Junebug
Well-known member
This happened on Saturday, but I don't see it mentioned on the board. From his parting editorial:
I also noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.
When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.
Stepping back, I can see that as the digital transformation proceeds, as The Times disaggregates and as an empowered staff finds new ways to express itself, a kind of Times Nation has formed around the paper’s political-cultural worldview, an audience unbound by geography (as distinct from the old days of print) and one that self-selects in digital space.
Full editorial here: http://www.google.com/gwt/x?wsc=vb&...?_r=3&smid=tw-share&ei=PmY7UPCGLYLGmgeyuICoCw
I stopped reading the Times about 10 years ago. The straw that broke the camel's back was an article that referred to Scalia and Thomas as "conservative" justices and Breyer and Ginsburg as "moderate" ones.
ETA--the news isn't that the NYT has a liberal bias. It's that an editor admits it.
I also noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.
When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.
Stepping back, I can see that as the digital transformation proceeds, as The Times disaggregates and as an empowered staff finds new ways to express itself, a kind of Times Nation has formed around the paper’s political-cultural worldview, an audience unbound by geography (as distinct from the old days of print) and one that self-selects in digital space.
Full editorial here: http://www.google.com/gwt/x?wsc=vb&...?_r=3&smid=tw-share&ei=PmY7UPCGLYLGmgeyuICoCw
I stopped reading the Times about 10 years ago. The straw that broke the camel's back was an article that referred to Scalia and Thomas as "conservative" justices and Breyer and Ginsburg as "moderate" ones.
ETA--the news isn't that the NYT has a liberal bias. It's that an editor admits it.
Last edited:
