America's top paper (NYT)rethinks its journalism (The Guardian)

[Up2Late]

(Well, If you didn't think the New York Times was screwed up and not worth the paper it's printed on, it will be now!):mad:

America's top paper rethinks its journalism

Broader reporting needed to offset liberal opinions

Gary Younge in New York
Tuesday May 10, 2005
The Guardian

The New York Times, America's most venerated newspaper, is responding to growing pressure by pledging to increase its coverage of religion and the rural areas in the US, while also recruiting journalists who have military experience.

A 16-page report produced by an internal committee of 19, including editors, reporters, a copy editor and a photographer, yesterday delivered its conclusions on how the Times could maintain its credibility as a news organisation when public confidence in the media is in decline. "In part because the Times's editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic," says the report. "We should seek talented journalists who happen to have military experience, who know rural America first hand, who are at home in different faiths."

A recent study by the independent Pew Research Centre found 45% of Americans believe little or nothing of what they read in their paper. When particular papers were cited, the Times was about average. But over the past two years its credibility has been undermined by its reporting of the run-up to the Iraq war, for which it later published an apology, and the Jayson Blair scandal, in which a young reporter plagiarised and fabricated quotes over six months without being detected. The latter scandal led to the two top editors resigning in 2003.

The report recommended steps to make both the NYT's reporting and its workings more transparent to readers, including having senior editors write more regularly about how the paper works, limiting the number of quotes that are unsourced, and making its staff more accessible to readers. "The Times makes it harder than any other major American newspaper for readers to reach a reasonable human being," it says. The NYT editor, Bill Keller, welcomed the report as "a sound blueprint for the next stage of our campaign to secure our accuracy, fairness and accountability".

(more at link above)

[WilliamPitt]

1. Wait wait wait wait wait

"But over the past two years its credibility has been undermined by its reporting of the run-up to the Iraq war, for which it later published an apology..."

So OK. The fucked up and hauled water for the administration, helping the war rationale along via Mz. Miller...and their response to this is to go further to the right?

[Hissyspit]

5. It really is just bizarre, isn't it? n/t

[leveymg]

44. It isn't about credibility. NYT afraid to lose access to WH sources

who have threatened to shut the door on the "paper of record". Since the Iraq WMD debacle, the Times has begun to carry some noticably critical editorial content.

A lock-out by Admin. sources would be the best thing that ever happened to a major U.S. paper. That would force the Times beat reporters to actually search out and quote other sources -- such as dissidents and whistle-blowers -- and to work harder than its present practice of just printing White House press release handouts with passing reference at para. 15 to the usual DLC echo.

I would urge the Times editors as follows. Let Fox News and the NY Post report the propaganda line of the day. The Weekly Standard can carry the Washington insider rumour-mongering. NYT editors should simply ignore Scotty's statements and order Times reporters to stay off Air Force One, and let the paper's quite capable reporting and research staff actually do their jobs and dig down to the truth of the matter for a change. That would create an entirely different -- and more trustworthy -- newspaper, overnight.

Then, the NYT could honestly consider itself to be the premier source of "All the News that's Fit to Print.":bounce:

[Up2Late]

46. You make some excellent points!

But I think you nailed it when you said, "...and order Times reporters to stay off Air Force One..." That's probably the #1 "access" they don't want to loose.

With newspaper readership falling almost as fast as cable "news" ratings, the idea of having to pay for all their Jet travel to follow "the Runaway President" is probably what is making them the most nervous.

But hell, most of his trips are BS propaganda trips anyway, why cover them. It might be a very nice "wake-up call" for these WH jack asses to see their PR and propaganda trips NOT getting any coverage in the New York Times.:evilgrin:

Note: In case you're wondering, I just though up that "Runaway President" label. Feel free to use it.

[leveymg]

47. Think of the savings in travel expenses if Washington correspondents

were required to spend a few weeks this summer just reading through the National Archives. After a refresher course in reality, we should see be a tremendous improvement in coverage and analysis.

I would suggest they start with a fresh look at the Watergate Hearings and the Pentagon Papers. (almost forgot: Pay particular attention to the Church-Pike Committee reports)

The Runaway Prez should seem an easy game after that.

;) :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[lostnfound]

49. Yep. If they did so, I for one would instantly subscribe nt

[Protagoras]

51. Noam Chomsky must be laughing his ass off right now

nt

[darkism]

2. Liberal my eye.

NYT is centrist, at best.

