Wednesday, May 31, 2017

We don't need no stinkin' public editor

Daily Caller: "The NYT Justification For Killing The Public Editor Position Is Woefully Inadequate At Best."

Basically, the Grey Lady is getting rid of their ombudsman because it claims it can process concerns and criticism through social media.  Have you ever seen the NYT comments page?  It runs the full gamut of political thought from "A" to "B".


Anonymous said...

The rigid, uniform attacks on the New York Times, and the more recent embrace of the bubbleheaded "fake news!" descriptor killed the public editor. People embrace/annihilate the Times regardless of what the paper does or thinks or writes. What purpose does a public editor serve to a public that already knows exactly what it thinks before it looks at the product?

Eric said...

Well, it's true that there are biases.

When I was in college, though, I read the NY Times daily and subscribed to Rolling Stone. Was it my beliefs that changed or the media? I tend to think it was a certain viewpoint that started to bleed over from the editorial pages into EVERY SINGLE issue.

Anonymous said...

Were you born in 1940? This is the 1960 documentary "Primary," showing about a minute and a half of candidate Hubert Humphrey telling solid, traditional middle American farmers that the east coast elites and the media (including the New York Times) are all laughing at them:

But then, you'd expect farmers to react to their ox being gored. What's everyone else's excuse?

Or maybe you were born during our nation's centennial in 1876? Because by the 1890s, William Jennings Bryan was attacking the media for the same kinds of things, including using the term "fake news." I bet Bryan would've hated Rolling Stone.