«
»

The NY Times‘ Mea Culpa?

Monday, June 28th, 2004

This seems pretty outrageous to me.

Can anyone envision the paper doing the same thing for a Republican president’s memoirs?

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

This entry was posted on Monday, June 28th, 2004 at 12:12 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

11 Responses to “The NY Times‘ Mea Culpa?”

  1. #1 |  Frank N - 'unwilling but subserviant bitch to the machine' |  June 28th, 2004 at 12:28 pm

    When I stop laughing, I’ll say something amusing about the difference between critics, reporters and editors.

  2. #2 |  Zach |  June 28th, 2004 at 12:45 pm

    I concur.

  3. #3 |  Bronwyn |  June 28th, 2004 at 3:08 pm

    This is me thanking myself for cancelling my subscription to that rag two years ago.

    “And what is your reason for cancelling your subscription, ma’am?”

    I signed up for the news, not editorialising – at least not outside the editorials page. Your paper is great for getting news, but it is so tainted with editorial opinion that I just can’t stomach it anymore.

    “Ma’am, we struggle to ensure that there is no bias in our news reporting.”

    Well maybe ya’ll need to struggle a little harder. Thanks, bye.

  4. #4 |  Frank N - 'unwilling but subserviant bitch to the machine' |  June 28th, 2004 at 4:19 pm

    I have to ask, what’s a Bronwyn?…besides none of my business.

  5. #5 |  David Adams |  June 28th, 2004 at 4:52 pm

    Did you see the Times’ coverage of Reagan’s death? Besides, is TimesWatch.com really a non-biased source on their reasoning here?

  6. #6 |  Bronwyn, Spawn of Gods |  June 28th, 2004 at 5:02 pm

    Well, Frank N, a Bronwyn is a name – it just so happens that it’s my name.

    Bronwyn means ‘fair bosom’ to the Welsh folk (Most guys blush when I tell them that, then they look at my chest for confirmation.) It was also the name of the Welsh sea god’s daughter (Branwen). She was locked up in a tower, very Rapunzel-like.

    You show me your blog, I’ll show you mine. *snerk*

  7. #7 |  Bruce |  June 28th, 2004 at 5:12 pm

    The New York Times? Lacking credibility? You’re kidding. I would never have guessed. By the way, that’s satire for all our liberal, humor-impaired friends.

  8. #8 |  Frank N |  June 28th, 2004 at 11:07 pm

    Well, I ask, I know. *blushes*

    I’ve promised myself for a month to start a blog at LiveJournal but I’m a corporate slacker. I fear I might accomplish something if I start a blog. Maybe tomorrow or before Christmas, I’ll let you know.

  9. #9 |  jyi |  June 29th, 2004 at 5:06 am

    Besides, is TimesWatch.com really a non-biased source on their reasoning here?

    Is anyone that reports on the bias of another unbiased?

    Can you form an unbiased opinion based on two conflicting accounts of bias?

  10. #10 |  Jon H |  June 30th, 2004 at 9:05 am

    The Times frequently publishes multiple reviews of the same book, by different reviewers. It’s common enough that I find it annoying, like, why aren’t they done with this book yet, why are they reviewing it AGAIN?

    The reason for the PR in this case may be because of the celebrity quotient of the latest reviewer, Larry McMurtry.

    By comparison, the first interview was by Kakutani, who’s just the Times’ in-house staff hack. “NY Times Book Reviewer Reviews Book” is not worthy of a press release. “Famous Author Reviews Book” probably is.

  11. #11 |  Jon H |  June 30th, 2004 at 9:06 am

    Oh, and if the Times were reviewing a notable book by a Republican, they’d probably run multiple reviews, and if one of the reviewers were especially noteworthy, they’d probably issue a press release.