Powered by TypePad

« Who Is Robert Mintz of "Texans For Truth" | Main | New DNC Attack - Bush Lied In 1978 »

September 13, 2004


Tom Bowler

"If the reporters and editors of the Times commit themselves to dragging Kerry across the line, and succeed (unlikely)..."

When was there ever any doubt about their commitment? The fact that it now appears unlikely is just dumb luck. Let me not under emphasize "dumb". If their chosen candidate was not so utterly pathetic he'd be breezing into the White House. That's how Clinton got elected in 1992.

Harry Forbes

Exactly how Clinton got elected. He polled 43% and that was after the media persuaded Perot to stay in the race and pumped him up like mad.

But that was BEFORE the Web and Blogs existed.


According to:

it would seem that CBS News (and probagbly other MSM "news" organizations) should register with the FEC as 527 Organizations.


Daniel Orkent is more than a public editor, he's a public embarrassment. He cheerfully looks the other way while the Times shamelessly slants its news coverage of the campaign. When the Times chose Orkent for their first public editor, they chose well. He's a cocker spaniel, administering a small nip now and then, but mostly just happy to be in their company, playing at their feet and showing them love.

Uncle Mikey

"Is the NYT a partisan rag that's self-destructing?


- Okrent


Are we still hoping Okrent will become a clear-eyed, clean-hearted reviewer of NYT practices and prejudices? And exactly what leads us to believe he's even capable of seeing the NYT in an unbiased light?

He has never come close to admitting the errors and slant of a huge percentage of Times political stories, concentrating instead on errors in execution and method. It's as if you've asked a member of the Brotherhood of Edwardian Slashers to critique Jack the Ripper, and he faults Jack for an unprofessional choice of blade.


Are we still hoping Okrent will become a clear-eyed, clean-hearted reviewer of NYT practices and prejudices?

Hmm, what the heck *is* my point? Because no, I do not expect reform.

And one might argue that if he does write about it before the election, it will be so tepid that reporters will realize that "out of bounds" is even further from the center than they thought.

My hope is that he will mention the issue, and then other MSM will commence to mock them - at least the story of Kerry's non-disclosure of everything will be in the news.


I am reminded of the Newsweek that arrived the day AFTER 2000 election day. The writer who had spent months on the campaign trail with Al Gore related how he micro-managed, fired people when things went wrong, didn't listen to people who knew better, and other traits you wouldn't want in the head of a small company, let alone a large country. I thought: this would have changed my vote.

David Nishimura

What was Okrent thinking with that theatre analogy?
Or is The Times now going to publish a review only after a show has closed?


I have this vision of Kerry as Gulliver, and the media as Lilliputians trying in vain to drag him over the finish line of the election.

Or maybe Kerry as the Frankenstein monster, and the media up on the tower trying to attract lightning bolts to get him going.


...the media up on the tower...

Kristof: "It's alive!"


After months of exasperating contacts with NYT ombudsman Dan Okrent, I wrote ABOUT him rather than to him. Resultant "Dunce" article led to a public exchange with Okrent re his negligence and specific errors, his claims that his "purview" at the Times is limited, the opaque "apparatus that rules the nation" of which "the Times is a significant component," and journalism as democracy's only hope.

Full text at http://urielw.com/nyt/dunce.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.