Arther Brisbane is the NYT 's "Public Editor." That means, according to the Slimes,"the readers' representative." Is that the same as Ombudsman? That was Charley Blow's job at the Slimes, but, well, he was too aptly named it seems. A while back Brisbane "touched off a blog and Twitter firestorm by asking whether the newspaper’s reporters should be “truth vigilantes?'"
| “ | Many of the responses expressed shock that the paper would even have to ask such a question — what else should a media outlet like the NYT be doing?
| ” |
That prompted the rest of America to wonder, who's dumber? NYT readers for evidently thinking the Times seeks truth? Or, Brisbane for thinking his employer give a rat's ass? I digress.
In Sunday's "A Hard Look at the President," he admits the Times didn't do a very good job of vetting Obama in 2008. But first— the obligatory equivalency shot across the enemy bow ↓).
| “ | .Eight years ago, The Times offered comparably scant campaign coverage of the incumbent, George W. Bush, even as it blanketed readers with articles about Senator John Kerry and others competing for the Democratic nomination. ( Dirty Johnny is waving his arm furiously, something about "ass" and "kissing,"but I'm not going to call on him). | ” |
Continuing, there is a brief wonderment.
| “ | Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.
According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, [this is rich] “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?”
[Still— Horry Clap! Maybe this guy's actually trying!]
[Whoops]
I strongly doubt that. Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites.
[Me— "Sh_t!"]  | ” |
|
|
