Self-Congratulations From Daniel Okrent

Daniel Okrent of the Times is, on the one hand, counting the days until his sentence to serve as public editor of the Times is up.  However, his year-end progress report is quite celebratory - the Times is more accurate, and less slanted!

The most poignant bit was this:

The Op-Ed columnists for the first time operate under a formal corrections policy, and if you haven't been seeing tons of corrections on the page, it may be for the best of reasons: judging by the shrinking volume of complaints I receive from readers, columnists' errors have become much less frequent.

I cannot speak for their entire vast readership, but for myself, my shrinking volume of complaints is due entirely to the fact that I have concluded that writing in tothe Times with a correction is a waste of time.

Although Mr. Okrent is referring to columnists specifically, my desire to avoid wasting both his time and mine is more general.  For a few examples:

- On Oct. 2, the Times interviewed John Kerry about his health, in order to facilitate his refusal to release his medical records.  The absurd comment about rice and shrapnel was never corrected, nor did I receive any response to my pointed observations.  This was all consistent with the near Cone of Silence the Times put over the Swift Boat story.  For those who chose to forget, here is how the WaPo treated one story after putting some news muscle into it (the phony headline is a rearguard action); here are some unanswered questions about Kerry's first Purple Heart that the Times will never even ask. 

- The Al Qa Qaa story dominated the last week of the election campaign.  The Saturday rowback, however, was not given the same prominence as the initial Monday front page story.

- Joseph Wilson was pushed onto the national stage by the NY Times, which let him leak anonymously to Nick Kristof, and then ran his famous "What I Didn't Find In Africa"  column.  Their coverage of his subsequent collapse was somewhat less diligent.

- As a final bonus, the Times election day Corrections was a comedy classic compilation of Bush-bashing errors.

Well, Merry Christmas anyway.

NOTE:  I will be blogging from a secure location with highly variable ISP services and ski conditions.  Snow, or blogging, may be light.

Comments

[Jor]

These stories obviously turned out to have little effect. Obviously if Kerry only, really, really deserved two medals instead of three, he would have been far less qualified than our drunk till he was 40 president.

In all the indignation over stories that were in the end, just more mastabotry material for bloggers, you convienently miss the biggest Times fuck up of the year.

I guess its hard to drink the "liberal media" kool aid, when they cheer-leaded dear leader's war in Iraq. No WMD, No Al Queda, No Democracy. Iranian spies as the main source. Twenty year old kids running the country. You might wonder, how it was possible for small outfits like knight rider to put the peices together, while that "liberal media" kept telling us that the insurgency would be put to rest next week. (every week was next week).

[Jor]

BTW, conservatives are actually very good at throwing hissy fits. Rather accidentily uses forged documents and you dont shut-up till hes fired. MoDo, makes up quotes on Kerry, and they become the main campaign meme, repeated thousands of times.

It's not a "liberal media", its an incompetent as all hell media. But that meme doesn't play into the conservative cult of victomology meme as well, does it? I mean, its hard enough to con yourself into being the victom when you control all three branches of govt.

[Steven Den Beste]

You gotta have some pity on Okrent. Talk about a thankless job...

[Michelle Malkin]

Here's another error on the op-ed page that went uncorrected: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000033.htm. A similar error was made by Slate, which provided a half-assed correction (see http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000835.htm).

[Michelle Malkin]

Note also that a reader asked Okrent's office for a correction and was blown off: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000039.htm

[Ed Driscoll]

Jor,

I'm surprised that you're putting the words liberal media in quotation marks, when Okrent himself wrote in July that "of course" the "New York Times is a liberal newspaper", joining a growing number of journalists who are willing to admit their biases.

So is it that the Times is not liberal enough for you, or are you arguing with Okrent, Walter Cronkite, Andy Rooney, Bernie Goldberg, Bob Zelnick and other journalists over the existence of left-leaning bias in the media?