[Hissyspit]

3. What a joke... Yeah, that'll fix everything. Become more like FoxNews

[knowbody0]

4. bling bling

[Dover]

6. Okay great. So let's get down to some real investigative journalism...

starting with the Blair memo....and working our way to Plame, Gannon, 9/11, etc. Etc. ETC.!

All the NYT needs to do is their JOB!

[Carolab]

7. It's propaganda.

Saw it during the Book TV presentations on the LA Book Convention, when Amy Goodman was on the panel.

An admitted fundie stood up and stated that there is at least a "grain of truth" in stating that the media are "liberal". He specifically cited the New York Times.

A plant? I think so.

There was also a "marine" who was supposedly stationed in Iraq who attacked Amy by saying she had no right to talk about Iraq when she hadn't been there and he had. Said that people don't hear about all the good things the soldiers are doing over there, because of "liberal media reporting".

Anyone smell a rat named Rove in this?

[Voltaire99]

22. The stench is less of Rove than of dollars

The Times realizes it cannot sell critical journalism any longer to a land of starry-eyed "believers."

Not that it has really tried in a very long while, but it considers that beside the point.

Cleverly, it now plans to sell something much more profitable and less expensive to create...

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. Uh-oh - he says they want more ACCURACY, FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Well, forget the accuracy, and Fox News has taught us the meanting of "Fair" in NewsSpeak. That leaves the "accountability" and raises the question of TO WHOM??? And that's the problem. Especially when the internal report is talking about their LIBERAL editorial page. Guess they want to expunge the last traces of balance - then they'll have to find something else to go with "fair."

[Carolab]

9. That's just it. They are trying to "paint" MSM as liberal.

And they are trying to paint liberal journalists as liars.

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. Yeah - and it's terrible to see the once-great NYT go down into the dirt

like this - the deceiving of the American people by the Bush administration would not have been possible without the connivance and deliberate collaboration of the media. The same thing must have happened with Hitler.

"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the (U.S.) media" -- Noam Chomsky

So, we have to be our own media and get the word out - and be alert for attacks on the freedom of the internet and the few other outlets of truth and information exchange that remain.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. The NYT's economic and social philosophy comes across as Centre-right

Although in this age, anything less than very Right-wing is considered "far-left" and "extreme liberal" by the political élite.

[jobycom]

11. "45% of Americans believe little or nothing" they read in the paper

How much of that 45% is Democrat? A move to the right should really improve their credibility rating.

I'm still stunned at their crass political partisanship by hiring Kathleene Seelye to cover Gore's campaign. She was one of the top fabricators of the slanderous stories that sunk Gore, and they never once reprimanded her, though she was wrong frequently, to the point of altering and misrepresenting quotes to make Gore appear delusional. If they had any pretense of being non-Republican, they would have fired her and denounced her lies printed in their paper more loudly than Jayson Blair's fabrications.

Can it get worse? It seems to find new ways every day...

[cprise]

13. Instead of reading the true part of the page 1 article on page 26

... you'll have to look for the truth in an entirely different newspaper now.

I think NYT is just getting itself dolled-up to be purchased by some larger conglomerate.

[Up2Late]

15. God, I hope Rupert Murdock doesn't but The NYT

NOW THAT would Suck!:mad:

[Up2Late]

Anyone think, this might only be for the "National Edition?"

I mean, this IS the New York (City) Times, Why would the City edition need more "rural America" reporting?:shrug:

[NVMojo]

23. it's a clue that this is a right wing marketing agenda ...time to move ...

...but where is it any better?

[Dover]

14. "campaign to secure our accuracy, fairness and accountability".

Sounds like something FOX would say.

Whoever is in charge of the NYT must be selfdestructive. Maybe they'd like go bankrupt like GM so they can get bailed out and restructure.

They should just report the News and let the chips fall where they may. But of course they won't. They just don't get it.

[Nothing Without Hope]

16. Well, this'll please the blivet**-in-chief:

[gumby]

17. Just pulled out my copy of

"The Hunting of the President". There is a long list of NYT footnotes to check upon.

Is there a difference between "moving right" and "lying more"?

[yurbud]

18. NY Times: "We will have a monthly corncob pipe carving contest..."

"...as well as a contest for best use of a Bedazzler on a klan robe."

"Or reporting on global warming, evolution, and equality of races has been hopelessly biased in favor of the opinions of the scientific community and slanted toward a literate audience--this must change."

"We will be adding Sean Hannity, Jeff Foxworthy, and the kid that plays the banjo in Deliverance to our roster of columnists..."

