Anyone looking for an entertaining example of inability to respond constructively to criticism or to admit mistakes should read the NYT’s, “Talk to the Newsroom,” column on the McCain article.
The Powers That Be at the economically floundering flagship of American journalism (hedge funds circling) take an edited sampling of the more than 4,000 questions and 2,000 comments they say they received about the article and … don’t see any merit in any of them, or accept that any aspect of their story might have been unwise in any way. In fact, Executive Editor Bill Keller writes of the piece:
I thought it was excellent (for the record, I still think so).
This for an unsubstantiated smear of the presumptive Republican nominee for President and a professional woman who spent a lot of time with her client. God forbid any female journalists, attorneys, executives, or consultants spend too much time with a powerful man: next thing you know they’ll wind up in the NYT in a party dress identified as likely paramours.
But of course, as Jill Abramson, the Managing Editor, wrote:
Certainly the story in no way said or suggested that women in male-dominated professions create the perception of impropriety.
Now who ever could have imputed a suggestion like that, considering the mountain of convincing evidence assembled by the four reporters and two researchers who worked on the story for months? (Oh, and by the way, the reason they chose the picture of Iseman in a ball dress, rather than the one of her, “from her own professional website,” in their words, was because the latter was, “low-resolution” …)
The NYT should have evidence before it runs articles implying that people had affairs. As Charley so effectively pointed out, they had nothing here. Just a Colbertian raised eyebrow: “anxiety,” from former staffers. Even the Weekly World News, “The Nation’s Most Reliable Newspaper,” uses sources.
They shouldn’t then compound their error by publishing a self-serving column like this filled with self-congratulatory platitudes.
I wonder what Jayson Blair would say?
that are convinced that they are now innoculated from consequence, even a yellow journalistic piece of garbage. Sozberger and company have lost touch with reality.
<
p>Of course their plunging circulation and revenue streams in free fall speak volumes about what journalistic consumers believe.
<
p>One would think that the Solzberger family would get the message when their pocketbooks are not quite as healthy as they used to be
And I think the NYT is actually doing better than many other newspapers … certainly better than their right-wing doppleganger the WSJ, which just threw in the towel. I believe they are still quite profitable, and their website is doing well. The problem, and the reason they are floundering, relative to where they were some years ago, is that the primary revenue source for their whole industry, classified ads, is transitioning to the web.
<
p>A better example for your point about what journalistic consumers want is Fox News on TV, which is a huge success for the “News” Corporation … or, dare I say it, the blogosphere, which has attracted millions of readers in just a few years. But the latter wouldn’t support your point, because the biggest blog by far is DailyKos, which is closer to the NYT than it is to Fox. Oh dear.
<
p>(As to, “for glory,” I use that to mean bumping stories to keep them prominently at the top of the stack.)
Are really doing fine. If the barometer of success is google and mac, then maybe not so much, but the newspaper business is still doing well enough to bring in the same rate of profits as many Fortune 500 companies. I don’t think we should continue to give papers a pass because business is getting tough. They’re often being overly dramatic when instead they should be trying to be innovative and practitioners of good journalism.
Isn’t so bad in terms of reporting. Actually some decent coverage and a respectable spread of foreign offices. It’s the editorial page that stains the paper, half the time because it gives every evidence of being unaware of what is being reported elsewhere in the same publication…
Unfortunately, the editorial stain is begining to bleed into what used to be the very separate news division.
<
p>And then there’s Murdoch.
Really, aren’t politicians just the lap dogs of their well funded lobbyists? A similar story could be run on any politician. I don’t notice competing politicians doing a whole lot of barking on this.
<
p>I notice a real story about Rick Renzi, indicted for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering, seems to be on the back burner. Almost ignored, Mr. Renzi is a co-chair of Senator McCain’s leadership committee. Wouldn’t this bring up the Keating Five scandal? Some real meat?
<
p>With the NYT article, the Senator can look like a martyr.
http://gawker.com/news/profit-…
<
p>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…
<
p>To exacerbate the issue the NYT purchased the Boston Globe for 1.1 billion. It’s worth is now less than half that.
<
p>http://www.slate.com/id/216046…
<
p>Both of these companies are hemmoraging money, ergo all of the layoffs and downsizing. The LA Times and Chicago Tribune are in free fall as well.
… and the over 90% back lash against that sentiment begs the question; “Is the NYT Relevant?” From Jason Blair to Judith Miller to Petraeus Betrayus and now the McCain Flap I would have to say it is. Provided the format drops to 14 x 20 inches (no fold), it is sold at supermarket check out stands with glaring color head lines and it includes the occasional article about how Condalisa Rice is the “Love Child” Product of Sen. Joe McCarty and a Martian so people understand where its editorial philosophy comes from.
With all the new media (like BMG) the titans are becoming less relevant, and deservedly so. The worst part is the absolute refusal to ever admit fault or to do it on page 30 in 6 point font after splashing the front page.
<
p>Reminds me of Dan Rather. He ran an unfounded story and got caught within hours by bloggers and typewriter experts. Things must have been so much easier for him, and the NYT, before others got their voices.
it can’t take the place of a paid staff of professional journalists, editors, etc. Most of us rely very heavily on the NYT, Washington Post and countless others, even on days we’re collectively trashing them.
<
p>I don’t read the NYT with any regularity, but I think it is silly to trash the entire newspaper based on disagreement over an article. After all, even the editors and users of BMG have disagreed over the McCain-Iseman article. By rights then, because David thought the article has merit, we’d better trash this site too.
<
p>Reasonable people can disagree, right?
Speaking for myself, in my post I was only criticizing this article and this response.
<
p>Still, it’s fair to at least make some larger comments, considering the importance of this initial story and the fact that the top brass of the newspaper have authored this (to my mind) amusingly hubristic response. The broader observations about the changing media landscape and so on also are interesting, don’t you think?
I don’t care if it’s Rupert Murdoch or “Pinch” Sulzberger. (he must be from the Hamptons or Duxbury)
<
p>Particularly the NYT in the last ten years has become a rag of yellow journalistic swill. Every time Sulberger gets caught with his pants down, or one of his minions, he/they do not have the backbone to admit wrongdoing, THEN they do the same thing two months later.
<
p>It is very evident that NYT did everything in their power to manipulate the the 08 presidential elections by initially fawning over McCain, trashing Romney, then when Romney bows out they trash McCain. Journalistic integrity and evenhandedness? Give me a break. These SOB’s deserve everything they get, and when that pile of steaming excrement comes up for their last breath there will be a lot of people standing around with smiles. They cut their own throat.
Vicki Iseman
<
p>Of course, they probably could have snapped a photo of her in a more professional setting. Then again, do we question when the NYT gets a photo of a man in a tux instead of a business suit? Not to my knowledge…
… from her firm’s website? If so this is the professional face the business wanted to show the world and I don’t see how anyone could cry foul that the photo isn’t professional enough.
Instead, they used the one of her dressed in a ball gown at a social function that they say they purchased from Getty Images. The reason they said they didn’t use this one is because it was too low res.
That photo is 150×225 pixels. No way you could run that in a newspaper.
<
p>The “they said” stuff is nonsense. It implies doubt. There’s no doubt — this photo is too low res. Now, were there other photos which were “professional” and sufficiently hi-res? I have no idear.
that she only communicated with them via an email. hard to snap pics via email.
They could have asked her for a high res photo, or sent a photographer out to take one, either portrait or “action”. This is the NYTimes, not a one-man print shop.