[mikem]

If Rathergate was just a mistake, Jor, then why did Rather and CBS characterize Burkett as an "unimpeachable source"? No one, even among liberal reporters, would call Burkett, given his history, an unimpeachable source. Rather/CBS used that description when they still had confidence that they would never have to reveal his identity. That was a deliberate lie, meant to mislead the American public and give cover to other reporters who they were hoping would ignore CBS' critics.

[Yehudit]

"Rather accidentily uses forged documents and you dont shut-up till hes fired."

Rather shopped the documents to 4 different experts, all of whom refused to vet them. (One vetted the signature, then backpedaled.) Not to mention the dubious source of the documents, a former vet with mental problems and a long history of hatred of Bush. Rather went ahead with the story anyway. Mapes was working on that story for 5 years, and all they had to show was documents that no expert would vet, but he went ahead anyway. And this is the 2nd time 60 Minutes has used forged documents to smear someone, the other time they were successfully sued, you would think they would be ashamed to try again.

"Accidentally." Yeah, right.

[J. Peden]

I proudly haven't read the NYT for about 30 years, except for occasional checks to make sure I wasn't missing too much, just as has been my approach to the MSM.

You can't cure stupid, neither theirs, nor mine [?]. Though I did just email Naiomi Halpeirn [sp] at AP because I couldn't resist the hilarity of her response to the school teacher regarding the staged execution photo reporting, as photos "too important" to not report, comparing them to Somalia, Kent State, and presumably to Vietnam, as "flashpoints" or watersheds, or something. I don't care what she publishes, especially since I already knew we were fighting sadomasochists. I couldn't resist noting her apparent Messianic Complex in our service.

"Mission Accomplished"

[Spear Shaker]

Did Okrent even consider that fewer people are paying attention to the New York Times?? more:

[The Anchoress]

They were not forged documents. They were FAKE documents. Rather used FAKE documents and even to this day suggests that fake or real, the content should be considered. Sheesh.

[DaveS]

Jor: Re: "when you control all three branches of govt"

Your argument, such as it is, would be stronger if you got your information correct. The Republicans control two branches of govt-- the Executive Branch (i.e., the presidency and its administration) and the Legistaive Branch (i.e., the two HOUSES of Congress, to include the House of Representatives and the Senate). The third branch of govt, the Judicial Branch, has no party affiiation).

As to your point that the MSM is "incompetent as all hell." I can fully understand that; seeing as how they're liberal.

[Gel]

It's not a "liberal media", its an incompetent as all hell media.

Jor, you say this as if it isn't one in the same.

[Francis W. Porretto]

In some sense, Okrent is a sacrificial lamb. I can't imagine a post at the Times that an ambitious writer would want less. All the same, he has an obligation to be candid about the paper's missteps. It appears to me that in trying to fulfill that obligation while preserving his career prospects, he's erred in favor of the latter objective.

I have particularly in mind his flight from his post after the supposedly courageous column in which he admitted that the Times leans leftward, and his column several weeks later in which he changed course to posit that it was really an "urban" orientation.

[epoh]

I love the NY Times. It's my hometown newspaper. It's delivered to my doorstep each and every morning. The Times gives me a taste of a variety of stories and items. Is there left-wing bias? You betcha. Is there corporate bias? Oh, yeah. But it still manages to produce a scaled, comprehensive overviews of the local, national, and international scenes.

Sure, I also scurf (scan + surf) the blogs. But most of the interesting stuff simply links to MSM stories. Or links to other blogs, creating a toric echo chamber. Yawn.

What I find amusing is how the wingers love to slam the NY Times as hopelessly slanted towards the left, but love even more to use the Times as proof positive when they happen to mention something agreeable with the cons.

[brb]

If you get all of your news from the Times,or only beleive what you read there, you must understand that thoughtful analysis becomes all but impossible.

"If I can control what you know, I can control what you think." --Somebody , ferget who.

If you are ok with this, why bother even commenting? Why not slink back into your cocoon, watch the West Wing on DVD, and not disturb the illusion?

[brb]

Incidently, I totally agree with the though expressed here that the lack of angry e-mails regarding mistakes is more a sign of the Time's increasing irrelevance, than evidence that they are doing a better job.

