September 27, 2009

NY Times Public Editor Speaks About Coverage of ACORN, etc.

Hoyt, the NY Times Public Editor rambles on about how and why the Times provided scant coverage to the ACORN story and the resignation of Van Jones, an Obama 'czar' that were rampant on the Internet. A couple of quotes below show that he may have some understanding why I and many millions of people believe the Times has become a 'flack' for TeamObama.

The Times is a liberal, biased newspaper, just as Fox News is a conservative biased cable network. To pretend this is not the case is ridiculous. If they believe they are 'fair and balanced' as Fox is wont to say, they are kidding themselves.
Be not deceived!

"But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself."

Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.”

Despite what the critics think, Abramson said the problem was not liberal bias.

How can she say this and believe it? Abramson is obviously in denial.

Here's a story in the Washington Post about ACORN's corruptness that just as well could have run in the New York Times were they not editorially a TeamObama mouthpiece.

No comments: