Nevertheless, the admission that the paper has been a "cheerleader" for gay marriage, has covered it one-sidedly, and has all but ignored even the "disturbed" opponents of gay marriage is a step in the right direction. Notice how those who oppose gay marriage are not granted any sort of intellectual or philosophical objection to the practice - no, "The Credibility Group" can only allow that we are overcome by emotionalism, that the paper has failed to recognize "how disturbing" the issue is to us. I should note that this admission of the Times' advocacy on the issue is itself nevertheless written from the viewpoint of bias. The public editor found that the overall tone of our coverage of gay marriage, as one example, “approaches cheerleading.†By consistently framing the issue as a civil rights matter - gays fighting for the right to be treated like everyone else - we failed to convey how disturbing the issue is in many corners of American social, cultural and religious life. As a result, despite the strict divide between editorial pages and news pages, The Times can come across as an advocate.
This is especially so when we add in our feature sections, whose mission it is to write about novelty in life. Nonetheless, when numerous articles use the same assumption as a point of departure, that monotone can leave the false impression that the paper has chosen sides. Sample quotes (emphases added in all): Though we have our lapses, individual news stories on emotional topics like abortion, gun control, the death penalty and gay marriage are reported and edited with great care, to avoid any impression of bias. Seelye would have the casual reader believe. "The Times makes it harder than any other major American newspaper for readers to reach a responsible human being," the report said.Ībout as compelling as reading stereo instructions badly translated from the original Mongolian.īut the actual report that article purports to fairly digest is a hell of a lot more interesting - and more damning of past Times' practices - than Ms. The report also said The Times should make it easier for readers to send e-mail to reporters and editors. It also said The Times should make the paper's operations and decisions more transparent to readers through methods like making transcripts of interviews available on its Web site. Pretty much the print equivalent of a very bored looking cop waving "Move on, move on, nothing to see here."Īnd then she breaks out the high-power animal tranquilizers: As examples, the report cited limiting anonymous sources, reducing factual errors and making a clearer distinction between news and opinion. The committee also recommended that the paper "increase our coverage of religion in America" and "cover the country in a fuller way," with more reporting from rural areas and of a broader array of cultural and lifestyle issues. Here's how she opens her snoozer: In order to build readers' confidence, an internal committee at The New York Times has recommended taking a variety of steps, 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. The writer was determined to break as little news about the Times' "Credibility Group's" findings as possible.Īnd the dependable Kathlene Q. Quite frankly, the article seemed boring and technical. I only skimmed the Times article about the findings of its own internal review on building credibility. (And, of course, the left-leaning Young Media nailed an even bigger target: Gannon.)īut the juiciest target of all - the biggest establishment liberal institution in America (with the possible exception of the entire state of Massachusetts) - just said "I give."
Young Media has taken out some juicy Old Media targets. The New York Times' "Credibility Group:" Bloggers Are Right, We're Liberal Shills
0 kommentar(er)