The re-election of a president that the Times was willing to sacrifice her greatest asset, her credibility, in order to ensure his defeat makes it clear. The Gray Lady wears no clothes, and it is an ugly sight.

[moptop]

I wonder how many corrections requests The Nation recieves? Mother Jones? The Village Voice?

[Jor]

I eagerly await to hear which of the stories TM mentioned, even remotely rivals this
Never attribute to malace that which can be equally attributed to idiocy.

[brb]

Wow, Jor, the story you cited was an obvious attempt by the Times to distance themselves from the war and protect their subscriptions to readers like epoh, who do not want their ideas questioned. Keep reading the DNC newsletter if it please you, the point is that they do not set the agenda any more.

[antiphone]

As to your point that the MSM is "incompetent as all hell." I can fully understand that; seeing as how they're liberal.

There you have it. American political discourse is basically at the level of “you’ve got cooties, nah nah na nah nah”. All hail the consevatarian blogs, playground bullies all grown up, typing out tedious insults on play station internets. What a waste.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Never attribute to malace that which can be equally attributed to idiocy.

As long as you insist on hanging around, Bor, we shall never need to be reminded of this maxim.

[Roj]

Antiphone, please take a second to look in the mirror. What you're seeing is the typical rant from Jor and the likes, except your rant was A LOT shorter than we're used to.

I find that most of the effort here is in defending against the libelous mean-spirited personal attacks on the intelligence and integrity of people you don't even know. "Playground bully?" Please! Is there an actual idea in your comment? Will there be in the near future? I come here for civilized discourse, not a lecture from you or Jor.

I have yet to see a civilized disagreement by the left on this site, or much of anywhere else for that matter, that actually makes a point without stereotyping all conservatives as heartless baby-killers. In that respect you haven't changed much at all since my years at UC in the late 60s or when I returned from Viet Nam in the early 70s.

Zell Miller is right on the mark: stay the current course and you'll stay a minority party for years.

[antiphone]

Well Roj, playground bullies is about right and guess what I’m not “the left”. I’m not “a minority party”. I’m an individual and I’m certain that you never met me in the 60s, or the 70s either. Stereotyping a bit?

Let me clarify something, I wasn’t talking about everyone who would describe their political orientation as conservative or to the right. The word consevatarian has a point. You may not agree but there’s no need to pretend it’s not there. Maybe it’s too subtle for you.

As for “libelous mean-spirited personal attacks on the intelligence and integrity of people you don't even know”, “stereotyping all conservatives as heartless baby-killers”, call me crazy but I think that’s a bit over the top.

[M. Simon]

Roj,

Which UC? The real one in Chicago? Or the fake one in California. :-)

BTW for all you: "the war is lost guys" - do we owe anything to the democrats of Iraq? Or should we just leave and let the "freedom fighters" kill them once we leave?

If it was just incompetence on the part of the NYT why was the incompetence only in one direction - anti-Bush?

[Jack Tanner]

MSimon - the point I was going to make - but you beat me to it. If it were just little mistakes and inaccuracies they would tend to even out over time, but strangely they don't. They're all anti-Bush mistakes or anti conservative or anti-Red State or however you want to classify them all the time. But it's actually good that the MSM and it's deluded defenders continue to deny the bias because otherwise they might stop their slide into irrelevance.

[antiphone]

do we owe anything to the democrats of Iraq? Or should we just leave and let the "freedom fighters" kill them once we leave?

The situation is serious, on this we can all agree. It’s also complex, right? Though we would all prefer a simple choice that would give us peace of mind and guarantee the moral high ground, honesty demands more from us. The logic of war runs counter to considerations of what is best for all sides. The logic of war simplifies all complexity and overcomes all other priories in the pursuit of victory. This can only be morally justified in the case of self defense, which is why wars of aggression are described by those who initiate them as defensive actions.

That's not just spin, it's the way the world works. Phrases like “national interest” are elastic and can be used to mean different things by different people, with different interests. Words are not meaningless but they are too often used as containers stuffed with assumptions. We can shuffle unexamined assumptions back and forth across the table day and night without understanding what we’re talking about for a moment. As to the questions you posed, I would ask you to acknowledge some of the assumptions contained within them.

