and stands on its own. It is actually an outright lie to say that there weren’t named women. There were three named women during the time that the story was at NBC. No draft had fewer than two women.”
Fox News with Shannon Bream: “We had multiple named women in every draft of this story; an audio recording of Harvey Weinstein from a police sting operation admitting to not just one sexual assault, but a pattern of them.”
The Erik Wemple Blog asked Farrow to comment on these additional instances of apparent misspeaking. He passed along this statement:
The book’s reporting about my sourcing is accurate, and laid out in detail. That draft is discussed at length, along with the fact that there were two women who were willing to be named in the story at that point — Emily Nestor and Ambra Gutierrez — and NBC executives knew that. Both Nestor and Gutierrez have made public statements attesting to this fact. That draft had the stories of both women, and the only reason Nestor’s name wasn’t yet included was because NBC resisted it. In interviews summarizing those facts, I strived to be precise, but as I said yesterday, the most careful phrasing would be that, at all points while we were exchanging drafts, there were at least two women named or willing to be named.
That version of events aligns with the account of Rich McHugh, who worked on the story with Farrow at NBC News. In a Vanity Fair piece, he said that Nestor had “agreed” to go on record and that actress Rose McGowan had at one point pledged to do likewise and pulled out only because she felt the network was “dragging its feet.” Nestor herself filmed her interview in silhouette, though after McGowan withdrew, she “tentatively offered either to attach my name to the interview in silhouette or potentially even reshoot the interview with my face visible. However, they were not interested in this interview,” said Nestor in a 2018 statement. NBC News has stated that Nestor did not tell the network that she was willing to be named.
In his book “Catch and Kill,” Farrow writes of a clash with NBC News President Noah Oppenheim: “We have a prominent person admitting to serious misconduct on tape,” Farrow told his boss, according to the book. “We have multiple-sourced accounts of five instances of misconduct, with two women willing to put their name out there, we have multiple former employees saying this was a pattern, we have his signature on a million-dollar settlement contract — ”
Amid the combat over “Catch and Kill” last fall, NBC News released a fact check of Farrow’s claims, asserting that it had pushed the correspondent to get victims and witnesses on camera. “He was unable to do so during his time at NBC,” said the network.
It speaks ill of NBC News that Farrow somehow couldn’t muster the goods at the network but then whipped them up in Pulitzer-winning fashion once he decamped to the New Yorker. In his critique, Smith suggests that NBC News would have been better off plowing through the sourcing setbacks and sticking with Farrow. That scenario, however, presupposes that NBC News had the guts to stand up to Weinstein in the first place. MSNBC host Chris Hayes put it well: “Ronan Farrow walked out of NBC News after working on the Weinstein story and within two months published an incredible article at the New Yorker that not only won a Pulitzer but helped trigger a massive social and cultural reckoning that continues to this day.” “Catch and Kill” features numerous instances in which Farrow receives instructions from higher-ups to stop the investigation. And MSNBC’s own Rachel Maddow in October 2019 looked into those claims, concluding, “As to whether or not Ronan Farrow was told to hit pause on any new reporting at a time when NBC didn’t think there was enough to go to air with, we have independently confirmed that NBC News did that. That did happen. He was told to pause his reporting.”
Given that Farrow’s reporting helped to take down a monster, do we care that he retroactively padded his reporting on various occasions on his book tour? Do we care that he embellished the contents of his notebook here and there?
We do. By repeatedly exaggerating how he had buttoned down the Weinstein story at NBC News, Farrow casts his former bosses as incompetent and cowardly — or, better said, more incompetent and cowardly than they were. It’s a difference of degree, but properly conveying magnitude and paucity is a core journalistic responsibility. There was no need to stretch the case against NBC News when the underlying facts were sufficiently damning.
If nothing else, the episode suggests that Smith was wise to apply the squinting eye of skepticism to Farrow’s work — and to wonder aloud whether there was a storm of conspiracies seeking to stop him.
A cross with flowers and the letter "A" sits at the entrance to the Satilla Shores neighborhood where Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed. Sean Rayford/Getty Imageshide caption
Sean Rayford/Getty Images
A cross with flowers and the letter "A" sits at the entrance to the Satilla Shores neighborhood where Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed.
Sean Rayford/Getty Images
When journalists write or broadcast these words — "unarmed black man"— what do you hear? It's a phrase that has become pervasive in the American news media, including on NPR's airwaves and in its digital news stories.
Since a string of deaths of young black men at the hands of police gave rise to the Black Lives Matter movement, the phrase has become journalistic shorthand for this message: white people unjustly shooting a black man, because their racial prejudice led them to assume he was a threat.
That's a lot of work for three words.
One loyal NPR fan pointed out to me that when we utter that phrase, it doesn't always mean the same thing for the speaker as for the listener. And now I can't stop hearing it.
Deirdre Moultrie noticed those words peppered throughout her two favorite sources of news, NPR and The New York Times' The Daily podcast, most recently in reference to the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn County, Ga. Every time Moultrie, 41, from Randallstown, Md., heard the phrase spoken, it caused her pain.
As a preschool teacher and someone who devotes a lot of energy to educating and mentoring children, she wrote to our office: "I am begging NPR to stop referring to black men killed unjustly as 'unarmed black man.' ... Please stop! As a black woman and a lover of black men, it hurts me every time I hear this despicable phrase on the radio."
A search of the archive reveals that NPR has used the phrase 82 times in the past year. Five of those were headlines, 26 were in newscasts read at the top of the hour. And most of those references — 65 to be exact — occurred since Arbery was killed in February. In that same time period, "unarmed white man" does not appear anywhere in NPR's coverage.
After talking to editors inside and outside NPR, criminologists, journalists and Moultrie herself, I've concluded that the phrase is overused. Journalists everywhere, including those at NPR, should be cautious about when and why they use it, because it is rooted in hidden assumptions that are different, depending on who you are.
Most of the time, when a journalist writes or says, "unarmed black man," she is using the phrase as code, signaling to her audience that a victim of violence did not pose a deadly threat to the killer or killers, be they citizens or cops. Often that may well be true — but the headline-speak is insufficient journalistically to get to the explanation of why. What's more, that cliche presumes the first question we should ask about a black jogger is: Was he armed?
Indeed the entire story of unjustified violence by white people against black people is rooted in more than whether the black man did or didn't have a gun. Had Arbery been shot in the back while jogging by two men who assumed because he was black he was a fleeing burglar, and a gun was found in his pocket, would that make it more justifiable? The core narrative doesn't make sense unless you are familiar with and accept the premise that rooted deep in the collective American psyche is more than armed or unarmed: It's about a false assumption that black people are more likely to be criminals.
"The fact that you have to signify that a black person is unarmed is problematic," said Lorenzo Boyd, assistant provost for diversity and inclusion, and the director of The Center for Advanced Policing at the University of New Haven. "I understand it's descriptive, but it's hurtful."
The research is conclusive, Boyd said. Racial prejudice is deeply embedded in our culture, and it results in systemic discrimination by authority figures including police, security guards and even teachers.
"If we are assuming black people are armed, that premise is flawed," Boyd said.
This is not to suggest that when journalists use the phrase "unarmed black man," they are buying into that erroneous narrative of black criminality. In fact, it's more likely the exact opposite. Journalism is rooted in a long history of questioning authority — and usually the guys with the guns have the authority. We are also wired to explore the research that demonstrates how deep-seated prejudice seeps into the assumptions that lie under the judicial system, as well as the extra-judicial systems.
And when a journalist writes or utters the phrase "unarmed black man," she is often honestly trying to quickly convey the key question the audience has: What was the circumstance of the confrontation?
Here's how that logic plays out. Journalist: A white man shot a black man. Dubious audience member who might dismiss the story: What was the black man doing that caused the white man to shoot him? Journalist: Well, the black man didn't have a gun, he posed no deadly threat. Audience: That's important for us to know (because we have these hidden biases). Journalist: Right, a white man shot an unarmed black man.
But it doesn't work.
"Language itself is complicated and it changes context," said Karen Yin, a veteran editor and the creator and keeper of the Conscious Style Guide, a resource that amalgamates dozens of recommendations and best practices for language describing communities historically marginalized by communicators. "The same language that works in one setting doesn't work in another setting."