"We realize how offensive it is to our country cousins to read any defamatory stories about our president, especially those that impugn his capability as our leader with a lot of facts and other liberal witchcraft. George said, We believe it, and that settles it. You want to say otherwise, wait here whilst I heat up the tar."

[yurbud]

19. We got to write these idiots--be factual, go for the jugular, and...

trying to market a newspaper to illiterates and talk radio fans is a losing proposition.

[MrPrax]

20. I guess Coulter was right!!

It is liberal, made mistakes and should be bombed by redneck militias...and they must also be Union and coming up to contract?

[Voltaire99]

21. Elites see the writing on the wall: America, land of magick

If you are in charge at the Times, you will have asked yourself a difficult question.

Why, even superficially, continue to pretend the world is round?

US liberalism is dead; rationality is barely kicking. There's no margin in pretending to prolong a post-war tradition that was laid to rest prematurely nearly twenty years ago, its mouth sewn shut and its eyelids left blinking in the dark.

Today you make "news" for Jesus, Inc. You climb aboard the good ship Patriotism and run up your flag--hiring those with "military experience" who will never trouble readers by observing that the insignia you fly is a skull and crossbones.

Ladies and gentlemn of DU: shall we say it? Fuck the Times. It's scarcely readable, anyway, apart from Krugman and Rich. The front page is a sewer of empire, the op-ed page a centrist vomitorium.

If you must know what's going on, attend to critical media such as Democracy Now, the Guardian, and the Independent. And leave the weaving of spells and selling of indulgences to our mystics.

[xchrom]

24. except for the arts and fashion and stuff like that

who cares?

i gave up on them as a real source of jourrnalism.

their obvious swing to the right has been going on since -- what? clinton 1 anyway.

[mmonk]

25. Forget mainstream media,

the battle is lost. The republican party has built a cult over the last 20 years or so and the media wants a piece of the action. All that's happened and the lack of attention to these major things is proof.

[plasticsundance]

26. Everyday it gets more inane ...

I used to buy the paper for my father-in-law, until he complained that I was wasting my money because it was as conservatively bias and fraudulent as the other US newspapers. He was right. Oh, there's the occasional good reporting and expose, but the gray-lady rag isn't worth the money.

Here is a paper with the likes of corrupt journalism in the form of Judith Miller. Oh yeah, NYTimes was also Clinton penis obsessed in the late nineties. I think all these US-State-controlled-corporate-media outlets are becoming obsolete as they continue in their effort to see how each one can out do the other one at the level of being asinine.

It's all just a carnival freak show.

[Demit]

27. Why on earth does the NYT think people will turn to it for more coverage

of religion? Why do they think there needs to BE more coverage of religion? I am so busy running for cover from all-religion all-the-time anyway. It's on television in primetime shows and miniseries, it's in the movies, it's in op-ed pieces and columnists' columns and book reviews, it's seeping in from everywhere and creating a frame of reference for everything and the NYT thinks this is GOOD? And we should HAVE MORE OF IT?

Man, if they saw their circulation fall in the past year, they are going to watch it sink like a stone from now on in. They are spurning their longtime readers and going after the people who have long-time spurned them--just like PBS has done. They'll end up with no one, except maybe the crossword puzzle lovers who will hold their noses & buy the paper. Goodbye, NYT, it was nice knowing you when. Make sure to write your own obit.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. What about actually reporting the news?

They just don't want to see it, do they? This isn't about the Times being too liberal (how could it be, since they've been eating out of Bush's hand for 5 years now?)

This is about missing the important stories -- or burying them. I don't particularly care how the paper works -- not all that interesting, really. What I care about is getting the real news out. Fearlessness is what's needed, not conservatism.

[cap]

29. i am more optimistic...

loss of circulation means the Times actually has to improve..

So much of what is happening politically has its roots in rural areas, the Times has been blindsided and not called things properly. This can work both ways: poverty, Christian Dominionism/Reconstructionism, etc in the rural areas needs to be reported.

Religious reporting can cut both ways: some on fundamentalism, some not.

Same with Military background: More knowledge -- better stories. For example, no one has called Rumsfeld out on his claim that the military doesnt know the civilian casualties in Iraq. Of course, the military has a fair idea (maybe not exact, but close enough). They do BDA's (Battle Damage Assessments) after each operation. How would they ever know if an operation or tactic ever really worked if they didn't evaluate the aftermath?

The embedded reporters just looked dumb when they didnt know what armamement they were pointing to. Military background doesnt mean right wing stories.