If we are going to discuss the fate of the Iraqi people in terms of their self interest, and if we are going to discuss the self interests of the people of United States we should admit they will not always be in accord with one another. Neither will they be always opposed to each other. They are separate strands of logic, that has to be acknowledged if they are to be reconciled fairly. I’m all for that, and I think it requires somewhat of a departure from the simplified logic of war. The tricky thing about victory in war, that seems so elusive when you look at history, is how to make it stick.

[antiphone]

the MSM and it's deluded defenders continue to deny the bias

What I can say, is that the accumulated errors of the New York Times do not add up to a net benefit for my point of view. Personally, I’m not looking for errors to reinforce my opinions, are you? It’s interesting to note the command of data necessary for a statement like this.

They're all anti-Bush mistakes or anti conservative or anti-Red State or however you want to classify them all the time.

Such incredible consistency might be explained by a simple rule for evaluating the New York Times. If it benefits Bush it’s correct, if it does not benefit Bush it’s a mistake. Apply this rule and the bias becomes very clear.

[Jack Tanner]

I think they're errors when they show up in the corrections column.

[Roj]

M. Simon, the "fake" one as in UC Santa Cruz - a veritable hot bed of conservative thought. :-) Ronaldous Maximous Reagan was governator of California then, remember?

antiphone, thanks for the clarification. And your point on stereotyping is noted, though I was making my point intentionally by exageration and stereotyping as an illustration of my frustration with those who visit here and throw around such "antistereotypes" with ease.

It has been my observation here that little has changed in the last 40 years WRT the self-proclaimed moral and intellectual superiority of the left and that plenty of what I hear here fits the mold of the "free speech" totalitarians' thought process that I observed at UC and continue to see today in many venues. Personally, I am almost to the point of deciding to quit wasting my precious time even trying to discuss anything rationally with some people of the "ad hominem left" who always seem to want to have the first, middle and last word on everything.

As for being over the top - maybe, maybe not. As a conservative who voted "red" in a "red state" I have been labled, among other things, ignorant, backward, stupid, unsophisticated, poor, religious fanatic, etc, etc, etc, as has president Bush been referred to as a nazi, a liar, a drunk, who made up the war in Texas, went to war for oil, etc, etc, etc, as has been the case on this site and others on numerous occasions.

Therefore, if the shoe fits, wear it, otherwise my comments don't apply to you, and I'm more than happy to participate in intelligent, mutually respectful, civilized discourse. That includes the fact that just because I happen to disagree with you, Jor or anyone else here, that I am not automatically wrong, misinformed, stupid, or even that I lack the ability to detect the subtlety of your comments or arguments.

[antiphone]

I am not automatically wrong, misinformed, stupid, or even that I lack the ability to detect the subtlety of your comments or arguments.
Well Roj, I need to work on my own manners so, I’m sorry for being shrill.

Now, about the NYT:

I think they're errors when they show up in the corrections column.

That’s not an unreasonable thing to do, assuming the correction is correct.

But of course there are lots of errors that never receive a correction, and then there are what you might call errors of omission. I’ll give an example of a case that includes error, omission and a correction that may or may not be correct. I don’t see it as evidence of partisan bias along party lines. It’s bad journalism because it reflects a lack of commitment to following up and reporting the truth. Who benefits from this abdication of responsibility? I leave that to you decide.

If you followed news about Iraq in the prewar period you would undoubtably have encountered a guy named Khidir Hamza. He played the role similar to that of Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi opposition figure with expertise on the subject of Iraq’s WMD capability. Unlike Chalabi, Hamza has vanished from the media. Last mention I know was April 17, 2004 when Patrick Cockburn reported in the Independant, UK:

Once he was a prize witness before congressional committees, arguing that the US must invade Iraq immediately because Saddam Hussein possessed a fearsome arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Given a top job in Baghdad after the war, he has now been quietly sacked by the US authorities.

