Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn Inside Look at How NYT's Ownership Meddled with Coverage to Push Their Pet Projects
http://www.alternet.org/media/inside-look-how-nyts-ownership-meddled-coverage-push-their-pet-projectsWhen Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post last month, many wondered if and how the newspapers coverage would change. Would ownership by a right-libertarian billionaire significantly change how the paper covered, for example, tax policy? Will the paper start critically covering the for-profit education empire Kaplan, the booming business run by its outgoing owner Don Graham?
A study by Daniel Chomsky, a political scientist at Temple University (and nephew of linguist and political scholar Noam Chomsky), sheds some light on how ownership can interfere in media coverage to pursue their own interests, wealth and social status.
Chomsky looked at memos written by Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who served as the publisher of the New York Times between 1935 and 1961, to the paper's managing editor, Turner Catledge. Focusing on a six-year period starting in 1956, Chomsky examined hundreds of blue notesmemos Sulzberger sent to Catledge mostly on blue paperto see how they impacted news decisions. The file Chomsky studied contained 415 of these blue notes, at a rate of about 60 a year. Although the notes are not the only way Sulzberger communicated to Times staff, they provide tangible evidence of editorial intervention. Catledge would frequently internalize Sulzbergers complaints, and then relay them to reporters as coming from a reader.
As one example of how the correspondences actually changed coverage, Sulzberger complained of coverage of a civil rights bill, leading Catledge to respond the next day: You were absolutely right about the confused nature of our summary on the civil rights bill in yesterdays paper. I hope you liked the one we had today. It was a direct result of your suggestions.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 706 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
An Inside Look at How NYT's Ownership Meddled with Coverage to Push Their Pet Projects (Original Post)
xchrom
Sep 2013
OP
K and R. So you save your really *good* stuff for the pre-dawn hrs. Eh, X ?
Smarmie Doofus
Sep 2013
#1
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)1. K and R. So you save your really *good* stuff for the pre-dawn hrs. Eh, X ?
xchrom
(108,903 posts)2. LOL! i really have to stop going to bed so early. nt
Laelth
(32,017 posts)3. k&r for exposure. n/t
-Laelth
Agony
(2,605 posts)4. free press my ass
NYT's "today"
"Slim isnt just any investor, hes the worlds second-richest man who also happens to be the second-largest shareholder of the New York Times. He has faced significant protests over his business practices in Mexico, but those protests have not made it onto the pages of the paper of record."
aren't we the exceptional ones...