What does a conservative beat mean for The New York Times?

Jewish World Review ^ | March 2, 2004 | Terry Eastland

[SJackson]

For more than a month, one of our national papers of record, The New York Times, has been examining "conservative forces in religion, politics, law, business and the media." No, that isn't made up. The quoted material comes from Times national editor Jim Roberts, announcing last month that David D. Kirkpatrick, the former media correspondent, would patrol the new beat.

As with any press release, it deserves a question or two, beginning with why The Times thinks it can cover all of those conservative forces with only one reporter. The task would seem to require a legion of correspondents, but somehow, with just one, The Times will manage.

The "job," Mr. Roberts said, "will take [Mr. Kirkpatrick] across the country and make him a frequent presence in Washington." It will thrust him into "the political campaigns," and yet "we expect that much of what he does will transcend the race itself and delve into the issues and personalities that drive - and sometimes divide - conservatives."

In fact, division turns out to be the dominant narrative of the journalism so far. Consider the headlines of the first three stories: "Bush's push for marriage falls short for conservatives," "Conservative groups differ on Bush words on marriage," and "A concerned bloc of Republicans wonders whether Bush is conservative enough."

Moreover, those and other "conservative" stories have proved more than a little strained. The words "conservative" and "conservatives" are used to excess - 24 times in one story - as though to assure readers that The Times is on the conservative beat. And people otherwise not known to be important conservatives turn out to be major, on-the-record sources, no doubt delighted that The Times has reached them. Was the point of actually announcing a "conservative beat" to interest conservatives in becoming sources?

Earlier this month, Sridhar Pappu, the enterprising media reporter for The New York Observer, interviewed Times executive editor Bill Keller about his paper's unusual undertaking. "I winced a little when I read that job announcement," he said, "because it was a little like The New York Times discovers this strange, alien species called conservatives, and that's not what this is about."

Mr. Keller offered two explanations of "what this is about." The first is that the paper wants to get beyond "the shorthand you use for any interest group" and instead try "to figure out why people believe what they do, how big their constituency is, where it comes from."

Mr. Keller surely knows that his own newsroom often is perceived as liberal and that a more intense effort to report on conservatives might rid his staff of any misconception that conservatives are all, well, strange or alien. In any case, good journalism should attempt to get beyond convenient but distorting labels. And give The Times credit: Mr. Kirkpatrick's latest piece - headlined "Southern Baptists bring New York their gospel" - does a decent job of telling readers why Southern Baptists, who certainly qualify as a "conservative force" in religion, have organized evangelistic efforts in New York ZIP codes full of Times readers.

[dirtboy]

For more than a month, one of our national papers of record, The New York Times, has been examining "conservative forces in religion, politics, law, business and the media."

Gee, the Times makes conservative America seem like a foreign country. Which, to them, it is.

[ECM]

Sounds almost like they're gearing up to do a documentary for National Geographic, eh?

[dirtboy]

Instead of going into darkest Africa, the Times is boldly going into Reddest America. "My gawd, the savages have GUNS! And every Sunday, many of them engage in primitive worship rituals - after drinking FOLGERS instead of STARBUCKS! The HORRORS!"

[longtermmemmory]

Groupthink run amuck.

Probaly will be done with the same validity as reporters self examination as to why the left't bodily waste does not stink.

Will there be a leftist "beat"? of course not.

This is just a propaganda trick to marginalize conservatives as a "group". Newsflash to NYT, conservatives are the MAJORITY.

Only 17% will admit they are liberals. Modernliberalism is equal to intollerance and self absorbtion.

Heck given the last few days, anyone who is a Democrat can be assumed to be a homosexual unless they state otherwise.

[Always Right]

Here is a concept, why doesn't the New York Times actually hire a couple conservative reporters. I know conservatives only make up about 40% of the population, but maybe the New York Times can find one or two. Or maybe finding one reporter who doesn't believe in abortion on demand, that global warming is gonna doom us all, or that Bush is Hitler but a decent man, is way too much to ask....

[ECM]

Mwahahahaha!

[dirtboy]

Only 17% will admit they are liberals.

Well, for the NY Times, moderate versus liberal basically boils down to Trotskyite versus Stalinist. Whereas to us, they still are all pinkos.

[longtermmemmory]

Actually if we could get Starbucks to have a cleaning table after trips to the gun range, that would be something.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

What does a conservative beat mean for The New York Times?

At the NY Times? It probably means that they outfit the editorial staff with clubs and chase down a conservative in the park. What else could it mean?

[dirtboy]

Actually if we could get Starbucks to have a cleaning table after trips to the gun range, that would be something.

Plus, you'd finally have a good use for the Sunday Times.

[longtermmemmory]

If the NYT is doing this, perhaps they are in deeper trouble than eve we believed. Could it be the NYT is close to folding?

[NativeSon]

The Times thinks it can cover all of those conservative forces with only one reporter.

Wait a minute! I enjoyed being part of a "vast Right Wing conspiracy".

[pabianice]

The New York Times photographs a Bush Rally...

[CFC__VRWC]

Mr. Keller offered two explanations of "what this is about." The first is that the paper wants to get beyond "the shorthand you use for any interest group" and instead try "to figure out why people believe what they do, how big their constituency is, where it comes from."

Oh, I see - this is all about scaring the bejeezus out of the real people (Upper West Side latte sippers, Palm Beach condo commies and Nantucket neo-Bolsheviks) so they'll flock to the polls in November and vote for the "nuanced" candidate, John Kerry.

"These conservatives are everywhere! They own guns, watch NASCAR, actually attend church and don't believe US soldiers are bloodthirsty raping Huns. And they're EVEN ALLOWED TO VOTE!!!!!"

[GOPJ]

Seems the New York Times wants a conservative "token" on staff to fool themselves into thinking they're "fair". But not a real "token". No, my bet is the reporter's a liberal. A fake token. This is as insulting to conservatives as assigning a white reporter in the 60's to cover the civil rights movement. And not just any white reporter, but one who voted for George Wallace.

A note to the New York Times: if you can't do it right, don't do it at all. This is insulting beyond words.

"...delve into the issues and personalities that drive - and sometimes divide - conservatives."

[AmishDude]

It sounds like the guy is acting as Jane Goodall.

[dirtboy]

It sounds like the guy is acting as Jane Goodall

And, to the Times, we're the chimps.

[BadAndy]

"What does a conservative beat mean for The New York Times?"

It means they will pay more attention to NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Gov Pataki. On a serious note, the NYT recognizing the existance of conservatives may be a positive thing. They may be taking the blinders off to what they feel is a growing movement.