Following SDMB policy I have only quoted snippets of this memo. Please read the whole thing so you can experience its Dilbertian nature. On first reading, I honestly thought it was a parody.
Comments regarding the words I colored:
The words in turquoise are self-congratulatory bullsh*t.
The words is red are an oxymoron. A requirement that news not attack the editorial pages is the opposite of strict separation.
The words in green are funny, because, according to Newsweek, the Times has written 32 stories drumming up this subject. OTOH their Managing Editor says that three stories on the other side would be too many.
The words in purple are unnecessary. I’m sure Times writers now understand what their column boundries are: Support Raines.
Your sarcastic comment raises an interesting question. For several years the Times has been raked over the coals on the internet, by smartertimes.com, by Russ Smith (“Mugger”), by OpinionJournal.com, by Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus, and instapundit to name a few.
Now the criticism comes from main stream media – Newsweek Magazine and the New York Daily News. It was picked up by FNC’s TV news and perhpas other stations. Will criticism at this level hurt the Times’s reputation? How seriously? What consequences may be expected?
BTW Andrew Sullivan’s column today runs very much like the OP. Sullivan used to write frequent articles for the Times. However, they recently banned him because they resented his criticism of the Times on his blog.
So, once again, you are invoking GayPunditAndrewSullivan as support for your OP? And this proves, what, that other people are criticizing the Times, too? But you already pointed that out.
Nobody’s saying the OP is wrong, December, just that there’s nothing there to debate as such. You posted, “The Times is run like a Dilbert cartoon!” and we all went, “So?”
Did you expect us to respond, “No, it isn’t!” and actually debate whether the New York Times is run like a Dilbert cartoon?
Who give a damn? Your airing of this is a dog bites man story. We knew you didn’t like the Times before you posted so nothing has been added to our information.
No, the Times isn’t run like a Dilbert cartoon. That would imply that management was stupid and incompetent, and didn’t know what it’s doing.
In this case, Howell Raines knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He was pulling rank, and telling columnists, “Don’t DARE disagree with me. What I say is Gospel, and if you try towrite anything I don’t like, it won’t see print.”
That may make Raines a tyrant, a censor, a fascist, a hypocrite and a creep- but he’s not a pointy-haired know-nothing.
Among responses I thought might be posted are[ul][]The Times is right/wrong to devote so much space to the Augusta Golf Club story[]They were right/wrong to spike these two sports section articles.[]The current publicity will/will not seriously harm their reputation.[]They will/will not change their policy in response to this issue.[]The Times is/is not on a downward spiral leading to a substantially lower-quality newspaper.[]Times accusers are right/wrong to make such a fuss over this issue.[/ul]
Howzabout this response. The Times is free to print or not print whatever the hell its management chooses. Amount of coverage of specific topics is completely their perrogative. Individuals are free to buy, or not buy, read, or not read, the Times.
You may argue this means the Times is no longer a balanced news source(if it ever was), but in the end it’s no big deal. The news is still out there and there are plenty of other sources. This is only a problem for someone who thinks the sun shines out of the New York Times ass and uses them as an exclusive news source. Such a person is surely almost unbelievably naieve already so they need a shake-up.
The Times is right/wrong to devote so much space to the Augusta Golf Club story
It’s their newspaper, they can do what they like. Duh.
They were right/wrong to spike these two sports section articles.
It’s their newspaper, they can do what they like. Duh.
The current publicity will/will not seriously harm their reputation.
Persons of normal common sense and intelligence will realize that the opinions of folks like GayPunditAndrewSullivan will have absolutely no effect on a monolithic presence like the New York Times.
. They will/will not change their policy in response to this issue.
Persons of normal common sense and intelligence will realize that the opinions of folks like GayPunditAndrewSullivan will have absolutely no effect on a monolithic presence like the New York Times.
The Times is/is not on a downward spiral leading to a substantially lower-quality newspaper.
You and GayPunditAndrewSullivan have one opinion. Other people have another opinion. But that’s just an exchange of opinions, there are no points to debate without cites. Come up with some cites that show that the NY Times is on a downward spiral and then we’ll have a Debate.
