I also noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties
believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too
vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or
cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue
is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I
believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.
When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found
that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing
fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the
paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and
cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview
virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem
almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like
causes than news subjects.
Game, set, match, to believers in media bias. The statement that most appropriately sums it up is "...this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times." The same can be written of many other mainstream media outlets.
Not to be outdone, NYT Editor Jill Abramson has responded to the high treason of her outgoing Public Editor, and here is some of her defense:
"I agree with another past public editor, Dan Okrent, and my predecessor as executive editor, Bill Keller, that in covering some social and cultural issues, the Times sometimes reflects its urban and cosmopolitan base,"
"Sometimes reflects"? How about "consistently advocates"? If the NYT wants to be the newspaper of record for the Upper West Side, it should continue on its current path. Newspaper of record for a broad, center-right nation? Nope.
Posts
4 comments:
I almost feel sorry for them - the NY Times is still so firmly convinced of their greatness and haven't quite grasped how much respect they've lost as a major institution. Instead of considering for ONE second that Brisbane's piece may have some merit, they dig in to scoff at it.
It's funny as hell when the facade cracks and liberals are forced to confront their own hypocrisy. The ombudsman was on his way out the door so the guy said what he thought. But they don't look at it that way, it's their orientation. Jill Abramson almost broke her $3.000 Louis Vuitton dominatrix pumps getting to her computer to know this shit down.
One description that I liked was that the New York Times viewed itself as the newspaper of the management class. For every problem, there must be a management solution.
Poverty? Violence? Academic failure? Urban decay? Unemployment? Clearly, there is a policy and a program that can address that. The management class simply needs to figure that out.
However, when addressing social problems, the management class creates policies that are the result of hope over experience. They are aspirational, based on the way they think the world SHOULD work, rather than empirical, on how the world DOES work.
The paper of record on how the world actually DOES work is the Wall Street Journal. Which is to say, market forces in the economy, and incentives/disincentives (both economic and social) in societal matters.
Which leaves NYT advocating for nice-sounding policies that are ineffectual and expensive at best and corrosive and ruinous at worst - compounding the problems they aim to solve by rewarding bad behavior, de-stigmatizing and excusing anti-social behavior and attempting to attach shame to productive behavior.
Excellent puzzles, though. Thank you Mr. Will Shortz.
One description that I liked was that the New York Times viewed itself as the newspaper of the management class. For every problem, there must be a management solution.
Poverty? Violence? Academic failure? Urban decay? Unemployment? Clearly, there is a policy and a program that can address that. The management class simply needs to figure that out.
However, when addressing social problems, the management class creates policies that are the result of hope over experience. They are aspirational, based on the way they think the world SHOULD work, rather than empirical, on how the world DOES work.
The paper of record on how the world actually DOES work is the Wall Street Journal. Which is to say, market forces in the economy, and incentives/disincentives (both economic and social) in societal matters.
Which leaves NYT advocating for nice-sounding policies that are ineffectual and expensive at best and corrosive and ruinous at worst - compounding the problems they aim to solve by rewarding bad behavior, de-stigmatizing and excusing anti-social behavior and attempting to attach shame to productive behavior.
Excellent puzzles, though. Thank you Mr. Will Shortz.
Post a Comment