Khidir Hamza was the dissident Iraqi nuclear scientist who played an important role persuading Americans to go to war in Iraq. His credentials appeared impeccable because he claimed to have headed Saddam's nuclear programme before defecting in 1994.

After the war, Dr Hamza was rewarded, to the distress of many Iraqi scientists, with a well-paid job as the senior advisor to the Ministry of Science and Technology. Appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, he had partial control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries.

The omission If you search the NYT for "Khidhir Hamza" you’ll find nothing since May 4, 2003. That article can be found here:

The correction: If you search for the name as spelled “Khidir Hamza” there is one correction:

Published: October 18, 2003

An article on Sept. 28 about the Defense Intelligence Agency's assessment of information provided by Iraqi defectors misstated the relationship between Khidir Hamza, the most senior Iraqi official ever to defect from Iraq's nuclear program, and Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress. After fleeing Iraq in 1994, Mr. Hamza acted on on (sic) his own to make contact with American officials; he was not brought out of Iraq by Mr. Chalabi's organization.

Published: 10 - 18 - 2003 , Late Edition - Final , Section A , Column 3 , Page 2

Error? The correction above actually contradicts considerably more than the one article in which they were admitting error, it contradicts the story the NYT had been telling since as far as August 15, 1998 when JUDITH MILLER and JAMES RISEN reported:

According to United States intelligence officials and Iraqi dissident leaders familiar with Hamza's case, he fled Baghdad in September 1994 by hiring a smuggler to get him to the Kurdish haven in northern Iraq. There he sought out Ahmed Chalabi, a fellow graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who at the time was working with the Central Intelligence Agency as head of the Iraqi National Congress, an American-backed opposition group. After Chalabi put Hamza in touch with the C.I.A., the scientist was astonished and furious to learn that the agency was not interested in helping him defect to the United States, Chalabi said in an interview.

A former American intelligence official who was involved in the C.I.A.'s initial negotiations with Hamza now acknowledges that the agency erred in its initial handling of the Iraqi scientist...

[and then eventually]

...Hamza fled to Tunisia and then to Hungary, intelligence officials said. From there, he made contact with Chalabi and an official with another Iraqi dissident group, the Iraqi National Accord, which had onnections to both American and British intelligence.

Finally, he arranged to meet with the C.I.A.'s station chief at the American Embassy in Budapest and was soon on his way to Washington, intelligence officials said.

And the rest is history, or something like it.

[Roj]

antiphone, I hate to be mutually agreeable, but I couldn't agree more with your point. Bad journalism is probably trumping biases. I suspect it derives at least in part from a heard mentality and some level of laziness on the part of the press. Unfortunately, there is also often a large helping of "gotcha journalism" thrown in.

Here's where I disagree with one of your earlier characterizations of the blogs: I'm thinking the internet and the blogs in particular are already starting to cause us all to look at the product of journalism from a different perspective. For instance, look again at the wealth of information you and others here are able to cite that are dug up from original sources, some perhaps linked from blog sites, some of it straight stuff and some of it arguably BS. We can talk about control mechanisms in a later thread perhaps. For now caveat emptor.

I'd also have to say that I don't think there is an intended liberal bias in the MSM or even at the NYT. I do believe there is a bias but it is based on the world view of the reporters. That is, it is their natural "bent" to see the world in a certain way and to report on events from within that mindset. I believe this was Dan Rather's problem: he saw what he "knew" to be true and what he "wanted" to see. How else could he have said that although the documents were probably fake, the story was true nonetheless? See Bernie Goldberg's two excellent books on the subject.

Why, for instance do we prattle on and on in the press during any election cycle about who's ahead, who's behind, what do the latest polls say, etc? A vibrant and ultimately useful press should be doing their job to dig out the facts about candidates' and party's plans and policies, then disect, analyze, and compare, contrast, and, yes, critique the potential for positive or negative results should their ideas become law. Let's argue the facts that the press helps us mine. I don't have much hope that we'll have that level of discourse in the upcoming debate on what to do with the SS system.

