The NY Times' Editorial Judgment
John Hinderaker characterizes it nicely; all worth a read for those who don;t know the core story but here's the pithy bit:
I doubt that the Times will issue a correction; most likely it will say that its article was technically correct: Steyn did compare the Obama cult of personality to that of Kim and Saddam. He said they were completely different. Of course, that's not how anyone reading the article would understand the sentence.
Still, this little episode sheds additional light on the Times's news judgment. Mark Steyn mentions Barack Obama and Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il in adjoining sentences: it's news! A senior government official says America deserved to be attacked on September 11; the September 11 attacks were orchestrated by the federal government; he wants to destroy the free enterprise system; white environmentalists and polluters steer poisons into minority communities; Republicans oppose President Obama's policies because they are "a******s;" Israel has been illicitly "occupying" Arab lands since 1948--I know, it's only a partial list--it's not news!
I think you can define pretty clearly the perspective from which that news judgment makes sense.
It's awfully sad how embarrassing this should be getting to be, but I suspect there is no shame.
posted by Alan Adamson @ 8:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home