Those Experienced Times Editors
As I noted the other day, the L.A. Times‘s David Shaw recently had a silly article about bloggers. In that piece, he said:
When I or virtually any other mainstream journalist writes something, it goes through several filters before the reader sees it. At least four experienced Times editors will have examined this column, for example. They will have checked it for accuracy, fairness, grammar, taste and libel, among other things.
Remember that quote. I’ll probably be alluding to it several times throughout the course of this year.
In an unrelated point, I was perusing the corrections today when I noticed this gem:
Restaurant review — In last week’s Food section, the restaurant review listed Covina as an example of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley. Covina is in the San Gabriel Valley.
See, I’m just a blogger, but I could give you a million examples of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley — and I’d get them all right. Watch, as I list just five of them: San Francisco. Modesto. Sacramento. Eureka. San Diego.
I just did that without the benefit of four experienced Times editors. Impressed?
[…] agine how many mistakes there would have been if the article hadn’t been reviewed by experienced Times editors. […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Next Time Tell Us What You Got Right – It’ll Take Less Time (0c6a63) — 4/1/2005 @ 1:23 am[…] d wondered what the dude’s writing must look like before it has been massaged by 3-4 experienced Times editors. The answer is: like this: the reporter’ […]
Patterico's Pontifications » He Intended For It To Be Made Public (0c6a63) — 4/7/2005 @ 8:42 pm[…] not on the trip. Props to Bill Quick for having figured this out. Another hit for those four experienced Times editors. […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Another Scheer Correction (0c6a63) — 4/15/2005 @ 1:37 pmLondon. Moscow. Sydney. Fort Worth.
Hey, this is fun.
Jeff Harrell (a5b150) — 3/30/2005 @ 10:25 pmI tried to challenge myself by limiting myself to California.
Patterico (756436) — 3/30/2005 @ 10:27 pmMy theory always was that most Times editors aren’t from L.A. and don’t really know most of the cities that don’t share a border with Los Angeles.
darleene (42c35c) — 3/30/2005 @ 10:52 pmI’d like to see them report on these foaming-at-the-mouth protesters following the Governor around, intensely angry that their pensions will be cut. And how the proposal (upgrading them to 401k) only applies to people hired after June 2007. “Our pensions are cut!” is only accurate if “we” refers to people hired more than 25 months from now, and “cut” refers to a potentially huge windfall.
I’d pay money to listen in on a cocktail party discussion among these 4 editors. That’s got to be funny. Oh yes, I agree we are very intelligent. Fox News blah blah blah . . .
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 3/30/2005 @ 11:31 pmIn other words, he is saying that there is no reason for there to be a mistake in their paper unless ideological blindness, ignorance, lack of attention, (or other reasons), afflict the author of the piece and at least 4 of their editors at the same time. Perhaps in addition to a story byline they should list the initials of all the editors that reviewed a piece (an expression of pride in workmanship).
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 3/31/2005 @ 5:16 amWhile we are at commenting on the media, The LA Times and NY Times seem to be the most common targets. Anyone know a site where NPR has the opportunity for their perfectly balanced and objective programs to receive comment??
I should throw open the floor to my friend Alastair Mackay to guest post on that issue.
Patterico (756436) — 3/31/2005 @ 6:16 amThe liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra.[note 2]
Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such [384 U.S. 214, 219] matters relating to political processes. The Constitution specifically selected the press, which includes not only newspapers, books, and magazines, but also humble leaflets and circulars, see Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs.
Ben DoubleCrossed (7ed4e1) — 4/1/2005 @ 10:57 am[…] David Shaw of the LA Times famously contrasted bloggers’ supposedly slipshod practices with the amazing accuracy of newspapers like The Times: […]
The Meatriarchy » Blog Archive » The Media Hates Bloggers II (f9d352) — 1/2/2006 @ 7:42 am