Skip to comments.Should Conservatives Give The New York Times a Break?
Posted on 08/06/2005 2:11:28 PM PDT by wagglebee
Thanks to a virtual blackout by his fellow editors elsewhere in the media, odds are good that you havent heard or read that Executive Editor Bill Keller of The New York Times recently capitulated in the debate over bias in Americas newspaper of record.
Kellers capitulation came in a lengthy memo he distributed in the Times newsroom in May as a response to an updating of a massive report by a committee appointed in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal to recommend measures to restore the gray ladys credibility.
In a section of the memo headed The News/Opinion Divide, Keller conceded that "even sophisticated readers of The New York Times sometimes find it hard to distinguish between news coverage and commentary in our pages." The Times will always carry both news and opinion, but, Keller argued, we should make the distinction as clear as possible.
Think about those statements for a moment. Here we have the top man in the newsroom at the nations most important daily the newspaper that more than any other sets the mainstream print and broadcast medias agenda essentially conceding what countless critics have argued for years. Thus we see a storied institution admitting its need to rededicate itself to achieving a standard previously claimed as the daily norm of performance.
Not only that, but Keller also conceded one of the major problems facing the Times in the aftermath of the Blair scandal is the cultural isolation that marks the papers newsroom. To counter that isolation, Keller encouraged his colleagues to undertake "a concerted effort to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation."
To drive the point home, Keller also noted that "our news coverage needs to embrace unorthodox views and contrarian opinions and to portray lives both more radical and more conservative than those most of us experience. We need to listen carefully to colleagues who are at home in realms that are not familiar to most of us."
Again, think about those words. Critics have charged for years that the Times newsroom is out of step with the majority of the country because the editorial staff represents but a small atypical slice of American demographics and opinion. That narrowness in turn has handicapped the dailys ability to identify, assess and credibly report much of the news deemed important by the rest of the nation. Now Keller says its time for the newsroom to get in touch with the rest of America.
A significant part of the effort to reach out to the rest of the nation concerns the Times ability to understand the one-third of Americans who identify themselves as religious conservatives (i.e. evangelicals and fundamentalists of all stripes, plus conservative Catholics and Orthodox Jews).
To that end, Keller encouraged the daily newsroom staff to listen to colleagues working on the Times magazine for lessons about portraying religious conservatives in an interesting and three-dimensional way. He also warned about the misuse of [the phrase] religious fundamentalists to describe religious conservatives.
Perhaps Keller would be willing to host an internal editorial seminar featuring Christian journalists like David Neff of Christianity Today, Christian philosophers like Nancy Pearcey and Christian bloggers like Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost to explain the lay of the religious conservative land?
So how should long-suffering critics of the Times react to Kellers words and actions? Much of the commentary on the Right side of the Blogosphere has been rather predictably negative, snarky or sarcastic, or some combination thereof. I believe that approach is mistaken.
How about instead we offer Keller encouragement and praise for fessing up to serious problems of longstanding and for putting his own career and prestige on the line in making the effort to deal with those problems in a systematic and reasonable way?
It wouldnt hurt, either, for Times critics on the Right to show some patience because changing an entrenched culture like that of a newsroom isnt going to happen overnight, nor will it occur without some unexpectedly abbreviated careers and a surplus of discontent bred by an inability or refusal to change.
There will certainly be times when Keller and his newsroom allies will wonder if its really worth the effort. A good word from those who have been on the outside critically looking in may be the difference between throwing in the towel and fighting the good fight another day. I say give the man a break. And some encouragement.
Hang in there! It will get better.
Glad you got back so quickly.
Their employees need to be driven from the entire media industry too.
It is not enough for the NYT to close its doors, the employees must never again be given even the TINIEST journalist job.
"Seriously though, you are right you can not save or redeme the NYT. It has to be eliminated and shut down PERMANENTLY."
Nah, I prefer to see them twist in the wind. Their campaign of disinformation helps keep the Left lame & lazy. They are one of the reasons liberals haven't had a new idea in the last decade, while conservative philosophy has been through the crucible and come out leaner & meaner.
Hang in there! It will get better.
Glad you got back so quickly.
I'll believe it when they use three dimensions other than stupid, violent, and bigoted.
Really, I'd settle for "an accurate way."
Except that we've heard this old saw from left-wing media many times before just as we hear from the Democrat Party how it must "appeal" to people of faith and people more conservative than they are. And after about 15 minutes of hand-wringing and breast-beating, they go right back to calling us single-chromosome Bible-thumping yahoos with only two functioning neurons.
I particularly love the "inclusive" outreach the local paper does on Sundays where the local religion editor makes sure to write about something offensive to most Christians, whether it be about gay ministers, wacko left churches or people who think this whole Christ thing is just "too extreme". Then when local Christians react negatively, the paper fumes about "Bible-thumping fundies" and goes back to their staple Christian-bashing.
Give the Times a break? Um, no. Not until they show that they are serious about changing themselves and not just bitching about not being understood and accepted by the very people they routinely and reflexively insult.
talk is cheap."
thanks - and great (unintentional?) irony ;)
The liberals can perfectly see a "wall of separation" in the First Amendment where it doesn't exist but they refuse to see a "wall of separation" between news reporting and editorialization that ought to exist.
I think we should give them a break, like 5 minutes and then,
BACK ON YOUR HEADS IN THE PILE OF DUNG YOU GO....
The logic for this response is given by this condescending quote from the article:
our news coverage needs to embrace unorthodox views and contrarian opinions
The only legitimate response to this quote is: F**CK YOU!
As far as the New York Slimes is concerned, patriotism, belief in God and a desire for the sanctity of marriage are "unorthodox views and contrarian opinions."
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha, are you SERIES? LMAO
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha, are you SERIES? LMAO!
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.