Another example: I have yet to see a very informative, in depth treatment of ALL SIDES of the Kyoto accords and potential for global warming. I personally believe Kyoto would be a disaster for our country and that the threat from global warming is largely overstated by the press and politicians alike, but that's my opinion based on the reading I've done to date and the fact that I simply just don't trust politicians in general, especially when they speak for the UN. Whether I've come to a right or wrong conclusion as a voter is important. I'd like to see the press go after all the details and fine points including climate modeling, economic impacts, etc, etc, rather than "who cares? stuff" like what the Europeans think of the fact that we haven't ratified Kyoto yet, or the typical cookie-cutter article we most often see that quotes other articles in the press as its sources.

The framers of the constitution, I believe, intended the press to be something of a balance to unteathered governmental power by exposing its exercise to the light of day, hence the first amendment. I simply don't believe most of the MSM currently fulfills that obligation.

[Roj]

Here's an example from the AP regarding the result of the Ohio recount (borrowed from Blogs for Bush):

"Both Kerry and Bush picked up votes in the recount, 734 and 449 respectively. The majority of these votes came from previously disqualified ballots that were counted in the recount because "hanging chads had come loose when ballots were handled again or rerun through counting machines."

Bush's initial victory of 118,775 was negligibly reduced to 118,457. The 285 vote pick up for Kerry will end up cost the Ohio taxpayers $1.5 million.

And how does the AP headline this story? "Ohio Recount Ends, Shows Vote Closer" The 285 vote pickup represents a whopping .24% of Bush's final margin of victory...that's less than one quarter of one percent.

Literally the vote was closer, but a more accurate title would have been "Negligible Change After Ohio Recount."

I doubt the editors at the AP would understand the biased world view poking through the headline here.

[Jor]

I concur that there is bias that creeps in sometimes, but that stupidity is generally the overriding problem. As far as policy analysis is concerned, that stuff is "too hard". And really, whats more important? The entire god damn press corp has practically adopted the Maureen Dowds column style to their analysis. It's so sad.

[antiphone]

Well Roj we undoubtably agree on many principals but you raised a lot of issues we would probably disagree about based on implementation. For the sake of clarity, I’m pro-blog in theory though in practice I’m often disappointed. The articles I linked to are on one of my blogs, they’re posted there for reference not as an endorsement of the contents.

To stick with the subject of the media, I’d say the media is politicized but not necessarily in the straightforward, liberal vs conservative way that’s often assumed. It’s politicized partly because collectively they have the power to influence public opinion, where there is power there are politics. There are resulting pressures and incentives from those who’s interests are at stake and there is competition within and among individual media organizations. So these politics are driven by forces distinct from the average tax paying, voting citizen, creating a class division that’s more top from bottom, than left from right.

[antiphone]

how does the AP headline this story? "Ohio Recount Ends, Shows Vote Closer" The 285 vote pickup represents a whopping .24% of Bush's final margin of victory...that's less than one quarter of one percent.
Literally the vote was closer, but a more accurate title would have been "Negligible Change After Ohio Recount."

Yeah but the difference there can also be explained by a “news bias’, who wants to read about something negligible. It’s a bit of the old, dog bites man is not a story, man bites dog, is.

Oh god, now I’m defending them.

[Jor]

Let's compare bias at "liberal" msm, to the bias and/or integrity at conservative publications. The communists at Reason, provide us a story about bias in the preeminent conservative publications, by the pre-eminent talking heads. The moral depravity and lack of any semblance of integrity is just shameful. I must say though, the conservative blogsophere, has generally responded significantly better than the conservative talking heads.

[Roj]

I agree on both major points. Perhaps the discussion has been better cast in terms of the "elite media" rather than the "liberal (or conservative) media." I think the general principles remain the same regarding journalists being driven by their world view, whether it be horizontally or vertically derived.

Another version of your second point is that "good news" just doesn't sell like "bad news." I seem to recall the observation from someone in the media that you don't write a news story about the house that didn't burn down. If you check the military bloggers reporting from Iraq and elsewhere it is certainly one of their main complaints that the success stories aren't being told: a point not totally without merit in my opinion even in the context of "man bites dog" reporting.

