Posted on 03/27/2005 6:12:24 PM PST by neverdem
Yer a permeable membrane.
And this guy is suppose to be the READERS rep.
No, but they didn't hire you because you were a conservative, right wing republican either, did they?
VERY good.
Exactly. Like so many media organizations, they carefully select their staff to ensure the party line is followed meticulously.
They just don't get it yet.
Instead, as Okrent almost notices near the end of the piece, it is the hiring practices of the Times which are at fault. If a business hires nothing but vegetarians, eventually hamburgers will disappear from the lunch line. There is no surprise here. Okrent is just chasing a straw man.
Congressman Billybob
DANIEL OKRENT receives his salary and perks from the publisher of The New York Times, not from readers. His first loyalties are, therefore, to the publisher.
I have yet to see a SINGLE INSTANCE in which Okrent has responded to reader complaints by correcting a story. Maybe he has corrected a few minor points that I missed. But he has stonewalled in response to every important complaint.
I'm not sure if you're trying to make a valid point, or if you're just trying to be argumentative.
In fact, lots of people are starting competing news outlets -- newspapers, magazines, talk radio, blogs, Internet news forums like FR. And many are being very successful. The free market is working just fine.
Well anyway, he admitted that everybody at the Times is a lying, biased, left-wing RAT. That's what I heard him say, at least.
My own pet peeve with the Times is their relentless, aggressive, hostile attitude toward the U.S. military. I don't understand where that comes from, other than from the childish bias of the people they hire to write and edit the paper.
"ONE of the more persistent criticisms of The Times comes from those who believe the news pages are the designated disseminator of views passed down from the Olympus that is the editorial page. If there's anyone among the 1,200 newsroom employees of The Times who believes this to be true, I've failed as a reporter: in 16 months, I haven't found a soul here who has ever experienced any pressure, or even endured a suggestion, to conform to the opinions expressed on the editorial page.
Hold your hoots."
It's irrelevent if they take 'orders' from the editorial page or not ... it is sufficient that they (a) share the editorial positions and (b) feel empowered to insert their views consciously or unconsciously in the 'news' reporting.
Simply ask those 1500 reporters, how many voted for Bush?
If they are not 52% Bush supporters, there is the problem in a nutshell. The New York Times lack ideological diversity. They are INCAPABLE OF AVOIDING BIAS when the newsrooms are pervasively liberal, since news selection, wording of articles, etc. are inherently subjective. It's the "liberal media" because most of those in the newsroom are in fact liberals.
I don't believe it, and I'm not wrong.
I see the author of this puff piece is still stuck in "if I say it's true, it's true" mode.
Welcome to FR.
I'm sure the other poster will let you know in due time.
That's a real good example, Mr. Okrent. One department has treated Dr. Rice like an incompetent, war-mongering Aunt Jemima who is nothing more than racial window dressing for the Bush Administration. The other department has treated her like some perverted slut with a stiletto and leather fetish who's probably sleeping with the President. There's a big difference there, all right.
</rolling eyes in total disgust>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.