Andrew McCarthy Blasts NYT Over Whelan/Greenhouse Incident
Andrew McCarthy has an excellent column on the New York Times‘s shabby treatment of Ed Whelan. A taste:
The readers’ representative recounted discussing the matter with Times editor Bill Keller. Tellingly, Keller said he “does not want to single out Greenhouse … because it would appear to be a tacit rebuke in the face of a partisan assault.” And so, at last, we stumble into the truth. The Times is not a newspaper. It is a partisan, self-consciously engaged in partisan battle.
Objectively, there is nothing ideological about a conflict of interest. It is relationship-based, and you either have one or you don’t. For the Times, however, what matters is that an undeniable conflict was raised by a conservative. That makes it part of the permanent campaign, the Times’s ideological project. There can’t be any admissions because that would hurt the cause. For a partisan, the cause is bigger than any conflict.
I have had people point out errors of mine on this blog — and sometimes, the heads-up came from a leftist partisan. What’s more, sometimes, that heads-up wasn’t too polite.
In such situations, I could have written it all off as an attack by a partisan. But if the partisan is right, he’s right — even though he is a partisan. And so I have always corrected such errors — with a polite tip of the hat to the person who tipped me off.
You can even win respect from people that way. And I say all this as a partisan.
For a newspaper to say that, yes, you have a point — but we’re not going to do a damned thing about it, because you’re raising it as a partisan — is indefensible.
P.S. For what it’s worth, I think the Los Angeles Times takes that attitude with some of my complaints at times — but is smart enough not to say it out loud. Remember when The New Republic said Scott Thomas Beauchamp had made an error about where a particular incident took place — and Tim Rutten claimed that the magazine had admitted that Beauchamp had “concocted” the event? What if Beauchamp himself had written to object? Would the paper have given him the same brush-off they gave me? I doubt it.
oh yeah, brilliant writer indeed. the most damaging comment was that the NYT is basically a “plaything” of the sulzberger family, how true and how sad as well.
james conrad (7cd809) — 1/25/2008 @ 1:52 ami wonder how long bill kristol is going to last there and what was jr. thinking when he hired him, most likely some phony exercise in diversity.
james conrad (7cd809) — 1/25/2008 @ 1:59 amIt will also be interesting to see how quick Clark Hoyt will be to apologize profusely for the Times’ inflicting some heinous Kristol transgression or other on its readers.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/25/2008 @ 4:13 amAt last???? C’mon, the NYT has been doing this for years and years, and anybody who hasn’t picked up on this long before this episode just hasn’t been paying attention.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 1/25/2008 @ 5:16 amThe Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 01/25/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
David M (447675) — 1/25/2008 @ 8:38 amTrue, but now they have effectively admitted to it.
LarryD (feb78b) — 1/25/2008 @ 8:42 ambecause it would appear to be a tacit rebuke
They are so, so careful not to even appear politically motivated. Well, rather not politically motivated in a conservative way.
They were not so concerned with printing pieces that not only appeared to be a conflict of interest but actually were, by their own admission.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 1/25/2008 @ 10:32 amAnd so what? Do you think their acknowledgment of their bias is Step 1 of a 12 step program? I can’t wait for the day that they seek out and apologize to all they’ve done wrong.
When is the right going to realize that the journalistic ‘neutrality’ is a scam the MSM has been peddling in hopes of getting non-liberals to keep buying the paper and watching the news? The reader ‘representatives’ are only there because the MSM wants to appear fair and balanced in hopes the McCarthys keep coming back for more, and not because they really want to be fair. The MSM is biased, they know they’re biased, they think they’re doing society good, and they have no more desire (or ability) to change than Hillary has of ever telling the truth or Congress to give up pork. And keep in mind that with circulations declining, all they have left is the left, and the MSM can’t afford to alienate the few remaining viewers and readers they have left.
On the bright side, given their declining circulations, it matters less and less that they’re biased.
stevesturm (8caabf) — 1/26/2008 @ 5:43 am