Arthur Brisbane was the Public Editor (ombudsman) for The New York Times. In his last column he made this observation:
In the same column Brisbane made the startling revelations that fire burns and water is wet. Not really, but that would be on the same level of stating the bloody obvious.
This timid acknowledgement that the The New York Times is as objective as the old Pravda, drew this rebuke from Jill Abramson, the Executive Editor for the Old Gray Lady:
The bias of the mainstream media is annoying to me. However, what is offensive is the pretended objectivity. That is an insult to my intelligence, and my eyes.
The man possesses a minuscule grasp of the obvious.
The so-called media is in the tank for the destructive liberal agenda and the leader of the choom gang.
This reminds me of panel that featured the PBS director and the head honcho of HBO among others. At one point they talked about the failure of Air America, the leftist version of right-wing radio. The HBO guy remarked that it failed because there was already left-wing media that was completely free: PBS and NPR. The PBS director promptly bleated out: “But we aren’t biased!” and the HBO director just said, “Yeah, keep telling yourself that.”
I am sure that in the hive mind of the New York Slimes, they consider themselves to be objective. Walter Duranty (no famine in Ukraine in the 1930s) and Herbert Mathews (late 1950s Fidel Castro apologist) are more than enough evidence that the Slimes has been biased for decades.
“… I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so…”
————————
-What planet is this boy on?
Don’t sell this story short. It’s a big deal. For a critique of the Times’ bias to be printed by the Times, that’s unusual. It also can become a point of reference for anyone arguing about media bias in general. But most importantly, I think the description of the dynamis of establishment bias was perfect. This article spells out exactly how it happens and exactly why it remains undiagnosable to those who do it. Good for Brisbane.
Well, duh! Sorry for the silly response, but the media in general have their causes and pet issues. Whichever side one falls on,politically, may drive whether they cease to view the media outlet or think its unbiased..that’s read, my bias is unbiased.
Ms. Abramson doth protest too much. The New York Times has endorsed the Democratic nominee for President 13 straight times. This November it will be 14.
In 2006, the New York Times endorsed every single Democratic candidate for Congress in the tri-state area; no Republicans. That’s not “keeping the paper straight”.
Abe Rosenthal did indeed, despite his progressive leanings, have some form of journalistic inegrity – so much that some thought he might have personally favored Ronald Reagan (maybe he just liked peace and prosperity). But nobody confuses A.M. Rosenthal with his late father. The paper – especially it’s opinion page – is becoming a predictible yawn that echoes what its base wants to hear. To those seeking actual intellectual enlightenment, look elsewhere. The Washington Post, while still a bit left of center, does a far better job of reflecting a range of public opinion.
It’s been thus since the 1920’s. the NYT motto is “All the news that’s fit to print with a pinkish tint.”