In many respects I believe the internet in general and the blogosphere in particular represents the "democratization" of news delivery. Talk radio is arguably in this category also. In either case, unfortunately, one has to possess a certain level of cynicism or you end up believing in all sorts of conspiracy theories, hence "let the buyer (reader, hearer) beware." Although on balance I think it's almost always good to have healthy doubts about anyone's "facts."

[Roj]

A point of clarification: My agreement is with antiphone's two points and with the first of Jor's. I'm still pondering Jor's second response.

Actually, I enjoy reading Reason, communist or not. Not sure I can go the whole way toward agreeing with the "moral depravity" characterization but I also don't think we should trivialize actual torture. I would suggest, though, that there is a somewhat broader context to the preponderance of the statements than that provided by the Reason article. Part of that context is what we should consider torture and what we should consider agressive interrogation. It is clearly a valid and important journalistic consideration to address and even debate these considerations, but again it requires "homework" on the part of the journalist.

[jack tanner]

'I doubt the editors at the AP would understand the biased world view poking through the headline here.'

Right!! Sure!! And just coincidentally it reflects positively on the Dems and reinforces their lunatic vote fraud theories. It's just a silly mistake that they don't even know they're making. No 'healthy doubts' needed.

[Roj]

Jack, I didn't mean to imply that the mistake is inconsequential, just that, given the world view of the preponderance of the MSM, they are just acting true to form - unfortunately without even realizing their natural biases.

This is also Bernie Goldberg's point in both of his excellent books on the subject. Pardon my redundancy but my point is that there's no conspiracy here just an elite media with a particular world view and with very few dissenting opinions from "the template."

[Jack Tanner]

You're not making sense - you're saying that the mistakes are a result of incompetence - if they were they'd tend both ways. Then you're saying that the bias isn't a conspiracy, who said it was?, it's just reflective of the worldview. OK - what're editors for then? It's accepted practice and as I said at the beginning it's great that the defenders don't acknowledge it.

[Jim Glass]

"The Op-Ed columnists for the first time operate under a formal corrections policy..."

Yeah? Well this is the anniversary of Krugman's ...

"Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean was a momentous event."

... and I haven't seen any correction yet. So I don't see what Okrent is bragging about.

[Roj]

Jack, I'm not disagreeing totally with your point. I actually don't think they're incompetent, I think they're lemings. The editors are cut from the same cloth so they will never pick up the bias. Yes, I do agree there is a bias. It is, however, a bias that they themselves do not acknowledge, nor do they even perceive it. They learn it in journalism school and they continue to express it to "make a difference." I would argue that it is not the job of the press to "make a difference" - it is their job to give us the truth.

Incompetence is an excuse I will not offer them. In fact, I am not attempting to offer them excuses at all. As I have indicated previously, their biases render them largely irrelevent as journalists.

[Tim]

Media / Political Bias: There is no such thing as an objective point of view

[Tim]

Some recent posts at Dr. Cline's blog that might interest:

Does journalism have a class bias?...
Get back to fundamentals...

[David]

I used to write to Okrent a lot. Now I hardly ever do. I have given up on him. In fact, I've almost given up on the Times.

I agree that their new formal policy on op-ed corrections is honored in the breach. Nevertheless, overall I think Okrent did as good a job as the Times let him. I'll be surprised if his successor does as well.

[Jor]

Welch at Reason has another good article on the conservative obsession with media bias.

[Harry]

I'd hardly limit this to a conservative obsession. Wasn't Air America (interesting choice for a liberal media name, given that it was the CIA airline in Viet Nam, and I don't recall liberals in the 60s and 70s being big fans of the CIA) created so that liberals could balance the talk radio conservative bias?

[Libertarian Girl]

I once sent an email to the New York Times about an error in an op-ed article, but my email was ignored.

[mikem]

I read a good article about the African American obsession with racial bias. They're such whiners!

[rose]

whiners huh lol!

[tyler]

Just ran into this blog and seems to me that half the page is cut off? I cant seem to read the post...

[TM]

Really? I would try re-loading it.