'Bout time someone did........
nyt employees find it difficult to explain what they do. Maybe the employees can quote anonymous sources explaining to Mr. Okrent what it is that they do.
Um...I'm a little confused here.
What exactly does this guy do?
|Based on an amused spectator's list
Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list
The Times, er Slimes, long felt that a little correction on Page 2, after the damage was done, was enough to cover their rears.
Public editor or not, there has been no change in the deliberate misrepresentation of the news.
He is nothing but window dressing on the diseased old Gray Lady.
The Slimes will continue to print outrageous lies to defeat GW, republicans and destroy weaken our religious institutions. They have been doing this for over a century, and they will not change.
Can't get to article.
A watchdog at the Times?? How did 478 Abu Garbage stories slip by him?
Nice article, but it misses the point.
As a journalism school graduate (Masters from Columbia), I once regarded the NY Times as the secular bible. Sure, I saw little biases, but they were more playful than toxic (I was aware, though, of the common question, "Why are they always unbiased except when they are writing about something I am familiar with?").
Two biases always stood out, though: The New York Times always acted as the mouthpiece of the US State Department, and it always blamed Israel for any violence in the Middle East (earlier, of course, it whitewashed Stalin's mass murders and the holocaust, but both occurred years before my time).
Certainly since 9/11 -- although the biases were there during the Clinton administration they were not as pronounced -- this newspaper has set itself up as the adversary of the current government. News articles are extremely unfair, editorials are single-mindedly opposed to the government and written in increasingly intemperate language, and "News Analysis" articles have evolved from background pieces into unlabelled editorials invariably espousing a particular point of view -- always anti-administration.
The New York Times has gotten so extreme that I no longer regard it as the newspaper of recoord. I can no longer read between the lines and figure out the whole story. For example, on Wilson and the yellowcake uranium, the Times still has not written anything about the British report exonerating this piece of intelligence. The official report is not due out until Wednesday, so it is possible that the Times will write a piece after it is released, but other media have been able to write earlier. The Times never wrote about the blatant conflicts of interest on the 9/11 panel. It wrote an editorial about destruction of world monuments at a time when the Palestinian Authority was at its busiest in expanding the mosques on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, but never mentioned that archaeological atrocity.
I simply can't get the full news out of the Times any more. Articles condemning news coverage of the Tony Awards strike me as sleight of hand, as an attempt by Okrent to distract the readers from the truly burning issues of the day.
In fact, his self-righteousness about the WMD -- when the jury is still out but Polish forces are finding toxic warheads and the current government of Iraq is expressing concerns that the terrorists are trying to get control of them -- indicates that Dan Okrent now is part of the problem on the larger issues, and not part of the solution.
I'm afraid that it's too little too late. I get my news off of the internet and rarely revert to the NY Times website any more, and I think that there are more and more people like me -- who once made up the Times' core audience but now never touch it.
Okrent is pretty terrible, but he was picked to be a terrible public editor. He'll answer questions about the paper's liberal bias on the website, but rarely in the paper. Instead, the paper's column exists only to attack the paper for its alleged conservative bias! Heck, he had the audacity to complain about the paper putting a negative review of Clinton's book on the front page, and actually said that he didn't think a positive review would have made Page 1.