How the New York Times Betrays Us

According to the Times own public editor, the MoveOn/Betray Us ad the Times ran on Monday, Sept. 10 has officially gone from being an ugly spectacle to a full on scandal of bad judgment, poor oversight and ideological favoritism.

Over at Atlantic.com, Andrew Sullivan writes that if the Times wants to do something about the body shot its rep has taken, it needs to fire someone.

Um, yes and no. The Times needs to fire someone, but not just anyone. It needs to give the sack to its own publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr.,

Sulzberger is part of "The Trust," the family that owns the controlling interest in the Times. "Young Arthur," as he's often called (or "Pinch" as he's also often called, but rarely to his face) was literally given control of the paper in 1992 by his daddy Arthur O. "Punch" Sulzberger. Since then, Pinch has presided over scandal after scandal -- Wen Ho Lee and Jayson Blair and Rick Bragg and Judy Miller (X2). His unwavering -- some would say blind -- defense of Miller in the Plame Affair was frankly a low point in American journalism. However, with a personal connection (read that as conflict of interest) to Miller he couldn't do otherwise. And on the scandal tip, it was little more than five weeks ago I wrote about the sordid Kurt Eichenwald mess.

Look, you can't cover the world the way the Times does and not make mistakes. But a misplaced punctuation mark or an inaccurately reported date is far different than a culture where sexed up reporting by media stars and high bias has become the norm.

But it's not just journalism that's suffered under Sulzberger's "leadership."

The paper's circulation continues to slide, with 1.12 million current readers, which is down 1.9% from last year. In the last five years its market share in the New York metro area has contracted from 29% to 24%. As of 2006 the Times still has got a grip on a massive 49.6% chunk of all national newspaper advertising, but even that's trending downward from 51.8% in 2004.

I have no doubt that Sulzberger means well, cares about his family's paper and wants to do good things. But this is the problem with institutionalized affirmative action (the "other" affirmative action conservatives never talk about when they're getting on government for insuring a level playing field). Much like, say, George Bush or Paris Hilton, Pinch has never had to truly work for anything in his life. As a result, he does not now have the leadership skills necessary to run a family business. No big deal if the family business is a corner deli. A real big deal if the family business is "all the news that's fit to print."

Comments

[politicky]

07:40 PM on 10/02/2007

Mr. Ridley,

This is a judgement call about an ad.
Have you ever read this book?
News Zero
The New York Times and the Bomb
by Beverly Deepe Keever

http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=282

[Trilby]

02:27 PM on 09/26/2007

Hm. I'm a bit disappointed in this article. My own feeling that the Times has betrayed it's readers started right after the election of 2000 when the Times said, essentially, let's stop this bickering and get behind Bush, and then later admitted that they had the numbers that proved that Gore had actually won Florida. It has been all downhill from there, and not in a good way. They beat the drum for war, and they send a team of craven ass-lickers to cover the White House. That is how the NY Times has betrayed readers, in my opinion, not simply by losing ad revenue. Sheesh!

[DebbieNathan]

01:23 PM on 09/26/2007

Here's a piece I wrote that was published September 14 in Counterpunch, almost two weeks ago. Back then, the New York Times told me they were looking into the the court documents I cite here, which evidence further ethical (and possibly illegal) conduct by their former reporter, Kurt Eichenwald -- who tried for many weeks to keep these documents sealed in federal court in Tennessee.

Since my piece appeared, nothing from the Times. Nor from the Public Editor -- even though I and many others have asked him to investigate and say something to readers.

Debbie Nathan

September 14, 2007
Counterpunch.com

New York Times reporter was a member of an illegal underage porn site, claims he was only "posing as online predator"

By DEBBIE NATHAN

A New York Times reporter not only gave money to a child pornographer, but did business with him and even signed on to an illegal porn website as a member and administrator, documents unsealed yesterday in a federal criminal proceeding in Nashville reveal. He claims in one court document, he only "posed" as a pedophile.

