The frontpage of The New York Times of November 11, 1938
did not mention that the German Nazi government initiated the attacks,
but said that Goebbels called to stop it.
Posted on 02/23/2008 8:30:09 AM PST by jdm
New York Times executive editor Bill Keller has figured out why there was such a negative reaction to their sloppy hit piece on John McCain: their readers are dense.
WASHINGTON - The embattled executive editor of the New York Times defended its John McCain story Friday with a novel explanation for the flood of critical e-mails the newspaper received: slow-witted readers.
“Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction,” Bill Keller wrote in a Times Web site Q&A forum. Readers posted 2,000 comments and sent in 3,700 questions.
“I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot,” Keller added.
The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it.
“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”
Keller is right. The average NYT reader IS incapable of analytical thought.
Obviously it’s not the readers who are dense!
Keller: “Hey, I’m not stupid! Everyone else is!”
We who object are just so dense that the NYT stock price was sent into a temporary (fifteen year) decline. If we would just smarten up, the stock price would recover. Pinch and Bill know better than us.
In the MSM’s mind the customer is always wrong.
They’ve dumbed down the paper. They even dumbed down the Sunday Crossword Puzzle!
The frontpage of The New York Times of November 11, 1938
did not mention that the German Nazi government initiated the attacks,
but said that Goebbels called to stop it.
When Bill Keller says reaction to the story was from readers who are stupid, he really means it.
After all, stupidity is exactly why he expected his readers to swallow such a contrived piece of dog$h!t to begin with.
““Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”
Unfortunately for you, ash hole even the nit wits who read the slimes DID see the larger point which was that you and your paper are very willing to smear a Republican but would never write a piece like this about a rat.
“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”
the readers saw an even bigger point than the story’s “larger point”: that this was a poor attempt at a hit piece. Even Libs want a real juicy hit piece, they dont want a sloppy, poorly thought, ill conceived piece of garbage being paraded on the front page.
Keller should be surprised he still has a job.
Uh, so help us out here. What WAS the real point of the article (according to Keller)?
Amazing how “Journalism” and politics, are the only two industries in the world where any complaint about the quality of the product being produced produces a public, shrill whine about how “stupid” the customers are in response from the producers.
Perhaps, Mr Keller, instead of responding with the same shrilly hysteric defensive reaction to your customers complaints, you might try actually LISTENING to them on time. When the bulk of the people are telling you you are behaving like an idiot, they are probably correct.
Those “fake” newspaper front pages sure bring a point home and much better too.
Was the NYT 1938 page a real one? I thought this was the only real one in the bunch, but am not sure. I was not alive then and don’t know how old the NYT is either.
Doesn’t his reasoning sound a lot like Dan Rather’s did when the phony documents were exposed?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NYT&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=%5EIXIC,%5EDJI
5 year comparision - NYT vs Dow and Nasdaq averages
I see some "fake but accurate" explanation in Keller's near future.
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.