[68skylark]

If I read this right, Okrent argues for the Times web site to be expanded or reorganized to allow comments to appear near news stories. It's not a bad idea, but FR has beaten them to it by several years.

The MSM is not the center of the universe anymore, and their websites cannot dominate or replace websites run by other folks that are far superior.

[randog]

Interesting insight into the Good Ol' Boys club called the NYTimes.

This "Web Forum" idea of his--it's intriguing, but I agree with him: it'll never work. The unwashed masses are too undisciplined and....'unwashed' to make it happen. Best leave it to the professionals.

[Pharmboy]

Their refusal to take or even acknowledge criticism in the wake of their endless and boundless criticism of everyone in the world who does not agree with them (in their reportage as well as in their OP-ED pages) is perfectly consistent with their long love affair with Stalinism.

[shezza]

If a newspaper is thrown in the forest and nobody is around to read it, does it still make a sound?

[cgbg]

It is the New York Times as an institution that is foul and corrupt.

There is an easy solution, but it is so out-of-the-box for them that the mere mention of it will turn them into howling animals:

There motto needs to change to:

The paper of record for the Democratic Left.

There, I have said it.

They should either do it or shut up.

[proxy_user]

He should see the letters column in Stereophile.

The editors actually seem to enjoy publishing long letters from outraged readers explaining why the writers and editors of Stereophile are morons who know nothing about audio and music.

It's one of the most amusing parts of the magazine.

[dirtboy]

The Times needs to find an alternative ending for this depressing tune.

The Times shouldn't bother. Critics have already found an alternative ending, through the web, and the Times now realizes that they have lost control of the dialog.

Certainly the numbers are impossible. The letters department receives 1,000 messages every day, and publishes 15.

And gives columnists far more column inches than letter writes.

Beyond that, many of the paper's readers find certain practices and policies regarding letters either dumbfounding or objectionable. Chief among these is the paper's general hesitance to publish letters that make accusations against The Times, criticize writers or editors, or otherwise call into question the newspaper's fairness, news judgment or professional practices.

As critical as I am of the liberal agenda of the Philly Daily News, I will give them credit on this point - they have published my letters critical of their views, their columnists and their agenda. But the Times apparently doesn't want to admit their own fallocies.

[dirtboy]

To me, The Times's Op-Ed page is at its best when it publishes pieces at odds with the paper's own editorial positions

And it would be even better if that was the only place where the paper's editorial positions were incorporated, instead of throughout the news sections as well. That is a far larger problem than the lack of dissenting 150-word letters to the editor.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Elsa the Boring-cow McDowell, Publiceditor at Chas, SC's Posted & Currying needs to read this. Of course she will, being from the nations news-rag of record and all that.

[Biblebelter]

What is this guy talking about?

Doesn't he know that true elites don't need no stinkin' readers' opinions?

[LarkNeelie]

Interesting: the NYTs is infamous for using hyperbole and unflattering headlines and then noting somewhere in the body of the article that the headline doesn't actually pertain to the person/thing in question (i.e. Bush, Abu G, and a million other subjects).....

Yet the NYTs own reporters object to this practice when it is done to THEM....