It Was The Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times...
In my latest at The Daily Beast, I argue that despite its shortcomings, The New York Times is far more committed to journalistic values than its critics acknowledge — and that the outlets the critics laud would do well to learn from The Gray Lady. The piece is here.
The problem with the NYT is that it already proved its uselessnes. The need for an institution like the NYT is so that there’s something to stand up against the tide when it is taking this country in the wrong direction. The NYT failed that test spectacularly with the Iraq War. That mean seem harsh, but I think having some sort of elite journalistic authority is actually a bad thing if that authority is never going to be exercised in a way that’s contrary to elite wishes or interests.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 5, 04:52 PM · #
The NYT is useful precisely because it holds itself out as the standard-bearer of good journalism — and is critiqued as such. When we argue about it we are, in a way of speaking, allowing Form to exert force on Reality.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 5, 04:58 PM · #
Mike,
It certainly was nice to have around during the debate over warrantless wiretapping.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Oct 5, 04:59 PM · #
Uh, Conor? That would the the warrantless wiretapping where the NYT sat on the story for a whole year until after the 2004 election? Waiting until publishing the story would have the absolute minimum impact politically is a pretty good example of how the NYT has forfeited any right to exist.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 5, 05:56 PM · #
Didn’t it break the story and publish it as a scoop?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Oct 5, 05:57 PM · #
Yes, but only long after publishing it might have actually accomplished anything. I’d rather have to hope that other journalistic entities might uncover such stories than to have one that does, but then decides to withhold such information from the public when the public is deciding who should be the next President.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 5, 06:36 PM · #
That seems weird. It isn’t as though the Times prevented others from getting the story by having it themselves. You’re basically saying you’d rather not have the story at all than have it sometime after the Times discovered it, but long before anyone else had it.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Oct 5, 06:47 PM · #
“That seems weird. It isn’t as though the Times prevented others from getting the story by having it themselves.”
How did the Tiimes get the story? Did they peer into their crystal ball or did someone with knowledge of the program come forward to tell them about it? I’d rather hope that, in the absence of the NYT, that person or persons would have turned to another news agency.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 5, 07:00 PM · #
The market will work it out. Either the NYT is needed and it’s supported by consumers or it fails and goes away.
— mike farmer · Oct 5, 07:42 PM · #
“The market will work it out. Either the NYT is needed and it’s supported by consumers or it fails and goes away.”
This is sublime.
Let’s do this socratically: why does this logic not apply to the military?
— salacious · Oct 5, 08:06 PM · #
You are equating the military with the NYT — I don’t think Socrates would have done that. I mean if the NYT had been around during his time — it wasn’t, was it?
— mike farmer · Oct 5, 09:51 PM · #
However, I guess you could say that the people support the military.
— mike farmer · Oct 5, 09:53 PM · #
oh, I forgot, thanks for “sublime” remark — can I quote this as a testimony for my blog?
— mike farmer · Oct 5, 09:55 PM · #
Three criticisms of your piece:
1) Except (perhaps) for Fox News, conservative media do not see themselves as doing general reporting, but concentrate on stories that (they believe) are overlooked by the non-conservative media. The Murdoch media group is probably the only organisation on the right that has resources comparable to the NYT, WaPo, NBC/ABC/CBS, etc. It’s a bit rich to expect Breitbart to have an infrastructure like the NYT on a start-up.
2) You are indulging in a bit of petitio principii in your piece, in that you assert that the NYT is worthy of conservatives’ respect and emulation, without proving why that should be so.
3) The NYT resisted putting in an ombudsman/public editor for the longest time, and after Daniel Okrent left, hasn’t had an effective one. Calame and Hoyt have, for the most part, told readers that their complaints may be well-intentioned, but are mistaken, because the reporters and editors of the NYT are consummate professionals, and any problems with the paper are due to inadvertent errors. One presumes that this isn’t the kind of self-examination that you wish the conservative media to indulge in.
— The Blue-Eyed Sheikh · Oct 6, 05:10 AM · #
4) It’s exactly what jd, in the “investment advice” post, said you’d write: “I’m betting that the upshot of your upcoming NY Times post will be, wait for it . . . they do some good reporting, they do some bad, but at least they’re not Fox News.”
— T. Sifert · Oct 6, 03:34 PM · #
Conor, I think you make some perfectly reasonable and intelligent points. But you are missing the big picture. What I find generally frustrating about your writing is the criticism of those out there (such as AB) who are trying to shake things up, for personal gain or for the advancement of conservativism, or some combo of the two. Its easy to sit back and critique them; but for you to have more credibility on the issue, you might want to try to stir things up a little beyond criticizing real or fake conservatives. You need another beat, aside from dating advise. AB’s folks have broken some new fertile ground. Try it yourself, instead of bemoaning how others do it. As to some of your points, I have specific issues. First, general interest papers have been dying for a long time. I don’t think it would be good market timing for conservatives to start such a paper. In addition, unlike left-liberalism, conservativism is a vaguely defined thing — I don’t know what such a paper would be like. Like many, I am more of a libertarian-conversative. I do not relate to the NRO’s cultural writing. I like the Onion’s AV Club. Besides, there is much better cultural writing elsewhere than the Times, though AO Scott rules. Second, the NYT only got a public editor after some major major mistakes. It is wrong to subject everyone to that just because the Times printed falsehood after falsehood. Does the WSJ need one? Furthermore, I don’t know of a TV station that uses one. The concept does not even apply to opinion-driven publications. “Is it too much to ask for right-wing media outlets to employ an ombudsman” – Be specific with that. Which publications? Otherwise, your suggestion is pointless. Fact checking is something any publication should do. But an ombudsman? Give me a break. Actually, I think you style yourself as an ombudsman, not a bad gig. But I guess my overall point is – instead of decrying the shallowness of many so-called conservatives (I agree with you about many of those), why don’t you show us your depth? Good luck.
— JC38 · Oct 6, 11:54 PM · #