Without being completely aware of it, journalists are using the phrase "unarmed black man" to indicate an episode in the wide arc of unjustified violence by white people against black people.
But from her home in Randallstown, when NPR listener Dee Moultrie hears the same phrase, she's really hearing: NPR journalists don't think white people will be sympathetic to a black man, unless they stipulate that he didn't have a gun.
"NPR and The Daily are where I get my news. That's what keeps me afloat. That's what keeps me entertained. It's almost like base, like home," Moultrie told me in a video chat this week. "I couldn't allow my space to be invaded by that phrase. So I had to say something. And it wasn't even out of anger."
Then she reconsidered, and realized that her media consumption was impacting the way she herself talked about the phenomenon of white violence against black people.
"Well, I was a little angry," she said. "But it was more so because I've said that phrase before. So like, OK, I have to tell Michael Barbaro (of The Daily podcast) to stop saying that. I have to tell NPR. Because they just don't know."
Now we know.
Gerry Holmes, NPR managing editor for planning and enterprise, told me there are several opportunities for newsroom journalists to discuss using this phrase. One comes as a related story is in the works, when reporters and editors decide the best words to use. Another opportunity for a discussion comes when someone inside or outside the newsroom raises a question.
"We try to be intentional about everything, every bit of language that we use in any written story for radio or online," he said. "Looking at this particular case, in this particular story, there were critical aspects to what we knew about the circumstances of that story that ended up in using that descriptor in that way. This is a black man, who was unarmed."
If I did have power to implement policy, here's what my guidance would say:
Be careful and intentional about using the phrase "unarmed black man" in stories about white people killing black people. While the specific information is vitally important to the story, use precise language in full context rather than speak in a code that is not heard in the same universal way by each member of the audience. Instead, slow your explanation down and stick to the facts. Imagine these questions about the phrase "unarmed black man." Answer them, but in more than three words. Why is it important that the assailant was white and the victim was black? What do you mean by unarmed? Are the shooters claiming to believe the victim had a weapon? If so, what kind of weapon? Would the victim being armed have justified the killing? Would you use the term to describe a white person? If not, why?
Yin told me this is the overall message of her style guide: "Conscious language lives at the intersection of critical thinking and compassion."
Language is messy and it evolves. As professionals, the best we can do is continue to evolve with it.
Times Insiderexplains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Instead of the articles, photographs or graphics that normally appear on the front page of The New York Times, on Sunday, there is just a list: a long, solemn list of people whose lives were lost to the coronavirus pandemic.
As the death toll from Covid-19 in the United States approaches 100,000, a number expected to be reached in the coming days, editors at The Times have been planning how to mark the grim milestone.
Simone Landon, assistant editor of the Graphics desk, wanted to represent the number in a way that conveyed both the vastness and the variety of lives lost.
Departments across The Times have been robustly covering the coronavirus pandemic for months. But Ms. Landon and her colleagues realized that “both among ourselves and perhaps in the general reading public, there’s a little bit of a fatigue with the data.”
“We knew we were approaching this milestone,” she added. “We knew that there should be some way to try to reckon with that number.”
Putting 100,000 dots or stick figures on a page “doesn’t really tell you very much about who these people were, the lives that they lived, what it means for us as a country,” Ms. Landon said. So, she came up with the idea of compiling obituaries and death notices of Covid-19 victims from newspapers large and small across the country, and culling vivid passages from them.
Alain Delaquérière, a researcher, combed through various sources online for obituaries and death notices with Covid-19 written as the cause of death. He compiled a list of nearly a thousand names from hundreds of newspapers. A team of editors from across the newsroom, in addition to three graduate student journalists, read them and gleaned phrases that depicted the uniqueness of each life lost:
“Alan Lund, 81, Washington, conductor with ‘the most amazing ear’ … ”
“Theresa Elloie, 63, New Orleans, renowned for her business making detailed pins and corsages … ”
“Florencio Almazo Morán, 65, New York City, one-man army … ”
“Coby Adolph, 44, Chicago, entrepreneur and adventurer … ”
Ms. Landon compared the result to a “rich tapestry” that she could not have woven by herself. Clinton Cargill, assistant editor on the National desk, was Ms. Landon’s “editing co-pilot,” she said. Other key players in the project were Matt Ruby, deputy editor of Digital News Design; Annie Daniel, a software engineer; and the graphics editors Jonathan Huang, Richard Harris and Lazaro Gamio. Andrew Sondern, an art director, is behind the print design.
