NYT Bends Ethical Rules
Hat tip to my pal renee for this one.
I suppose I shouldn't be shocked. Apparently, our charming friends at Columbia University decided that if The New York Times was willing to forego interviewing outside sources (namely the Jewish students involved), in exchange they could get a one-day advantage over the competition and receive the report on student charges of anti-Israel bias at the university. According to The Village Voice, The New York Times took them up on it. In the era of the Jayson Blair debacle, was this really a smart move for the credibility-impaired newspaper? Interesting side note: a campus paper was offered the same deal -- they turned it down. Glad someone is showing some journalism ethics.
posted by Esther @ 8:07 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Another reason ... why one needs to "consider one's source?"
Hopefully, people who are outraged by this latest lapse in judgment (or probably more like outright bias), on the part of the Times, will cancel their subscriptions in protest. I cancelled mine when I could no longer stand to read their one-sided reporting on the Palestinian terror campaign going on in Israel. As far as Columbia University is concerned, the same thing holds true. Any of their alumni, who find the situation there more than a little disturbing, should withhold any donations they might have been planning to make. Above all else, universities are a business and sometimes the only way to get their attention is by withholding money. In the case of Columbia, though, I suspect they'll just find some Saudi sheik to cough up the big bucks and make up the shortfall.
Wow it has been a while since my last comment. Sorry. Keep posting. Journalism. Is that how you spell it. Is that even a word:)?
More and more often the "journalism" is identified with opinion peddling enterprise.
NYT is a classic example of this phenomenon.
As long there are no "real" alternatives the "I-know-what-is-good-for-you" arrogant elitists are having their way.
They can't even see that there should be any other way.
"Hopefully, people who are outraged by this latest lapse in judgment "
Rory,
I wished you could be right but the "core" NYT readers just want to hear what this rag sells as journalistic integrity and "facts".
Meanwhile the silent majority readers buy it or just think there is something in it.
Those who can see the wrong go to each other blogs or "designer publications" and preach to already converted without much of a chance to reach the "silent majority" - lack of forum.
The problem with the NYTs isn't that its biased. Its readers know that, thats why they read it. The problem is that other papers around the country take what they write as gospel and regurgitate it. Jeez, I'm having lots of problems today.
Trans, i've tried to go to your blog several times today and have had no luck. :(
Yeah, I agree the NYT readers love it and very little seems to sway them, no matter what scandal breaks sadly.
Yea, I came home and it had dumped itself. I republished and it came back up. I think its mad at me for switching my comments to Haloscan.
Off topic once again, I ran across this a few minutes ago and thought of you. Right-wing coup in Israel?
The post is at the top for now. Go get em.
LOL, trans, thanks for the tip. I read it but I don't agree. Second time today that i'm saying it seems like much ado about nothin'. I could be wrong, but that's my take.
By the way, I'm not sure your coding on the haloscan is exactly right because shouldn't a little window come up to post in? Instead it turns into the comment and then it's hard to get back to your site.
It was a setting. I originally didn't like the pop up box, but you make a good point about getting back to the site. I've now changed it.
Post a Comment
<< Home