Posted on 05/08/2005 10:39:18 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
An internal committee at The New York Times has made specific recommendations to improve the paper's credibility with readers. They include the following:
1. Encourage the executive editor and the two managing editors to share responsibility for writing a regular column that deals with matters concerning the newspaper.
2. Make reporters and editors more easily available through e-mail.
3. Use the Web to provide readers with complete documents used in stories as well as transcripts of interviews.
4. Consider creating a Times blog that promotes interaction with readers.
5. Further curtail the use of anonymous sources.
6. Encourage reporters to confirm the accuracy of articles with sources before publication and to solicit feedback from sources after publication.
7. Set up an error-tracking system to detect patterns and trends.
8. Encourage the development of software to detect plagiarism when accusations arise.
9. Increase coverage of middle America, rural areas and religion.
10. Establish a system for evaluating public attacks on The Times's work and determining whether and how to respond.
Conslusions of the panel to the NYT:
1. Tell the truth.
2. Tell the truth.
New York Times / Credibility................ same sentence?
I think they are series... about fooling the sheeple even further.
Too late, NY Slimes! We are on to you now, and your day is over.
This is the SECOND article from the NY Times concering this Panel.
They have made the circle complete now, they truly have become Episcopalians.
"...including having senior editors write more regularly about the workings of the paper, tracking errors in a systematic way and responding more assertively to the paper's critics..."
Why do I get the feeling that the only one of these that will be implemented will be the third one?
Yeah, a committee. That ought to fix the Times.
IF this is their efforts then someone should be fired.
NONE of the recomendations adress the problem of CONTENT.
Perhaps they should say no more PC drivel, no more homo-tilt on social stories, no more engineering facts to fit the leftist ideal/goals.
too little too late.
suuuuure they vill fex the times to be identical to the Boston Globe or LA Times
Whoever owns the NY Times, Washinton Post, L.A. Times, Boston Globe, should sell these 'assets' while they can still make a buck. Because in 10 years if not sooner, they're finished.
They don't know anyone in "middle America" or anything about religion other than the homosexual religion and abortion. Who is going to cover those topics?! In fact, they would probably drop dead if one of them had to step foot in rural America.
I can just see it now, a NYT reporter lifting his loafers as he traipses into the First Assembly of God in Tupelo, Mississippi. I'd give anything if the congregation could have advance warning and had rounded up every garden snake they could find. Put the garden snakes in a basket, and when the NYT reporter walks in the door, pull 'em out and start dancing!
There's nothing like gratifying the expectations of gullible liberals....
Nothing in any of this recommends hiring reporters who don't have a flaming left-wing bias. There's no way they can successfully pass off their current crew as anything else, no matter how hard they try.
Media Shenanigans/ Schadenfreude |
|
Based on an amused spectator's list Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list |
|
The List of Ping Lists |
Yup. Don Luskin just posted this last Thursday:
OKRENT CONFESSES Former New York Times public fig-leaf Daniel Okrent now admits what it was all about. It was never about being the "reader's representative" -- it was about "doing service" for the paper, and protecting it from "enemies." From WNYC's "On The Media":
BROOKE GLADSTONE: What in your opinion was your most important column?
DANIEL OKRENT: Mmm. That's really tough. I guess I would have to say it was the one where I confronted the issue - the headline was: Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? And I probably did not do the paper as much service as I would have liked to with that column, because by the very headline, and the first line, which was: Of course it is, [LAUGHTER] I handed the paper's enemies something that could be taken radically out of context. I made it too quotable.
Thanks to reader Jameson Campaigne for the link.
http://poorandstupid.com/2005_05_01_chronArchive.asp#111527156442421682
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.