Submit your comments on this article | |
Home Front: Culture Wars | |
Out-Foxing The Times | |
2009-09-30 | |
The New York Times, still smarting after losing scoops to Fox News, has thrown in the towel, vowing to avoid future embarrassment by monitoring the cable channel. We have a better idea -- it's called reporting. An Illinois senator rises to the highest office in the land on pillars of a spectacularly slimy political organization, a group with a long record of voter fraud, theft, thuggery and partisanship. As sexy as such a story might seem, the New York Times didn't consider it news. That's why the Times got scooped by outlets such as Fox News, for which it has nothing but contempt, on revelations that led to the fall of community organizing behemoth Acorn. The wound was self-inflicted, rooted in little more than the partisanship of protecting a favored president. It left the field clear for a couple of journalism students to show that Acorn staffers openly encouraged pimping, child prostitution, human trafficking, mortgage fraud and tax evasion. It's right there on tapes posted to Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com. Unlike the disdainful Times, Fox ran with it, toppling a behemoth of political power. Fox's judgment now seems to play the role the Times' once did, and the Times is no doubt left wondering how it could have lost out on yet another one. It's not the first: It missed the John Edwards mistress and baby scandal in campaign 2008; it missed the National Endowment for the Arts press conference shilling for Obama;
Now it's missed the Acorn scandals -- all because of its "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues dominating Fox News and talk radio," according to managing editor Jill Abramson, who will now "assign an (unnamed) editor to monitor opinion media." Baloney. Those Fox stories had impact because they were fact-, not opinion-based. The public agreed, and the politicians were forced to act. The Times' "monitor" idea smears Fox as an opinion outfit whose product must be handled with tongs. In fact, it's ideological bias that keeps Times journalists from covering the news with impact. The newspaper of record should be reporting the news "without fear or favor," as its motto says -- not simply by accepting the liberal line. If they happen to hit their favorite politicians, too bad. Because if they don't do this, they aren't newsmen. By taking a cheap shot at Fox and then bitterly following it instead of leading, the Times blows its credibility even more than its missed scoops do. | |
Posted by:Fred |
#13 They could raise their price if they positioned themselves as bird-cage liner . . . . |
Posted by: gorb 2009-09-30 23:31 |
#12 This won't work for them either. Simply watching Fox and reporting on stories Fox breaks is going to help Fox make a further laughing stock out of the Times. The only way they are going to see another decade is to remarket themselves as a paper for coastal sophisticates or to stop shouting about how much integrity they have and actually get some. Which would require a complete reboot of the entire institution. Bawwing about and attacking people who beat them to stories isn't going to work. Neither will following them to a story. I think they know this and that's why I think this new position isn't about getting to the stories Fox beats them too, it's about collecting ammo to use against Fox when Fox makes a mistake. I firmly believe this new postion is about sliming the competition. |
Posted by: Mike N. 2009-09-30 18:48 |
#11 no, pen1s envy. |
Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-09-30 16:31 |
#10 Where's Sigmund Freud when you really need him? Are we talking about projection here? |
Posted by: gorb 2009-09-30 12:13 |
#9 Start a Minute 3:00 to see how Glenn Beck could cause a half a million deaths |
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2009-09-30 11:31 |
#8 “It's not the first: It missed the John Edwards mistress and baby scandal…” Not exactly missed as much as chose not to pursue. Their mealy mouth excuse was they couldn’t find a credible second source. Of course, that didn’t prevent them from printing a salacious and totally non-sourced hit piece on McCain during the same period. |
Posted by: DepotGuy 2009-09-30 11:03 |
#7 In fact, it's ideological bias that keeps Times journalists from covering the news with impact. The NYSlimes idea of 'impact' is to publish 32 consecutive front page stories on the Abu Ghraib scandal. 32. Consecutive. Front. Page. |
Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007 2009-09-30 10:29 |
#6 I couldn't watch Behar's show. I put a stupidity filter on my TV |
Posted by: Frank G 2009-09-30 09:31 |
#5 Last night I couldn't find the remote and watched Joy Behar's new show on HLN. She had Bette Midler on and she cited that she feared that Glenn Beck's demagoguery could incite a Rwanda type clash in the US that could result in the demise of a half a million people. Wow! Where's Sigmund Freud when you really need him? |
Posted by: HammerHead 2009-09-30 08:25 |
#4 Here's a clue for the NY Times. News is what other people DON'T want you to know. Regurgitating press releases from PR outfits your journalists are friendly with is not news. |
Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-09-30 06:17 |
#3 Perhaps this explains the NYT 5yr stock loss of 78.5%. |
Posted by: Jumbo Slinerong5015 2009-09-30 04:39 |
#2 Jill Abramson, who will now "assign an (unnamed) editor to monitor opinion media." And Maureen Dowd announced she was taking a break from "serious" writing -whatever that means. Coincidence? |
Posted by: Pappy 2009-09-30 01:08 |
#1 To be fair, I doubt anybody played a recording of that teleconference for the editors of the New York Times. They hadn't an NEA Deep Throat, unlike Mr. Breitbart. 1. A Deep Throat wouldn't go to the Times. The best he/she could expect would be to be ignored; they would also have to worry about being turned in. 2. The Times problem is that they ignore stories even after Fox or Briebart report them. They seem to have the idea that if a tree falls in the forest but the Times doesn't report it then it never happened. |
Posted by: DoDo 2009-09-30 00:47 |