Sulzberger Responds to 'WSJ' Editorial Slamming the 'NYT'

Editor & Publisher ^ | 6/30/06 | E&P Staff

[Bryan24]

The Times has defended its reporting, saying publication has served America's public interest.

Mr. Sulzburger, a couple of questions.

1. Who determines what is in America's public interest?

2. What public interest was served?

I have seen no public outcry that the Government reveal all the details of how it is tracking and capturing terrorists. Indeed, the only outcry we see is that the government be successful.

It is CLEAR, beyond a reasonable doubt clear, that you think you, the New York Times, are more capable of determining what is in the public's interest than the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, elected members of congress, and the chairmen of the 9/11 commission.

That sir, is the height of arrogance.

[devolve]

[wolfcreek]

"some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight."


Now We're getting some where! Could We please have a list of those individuals.

[austinaero]

Maybe I"ll subscribe to the WSJ sometime in the near future. The enemy of my enemy is my friend,,,right?

[Paperdoll]

>It isn't.<

Oh, isn't it now?

[potlatch]

You've got some new words! Nice.

[segis]

I concur. I understated a little. :-)

I think NYT's slide into irrelevancy is the best thing to happen in a while. It is long overdue. I also think the people at helm at NYT should stay on for as long as possible till the NYT is on the same level as the Village Voice or worse. I am of the opinion that we don't need one "Newspaper of Record" - better to have mutiple newspapers of record or sources.

[mware]

Better yet, just subscribe to the wsj opinion journal. The news in the WSJ is decidedly on a liberal side.

[aragona]

I'm renewing my WSJ subscription. It took courage to run that editorial.

[GOPJ]

The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.

They've got us dead to rights on this one...

[seasoned traditionalist]

Kudos. Great. Luvvvv it. Best I've seen in a while.

[austinaero]

Thanks for the tip. I don't follow the WSJ much, so I would not have known that.

[phillyfanatic]

So Pinch and Keller are crying wolf , huh? Let Congress name the Times' of both coasts and see how they cry then. Without naming the Times' two, the Congress clouded the issue. It took the WSJ to put it out in the open.

[Petronski]

Nope. Not later either.

[mware]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/

[edzo4]

the enemy of your enemy is your friend

and that is what the lamestream media and the democrats do not understand

they are allied with al qeada when they are against bush
they have the same talking points

[george76]

a personal slam at Times' publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and said the Times did not want to win, but rather obstruct, the war on terror.

[mware]

A great poll question at opinionjounal.com regarding will the SCOTUS ruling hurt the war on terror.

See post #35 for link.

[Niteranger68]

I would love to see Pinch lose his head.....literally!

[Sonny M]

That's an understatement. That was a BLISTERING editorial by the WSJ. It reveals even more of the utter mendacity of Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller. And the WSJ has a bigger circulation among movers and shakers in America than the NYT does.

What the old saying?

The New York Times is for people who want to run the world.

The Washington Post is for the people who think they run the world.

And the Wall Street Journal is for the people that do run the world.