New York Times fights for credibility

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Monday, May 9, 2005

[JohnHuang2]

Still suffering from the Jayson Blair scandal and a national survey showing only 21 percent of readers believe what they read in the paper, the New York Times is fighting back with a strategy to build credibility.

In a report today in the paper, a panel of editors suggests a variety of steps including limiting the number of unnamed sources used and responding more assertively to critics.

The paper is also considering an increase of coverage of religion in America and more reporting from rural areas of the country.

Bill Keller, the executive editor who charged the panel with the study said there was "an immense amount that we can do to improve our journalism."

The report pointed out the Times printed 3,200 corrections last year.

The Pew Research Center study found 45 percent of Americans believe little or nothing of what they read in daily newspapers. Some 14 percent said they believe almost nothing they read in the New York Times.

"We strongly believe it is no longer sufficient to argue reflexively that our work speaks for itself," the report stated. "In today's media environment, such a minimal response damages our credibility."

The Times admitted the study's origins were the Jayson Blair scandal. Blair was a Times reporter who was found to have committed journalistic fraud, including plagiarism and fabricated quotes in at least three dozen stories between 2002 and 2003.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Bill Kellar has been one of the biggest disappointments that I've ever seen in the field of journalism.

I thought that he was brought in to correct the mistakes of his predecessors, not amplify them.

[JohnHuang2]

Couldn't agree with you more.

[Popman]

Bill Keller, the executive editor who charged the panel with the study said there was "an immense amount that we can do to improve our journalism."

Understatement of the year

[dancusa]

The paper is also considering an increase of coverage of religion in America and more reporting from rural areas of the country.

I guess the Times are going to start sending out "foreign" correspondents.

[winner3000]

(The Times admitted the study's origins were the Jayson Blair scandal.)

Everything sounded good till the above. If they think their troubles were because of the Blair scandal they are totally deluding themselves. People don't believe them because of their demonstrated bias. That whole missing weapons story in Iraq the week of the election proved neither they nor ABC can be trusted ever again.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

New York Times fights for credibility...

...and loses by a TKO in the first round...

[Lancey Howard]

The paper is also considering an increase of coverage of religion in America and more reporting from rural areas of the country.

Well, surprise, surprise - - the New York Times is on exactly the same page as their Democrat Party. It's all a con job to try to attract readers/voters who want nothing to do with any of them.

[boop]

All the NYT will do with "increased religion and rural reporting" is simply bash Christians and red state "rubes" with greater frequency.

[monocle]

If one reads the corresponding article in the Times itself, one finds that the committee set up to improve the Times' credibility is composed solely of reporters,editors and photographers and not a single consumer of their product. This is a pet peeve with me that CNN and Fox News have or have had programs reviewing media reporting and their media panels were either media people or professors of journalism and ,again, not a single consumer of the media.

[SIDENET]

"We strongly believe it is no longer sufficient to argue reflexively that our work speaks for itself," the report stated

I believe that their work does speak for itself. It's just that it is obviously pure, leftist CRAP.

[Deetes]

21 percent of readers believe what they read in the paper,

It makes one wonder why anybody bothers reading them anymore . Maybe to catch the next mistake ...

[thedilg]

[All the NYT will do with "increased religion and rural reporting" is simply bash Christians and red state "rubes" with greater frequency.}

I was about to say the same thing, but not nearly as clearly.

Godspeed, The Dilg

[Maceman]

"In today's media environment, such a minimal response damages our credibility."

How can you damage what does not exist in the first place?

[Jeff Gordon]

The Times admitted the study's origins were the Jayson Blair scandal.

Jayson Blair was not the cause of The Times creditability gap. He just shined a light on what was already there.

[Nick Danger]

Today's New York Times brings us yet another example of why their credibility continues to decline.

In an article about the Rosen trial in Los Angeles, Times reporter Ray Hernandez has this to say concerning the conversation that with Rosen that was taped by Kennedy brother-in-law Ray Reggie, who was wearing a wire for the FBI:

In the tapes, Mr. Reggie steered the conversation into a discussion about the production costs of the 2000 Hollywood fund-raiser, according to a person involved in the case.

Mr. Rosen, in turn, told Mr. Reggie of his frustration at having to deal with Mr. Paul, whom he described as an unreliable character, according to people familiar with the case.

Let's compare that account with the one two days ago in the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

But in due course Reggie deftly steers the conversation toward the feds' main interest: an August 2000 Hollywood fund-raiser for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton that is at the center of Rosen's alleged crimes.

In a detailed discussion of the event, Rosen acknowledges that the gala probably cost far more to produce than he reported on federal campaign forms, a criminal offense and the central question at issue in the case.

In New Orleans, the "news" is that Rosen is on tape admitting to the offense that he is on trial for. In New York, the "news" is that Rosen dismisses Paul as an unreliable character. Both things are presumably on the tape, but which one is really more germane to the case?

Is the New York Times managing the news on behalf of Mrs. Clinton? You decide.

[Beckwith]

The Times could start by hiring some journalists who weren't to left of Karl Marx.

[goldstategop]

When the New York Times is fighting for credibility, the bell has tolled. The legacy media is irrelevant.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[MikeHu]

Hmmmmm....

How can we fake credibility, sincerity, continue to fool the people into thinking we're not biased, that the unthinking masses should continue to obey our directives, do what they're told?

Hmmmmm...

[Joe Boucher]

How about the Times sacks about half of its socialist unAmerican liberal staff and hires say at least one or two conservative writers?
Get their writers from say the midwest and or south instead of all from say the ivy schools.
Quit pushing their pro gay pro socialist agenda. STart telling the people all the good and positive things our troops are up to and not constantly harp on anything negative.
Ah well. Not a chance and thus the Times will continue to fall as a record of the American life.