 |
 Schadenfreude  |
Posted on 05/12/2003 5:01:51 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
But most astonishing is Arthur Sulzberger's response to this:
"Maybe this crystallizes a little that we can find better ways to build lines of communication across what is, to be fair, a massive newsroom," said Mr. Sulzberger, the publisher. But Mr. Sulzberger emphasized that as The New York Times continues to examine how its employees and readers were betrayed, there will be no newsroom search for scapegoats. "The person who did this is Jayson Blair," he said. "Let's not begin to demonize our executives — either the desk editors or the executive editor or, dare I say, the publisher."Scapegoats? Sulzberger is confusing two separate things. A scapegoat is someone who is blamed for something he is not responsible for. What we need in this case is accountability for what went so terribly wrong. That's not demonizing. It's called taking responsibility. If something like this happened in government or a major corporation, do you think the Times would editorialize that no-one in the bureaucratic hierarchy should be held responsible? Of course not. They'd be clamoring for resignations. Yes, Blair is ultimately responsible. No editor can be held responsible for calculated deceipt by a reporter-gone-bad. But an editor can be held responsible if the problems are exposed, and he doesn't take appropriate action swiftly or fails subsequently to monitor such a reporter very closely. These several pages of explanation and self-examination are honorable in themselves - but not if they're a means to escape executive responsibility rather than face up to it. The only way the Times can regain its credibility with its readers is if the editor or editors responsible for the critical decisions that made this calamity possible are required to step down.
Good point!
The only way the Times can regain its credibility with its readers is if the editor or editors responsible for the critical decisions that made this calamity possible are required to step down.
That probably won't happen due to the fact that mental case Howell Raines has some sort of bizarre hypnotic hold over that idiot, Pinch Sulberger.
I'm NY born and bred and have read the Times daily for forty years (the editorial page obviously didn't rub off).
The news, however, was the best, both for scope and depth, until Raines took over. His twin obsessions of feminism and homosexuality have "flooded the zone" and make all his coverage decisions and content calls suspect.
Plus, now, they make it up.
Raines is the visible face of that policy, but make no mistake about it, Punch is the source.
Sadly the one point I've not heard mentioned in this, is how glaringly this confirms what was written about the Times in Bias.
I used to subcribe to the NYT by mail after I moved from NY, because they were good at reporting national and international news the local rags didn't. I quit because the reporting moved from facts about events to stories that supported opinions about events.
They made their bed, let them lie in it.
|
Schadenfreude |
If something like this happened in government or a major corporation, do you think the Times would editorialize that no-one in the bureaucratic hierarchy should be held responsible? Of course not. They'd be clamoring for resignations.
If something like this happened in government or a major corporation, do you think the Times would editorialize that no-one in the bureaucratic hierarchy should be held responsible? Of course not. They'd be clamoring for resignations.
Some Pinch (Sulzberger) scotch for my young friend Jayson! <|:)~
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.