[emad]

30. America's top paper rethinks its journalism

Broader reporting needed to offset liberal opinions

Gary Younge in New York
Tuesday May 10, 2005
The Guardian

The New York Times, America's most venerated newspaper, is responding to growing pressure by pledging to increase its coverage of religion and the rural areas in the US, while also recruiting journalists who have military experience.

A 16-page report produced by an internal committee of 19, including editors, reporters, a copy editor and a photographer, yesterday delivered its conclusions on how the Times could maintain its credibility as a news organisation when public confidence in the media is in decline.

"In part because the Times's editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic," says the report. "We should seek talented journalists who happen to have military experience, who know rural America first hand, who are at home in different faiths."

A recent study by the independent Pew Research Centre found 45% of Americans believe little or nothing of what they read in their paper. When particular papers were cited, the Times was about average.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1480321,00.html

[babylonsister]

31. What happened to the good old days when

the unbiased truth was sufficient? We don't even get that anymore, and omission plays a key role in what the public is exposed to. :mad:

[blm]

32. A reporter w/miltary experience who understands many faiths and rural

issues....They'll only find liberal Democrats.....maybe they need an Al Gore.

No way will they find a Republican who isn't a fundie or a moonie and most Republicans happen to be CHICKENHAWKS who have never served in any combat zone even though they love to beat the wardrums.

[ananda]

33. again..

Do not pay for mainstream news.

Boycott!

[renaissanceguy]

34. Alas the way the Right gets a hold of the media

All they have to do is bitch about it being liberal, and eventually it moves to the right.

[katinmn]

35. The NYT obviously misinterpreted why people are losing confidence in them

A recent study by the independent Pew Research Centre found 45% of Americans believe little or nothing of what they read in their paper. When particular papers were cited, the Times was about average.

[ausiedownunderground]

36. This is a joke isn't it?

The New York Times is the most biased pathetic "broadsheet" written. Its about as "Liberal" as Genghis Khan! Nobody in Oz can be bothered even "googling" it. I'm sure the Jewish readers are going to love the Christian Taliban getting their hands on its "editorial"! Maybe they should bring General Westmoreland out of retirement!

[tom_paine]

37. That would be laughable if it wasn't so sad

Although it indicates to me that what we've thought all along is true, the New Whore Times has been as infiltrated, parasitized, and deceived as any other institution of the Formerly Free Press, by the Lies of Totalitarian Bushevikism.

Yep. Some more fawning coverage of our Noble and Godly Leader, coupled with some Faux "News" "Reporters" should fix that old credibility problem right up!

:puke: :puke: :puke:

Like reading, "The Soviet Pravda announced today it would respond to increasing suspicion of it's articles by quoting more Communist Party officials verbatim without question and cease printing the treasonuous utterings of the insane people of the opposition."

Every time I think that maybe we have a chance to restore the Old American Reopublic, another example of Sovietization comes along to show us that perhaps Caeser has crossed the Rubicon and the American Experiment ended in 2000, never to return in our lifetimes.

[ixion]

38. and so the NYTimes sinks deeper into Jesusland

falling ever further away from what used to be a highly respected newspaper.

[skypilot]

39. And I still won't read it. Fucking rag.

*

[ChickMagic]

40. Here's a letter I sent to the Dallas Morning News

I was deliberately being somewhat inflammatory and it ran the week before 9-11. I got a couple of nasty replies.

I have noticed over the years that the Science section in the newspaper has been progressively dwindling. This is a terrible development since science is how we understand the natural world. Conversely, the religion section has gotten larger. Many religious folk routinely believe in talking donkeys (Numbers 22:28-30), that humans are animated dust (Genesis 2:7), that the world was created in 6 days and that the dinosaurs died in "the flood". It seems to me that if you have a section of the newspaper devoted to fantasy and wishful thinking, it would be a wonderful counterbalance to have a section of the same size devoted to a realistic and objective view of the world around us.

******

They have since fired the science editor and ditched the science page. Meanwhile, the religion section is HUGE.

[LiberallyInclined]

41. duplicate thread-

here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1458568&mesg_id=1458568

[rocktivity]

42. NYT's problem is bad journalism.

NYT's solution is the organized JUSTIFICATION of its bad journalism?

:crazy:
rocknation

[woosh]

43. Yeah they need to follow the CNN model

and "centrist" themselves out of business.

It's not like I read that rag anymore, anyway...

[Merlin]

45. "Affirmative Action for Conservatives" -- yes they are so underrepresented

This is pathetic!

