Sunday, November 04, 2012

Having Set This Public Standard

From "Margaret Sullivan...the fifth public editor appointed by The New York Times. [Who] writes about the Times and its journalism in a frequent blog – the Public Editor’s Journal — and in a twice-monthly print column in the Sunday Review section. The public editor’s office also handles questions and comments from readers and investigates matters of journalistic integrity.":
"When he came to work at The Times, Mr. Silver gained a lot more visibility and the credibility associated with a prominent institution. But he lost something, too: the right to act like a free agent with responsibilities to nobody’s standards but his own."
I anxiously await Ms. Sullivan's public dressing-down of David Brooks for his ritual commission of public fraud approximately twice a week, every week, for the last 10 years.


ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Hypocrisy in defense of Joe Scarborough is no vice...

Wait, yes it is!

P.S. I'm glad to see that most of the other common taters on Sullivan's post agreed with me.

Monte Davis said...

I had been a NY Times reader for 25 years when, in 2002, I watched them bend over for the WMD Kidz.

In another 15 years, given improbably good behavior, I *might* be able to hear them intone "the credibility associated with a prominent institution" without nausea.

El Cid said...

I'm afraid she got the relationship wrong: Silver sets standards to which the rest of the New York Times political coverage should aspire, not vice versa.

Working for a multi-billion dollar media enterprise isn't -- no matter how easily they and others can become convinced of it -- a proxy for being honorable, accurate, documented, truthful, evidence-based, and reasonable.

Silver gives his methodology and anyone else can work at it using the same data.

Pundits and insider reporters claim the magic power to obtain the view of the true reality through their supposed powers of intuition and hidden reasoning and their repetition of things said by the powerful people they admire and associate with.

esky said...

When I was at CCNY in the '60's a wise history professor opened my eyes to the NYT. Who is it, he said, that decides which news is fit to print? Tht was 48 years ago and I've never forgotten it. The Times is a sham, a corporate "centrist" rag. The by lines of Safire, Kristol, Keller, Brooks, are self-explanatory.

daver said...

Both sides Do It.

...Oh, and if you vote for Willard, both sides won't do it as much.

(What a load of cynical, unamerican, traitorous rot, Bobo.)

eddie blake said...


Winski said...

First drift, Please don't hold your breadth for that public lashing to start -shame. Ms. Sullivan seems to be the hand-picked dictator witch swooping in on Rupe's word in his final perpetration for take-over the Times as his crowning achievement.

Sullivan clearly doesn't have the media skills even her British counter-clown Rebekka Brooks tried to display so nothing new in the Murdoch meme... Being the predictably socially acceptable path, Sullivan should just be shuffled out the back like all the rest of the third-rate help.