Times accusers are right/wrong to make such a fuss over this issue.
The whole issue is retarded, and as such becomes a non-issue. The New York Times is gonna do exactly as they please, no matter how you or GayPunditAndrewSullivan feels about it.
Well after a disappointment like this, I for one feel strangely drawn to the stark moral rectitude of the Wall Street Journal, the imponderable dignity of Washington Times or ** Fox News **, and the intellectual majesty of National Review. None of those organizations suffer from The NY Times’ hubris or internal squabbling.
If there are any more such stunning blows to the reputation of the liberal press, we might just see a massive defection of “moderate” liberals to the conservative bandwagon. Or maybe not.
If we were to follow the implications of the neo-libertarian posts by DDG and Mtgman, we’d have fewer threads. Let’s see:*
It’s Planned Parenthood’s greeting cards – they can do what they like
It’s their baseball statistics – they can do what they like
It’s their law enforcement – they can do what they like
It’s their riches or poverty – they can do what they like
It’s the Palestinians’ guerilla war – they can do what they like
*
The fact that some organization has a legal right to do something doesn’t invalidate it as a debate topic.
Are you ever going to stop doing this? Keep your damn words out of my mouth. I’m quite capable of speaking for myself.
Sure thing. Each individual can choose to toss the card, accept its message, or ignore if if they wish. There is no guarantee in the constitution that you’ll never be offended. Get over it or publish your own propaganda to counter it. Adjust your respect level for them down a few notches if you’re offended and if anyone ever asks you your opinion of PP, give it to them straight.
**
Statistics are, theoretically, guided by the principles of mathematics. Dishonesty in applying these objective principles is reprehensible. Promise an accurate comparison then you better fully disclose your methods. Use methods designed to give favor to one side and don’t disclose them and you’re on the wrong side. It’ll get you marked down as a group who promotes bias and your analysis will be taken with a grain of salt in the future or ignored completely. Such is the way of life.**
Bullshit. It’s OUR law enforcement. What part of “We the people…” don’t you understand? Citizens have a responsibility to give their input on the laws of this country, and their enforcement. It’s called democracy.**
This statement is nonsensical. What can one “do” with poverty?**
And others are free to respond. Keep in mind that a response which is seen a brutality or overkill against innocent bystanders could get other nations(who would have stayed out of it if the response had been less brutal) may “do what they like” to you. **
Sure, but what’s the debate? They did something they were perfectly entitled to but it was different than december’s perception of what they would do? Shrug, who cares? If you feel they’ve violated some sort of journalistic code you hold news organizations to then don’t read their articles anymore. Seek your views elsewhere or publish information countering their bias. Either way there is no need for a debate.
I’ve read Mugger’s rants for years now, and I honestly don’t see what the fuss is all about.
Is the NYTimes biased? Yes.
Is any news source unbiased? Of course not.
Who cares? Russ Smith and december, apparently.
Are you just incensed that the Times is still considered the “paper of record” by so many people? So what! Read something else. I think FoxNews is filled with raving lunatics, so I don’t watch it. No harm, no foul. Make the Journal your paper of record, if you don’t like the Times.
Personally, my favorite paper was always the Philadelphia Inquirer, which has been sued for libel more times than I can count. Gotta admire that. Unfortunately, I don’t live in PA anymore and the Times has a great web site (wherre I usu. read it now), with excellent science coverage and occasionally superb features in their Home, Food, and Sunday Magazine sections.
The Times’ political coverage is adequate and the headlines are certainly odd from time to time. But just because they focus on curious, slanted things occasionally, it doesn’t mean I’m not aware of the slant. Likewise when I browse through Drudge. Why the hell is he so fixated on Democrats’ hairstyles and Barbara Streisand? Beats me. I just ignore those stories for meatier fare.
Your points look pretty reasonable to me toadspitle. However, I am actually more upset that they were a “paper of record” for many decades, but are moving away from that level of accuracy. That’s a loss for all of us, because, as you point out, there isn’t another candidate available.
Are you being subtle, or are you unaware that Drudge is allegedly gay?