[Merlin]

48. An authoritative source tells me this Guardian story is way off-base.

My son, a journalist who has read the NYT report in full, has this to say about the Guardian's slip-shod treatment of it:

I haven't made up my mind entirely about the NYT report, but it's clear that the Guardian's story is simplistic and misleading (imagine that, from a British newspaper!). The recommendations that they highlight in the lead of this article come on page 14 of a 16 page report. To be specific, they are from paragraph 4 of subpoint 3 in section 5. If the Guardian chooses to focus in on this part of the report, fine. But it has an obligation to make it clear just how narrow its focus is. They way they've written this story makes it seem like hiring ex G.I.s is the central thesis of the report.

In fact, the report actually starts off with a rather defiant insistence that the paper respond more robustly to its critics (this the Guardian buries). After that, the vast bulk of the report is about how to reduce errors and anonymous sourcing, and make the paper more accessible to readers who want to comment or complain. As for the part about "diversifying the newsroom," I'm not certain I agree with everything in there, but I hardly think it's unreasonable for a paper that in recent years has made a concerted effort to become more of a national publication (i.e. to print and sell in markets outside New York) to consider rounding out its roster with a few more people who know how baseball is played in those parts. If the Times wants to carry some stories explaining why middle-income middle-Americans are so freaked out by gay marriage, I say go ahead, please, as long as you follow the journalistic principles you espouse in the process.

The "affirmative action for conservatives" quotation, by the way, is one that is clearly yanked out of the context of Gitlin's discussion with the staff. We'll never know, but I'd wager very good money that whoever said it was being facetious. The journalists I know simple don't say things so ingenuous. Regardless, there is no indication that this is a notion endorsed by the management or the committee that produced the report.

Whatever quibbles one might have with some of the report's specific recommendations, I challenge any thinking person to read its entirety and not come away with the impression that it is the product of serious and dedicated journalists making a serious effort to address some serious issues. I think the Times should be commended for doing this.

[Up2Late]

56. Who does he write for? Because frankly, I not impressed.

At this point, I'll trust The Guardian (or ANY non-American Newspaper, short of a Tabloid) before I'll trust ANY American Newspaper or "Journalist," until I'd read several things they've written.

I've read The Guardian and my other favorite News source, the Reuters News Service, for years now, and I find the information much more accurate and credible than anything I've read in a U.S. paper, in a very long time. His triple insults (of The Guardian article and British Newspapers in general) in the first sentence, caused me to lose confidence and respect for his opinion, right off the bat. It struck me as a very "RW Media" thing to do and say, and his, "...hiring ex G.I.s is the central thesis..." comment is completely besides the point of what The Guardian was writing about. He seems to have missed the point of The Guardian article completely.

The Guardian article was meant to expose the NYT foolish idea that Pandering to the Right-wing Yahoos and the "Holier than Thou," Fundamentalist Christians in Red State America, as the way to make the NYT MORE Credible and More Profitable and "Fairer" to all is a good thing, was the point. It's an idea that is totally insane and stinks of desperation and White House pressure.

The New York Times does NOT need to be a "National Newspaper." The NYT readers, at least in the old days, picked it up because it's written by and for New Yorkers, If I (we) wanted to read a "National Newspaper," I'd buy a "USA Today," which I have to say, I've ALWAYS thought really Sucked.

Personally, I'm kind of neutral on the NYT, I don't read it very often, so I can take it or leave it. My larger concern is the over all direction of News Reporting in the U.S., and the frightening amount of influence this WH (and KKKarl Rove in particular)are having on the U.S. Media, and the escalating amount of Propaganda and dishonest "news" these days.

[Roland99]

50. Will MotherJones and WSWS.ORG soon be the "centrist" media?

With PBS moving right and now the NYT covering more religion and "conservative" topics, wtf is going to happen next?

[K-W]

52. NYT accepts facist demands of greater loyalty to Republican Party

I wish they let me write the headlines.

[lala_rawraw]

53. Well, since they want to feed the mindless 12%

Let them have that 12% as their entire audience. Everyone who has not yet canceled, do it now please. Let's see if they re-think the news when the 12% turn out to be a mere 4% of an illiterate base.

[NightOwwl]

54. They are making the same mistake as CNN.

Trying to siphon right-wing readership from other sources. Meanwhile, half the public continues its desperate quest for in-depth news and real honest-to-god journalism.

And just like CNN, their circulation will take a dump. :hurts:

[tabasco]

55. Are they competing with other newspapers or Charmin ?

Are they attempting to put Charmin out of business? NY Times is selling more toilet paper than anybody else.