Marc Lacey, National editor, had warned Tom Bodkin, chief creative officer of The Times, that the milestone was coming. “I wanted something that people would look back on in 100 years to understand the toll of what we’re living through,” Mr. Lacey said in an email.
For the front page of the paper, two ideas stood out: either a grid of hundreds of pictures of those who had lost their lives to Covid-19, or an “all type” concept, Mr. Bodkin said. Whichever approach was chosen, he said, “we wanted to take over the entire page.”
The all-type concept came to the fore. Such a treatment “would be hugely dramatic,” he said.
The design references that of centuries-old newspapers, which Mr. Bodkin is keenly interested in. For many years after The Times started publishing in 1851, there were no headlines, in the modern sense.
How many people have lost their jobs due to coronavirus in the U.S.?
Over 38 million people have filed for unemployment since March. One in five who were working in February reported losing a job or being furloughed in March or the beginning of April, data from a Federal Reserve survey released on May 14 showed, and that pain was highly concentrated among low earners. Fully 39 percent of former workers living in a household earning $40,000 or less lost work, compared with 13 percent in those making more than $100,000, a Fed official said.
How can I protect myself while flying?
If air travel is unavoidable, there are some steps you can take to protect yourself. Most important: Wash your hands often, and stop touching your face. If possible, choose a window seat. A study from Emory University found that during flu season, the safest place to sit on a plane is by a window, as people sitting in window seats had less contact with potentially sick people. Disinfect hard surfaces. When you get to your seat and your hands are clean, use disinfecting wipes to clean the hard surfaces at your seat like the head and arm rest, the seatbelt buckle, the remote, screen, seat back pocket and the tray table. If the seat is hard and nonporous or leather or pleather, you can wipe that down, too. (Using wipes on upholstered seats could lead to a wet seat and spreading of germs rather than killing them.)
Is ‘Covid toe’ a symptom of the disease?
There is an uptick in people reporting symptoms of chilblains, which are painful red or purple lesions that typically appear in the winter on fingers or toes. The lesions are emerging as yet another symptom of infection with the new coronavirus. Chilblains are caused by inflammation in small blood vessels in reaction to cold or damp conditions, but they are usually common in the coldest winter months. Federal health officials do not include toe lesions in the list of coronavirus symptoms, but some dermatologists are pushing for a change, saying so-called Covid toe should be sufficient grounds for testing.
Should I wear a mask?
The C.D.C. has recommended that all Americans wear cloth masks if they go out in public. This is a shift in federal guidance reflecting new concerns that the coronavirus is being spread by infected people who have no symptoms. Until now, the C.D.C., like the W.H.O., has advised that ordinary people don’t need to wear masks unless they are sick and coughing. Part of the reason was to preserve medical-grade masks for health care workers who desperately need them at a time when they are in continuously short supply. Masks don’t replace hand washing and social distancing.
What should I do if I feel sick?
If you’ve been exposed to the coronavirus or think you have, and have a fever or symptoms like a cough or difficulty breathing, call a doctor. They should give you advice on whether you should be tested, how to get tested, and how to seek medical treatment without potentially infecting or exposing others.
How can I help?
Charity Navigator, which evaluates charities using a numbers-based system, has a running list of nonprofits working in communities affected by the outbreak. You can give blood through the American Red Cross, and World Central Kitchen has stepped in to distribute meals in major cities.
Online, readers can scroll down for the names, descriptive phrases and an essay written by Dan Barry, a Times reporter and columnist. The number “one hundred thousand” tolls again and again.
Mr. Bodkin said he did not remember any front pages without images during his 40 years at The Times, “though there have been some pages with only graphics,” he said, adding, “This is certainly a first in modern times.”
Inside the paper, the list continues, threaded with Dan Barry’s essay. But mostly there are names. More names, and more lives lost.
Follow the @ReaderCenter on Twitter for more coverage highlighting your perspectives and experiences and for insight into how we work.