[NYCVirago]

To be fair, the New York Times obituary continued inside the paper for a few pages. But they gave it less space on their front page than the Ray Charles obit (which also continued on another page). And it was the ONLY article regarding President Reagan on the front page of the early version of the paper.

Bill Keller, the Times' editor, said in the New York Observer this week that he hadn't heard a single reader complaint about the Reagan coverage. I wrote him and told them I found that hard to believe, particularly when the Times had to issue a press release to justify the coverage! He actually wrote me back, and tried to weasel out of his comments by saying that "maybe" readers had written to the paper's Letters Page, or to the paper's public editor.

[maica]

Bill Keller, the Times' editor, said in the New York Observer this week that he hadn't heard a single reader complaint about the Reagan coverage.

****


Sounds like he is good at 'Clintonspeak."
Letters to the Editor and letters the public editor don't count?

[conservative in nyc]

Bill Keller, the Times' editor, said in the New York Observer this week that he hadn't heard a single reader complaint about the Reagan coverage.

Bizarre. Heck, I think the Slimes might have even had the decency to publish a letter or two attacking their coverage of President Reagan's death as biased. Does Mr. Keller not read his own paper? And Matthew Continenti (sp?) from National Review pointed out how out-of-line their coverage was compared to other newspapers. Their bias was blatant. And it's only going to get worse, I think.