See the rest of the piece at
http://www.counterpunch.org/nathan09142007.html

[outnow]

12:37 PM on 09/26/2007

The NYT is a discredited organ of propaganda. I like Rich Frank and Paul Krugman but find the rest of the real news being either off limits or belatedly reported, and, often, when the NYT is forced to for but only for political purposes, like the unlawful wiretapping by the NSA in violation of the FISA law.

Fortunately, we have the internet. Unless these newspapers stick to honest journalism, they will become trashcan liners.

The British press was using the "Betrayus" moniker regarding the politicalization of the General's opinions, which began right before the 2004 election, and the "Bush's lapdog" about Tony Blair. Becoming a political figure makes you fair game for satire.

The NYT is guilty of selective truth by commission and omission. I no longer trust their reporting on major issues such as Iran or Iraq.

[avvorio]

11:01 AM on 09/26/2007

What did the ad have to do with it? It was an ad, not Moses standing on the mountain with stone tablets. That public editor is an ass and I would like to know his affiliations before I give credence to his assertion that the Times betrayed itself. How come I never hear about betrayal when right wing groups run ads or stories personally attacking persons they don't like. Then it's just journalism or politics. Petraeus was shilling for the White House. There is no doubt about that. He certainly wasn't over in his office in Iraq checking on the troops. Then the wanker went to London to talk to the British. For what? We have state department drones for that. So, MoveOn had a perfect right to run their opinion ad. Don't see any angst about Guiliana's hatchet job on Clinton linking her with the ad. Did he pay the higher rate or was his price keep the same because he's a republican? Last item, that public editor was not speaking for the American people. he was expressing his own opinion and needs to state so.

[priscianusjr]

09:45 AM on 09/26/2007

For 20 years I read the Times almost every day. Since Judy Miller, I pick it up only occasionally. They still have Krugman, Rich, Bob Herbert. They still have some good and important stories and interesting features. They have even made some effort since then to "be good." It's just that when the chips are down, you simply cannot trust them. They are too committed to whoring themselves for the neocons. If they would truly reform, I'm sure their numbers would pick up. But apparently they are in this too deep. Which means they are doomed. I get the impression from all this that the last thing a big, national newspaper cares about is what their readers actually think of them.

[esquire07]

05:20 AM on 09/26/2007

Moveon.org did the right thing.

They showed the World what a coward and a traitor General Petreaus truly is.

Who cares who wins the White House, America is done.

[xargaw]

01:28 AM on 09/26/2007

Let's not forget that it was the Times that knew that Bush was illegally wiretapping Americans before the 2004 election and that Bush was lying about it. Yet, at the urging of the Whitehouse, they sat on that story for year. Withholding that story handed Bush the election and made them accomplishes in Bushs illegal acts. They have not done their job to many times to count.

[TJTelecaster]

09:59 PM on 09/25/2007

"Sexed up..?"

I should have taken Journalism instead of Philosophy..!

Damn now they tell me..!

[Janelynne]

09:44 PM on 09/25/2007

You make a well-reasoned argument. I like so much about the Times. There is nothing so thrilling than parts of it. I love the editorial pages, but I skip over the crew that regurgitates the White House narrative. (We all know who they are) The front page is often produced as the typical valentine to the GOP. But if one searches the back pages, there are some of the best journalists in the world. I like the recipies, the weekend sections, the crossword puzzle. I read the paper selectively and treat much of it with a grain of salt. Judith Miller did to the Times what Paul Wolfowitz has done to the World Bank and Alberto Gonzales did to the Justice Department. These institutions still have tremendous value, but just not the same credibility. People lose a lifetime of trust and I don't know if it comes back. The flap about Petraeus is just another ridiculous debacle. Petraeus did betray us, along with many at the Times. And if the internet blow-back continues to have the influence I see building, the GOP crew had better wake up and smell the coffee sooner rather than later. I can feel the electorate becoming galvinized. We are changing our buying habits, our reading habits, and we can ferret out the crap pretty well. You can't fool all the people all the time, I guess.

[kpod]

11:18 AM on 09/26/2007

Thanks Janelynne for saying what I've been thinking as I read through these comments. To denigrate the NYT wholesale for the bias and errors of some who work there is ridiculous. If people reading papers expect every word therein to be absolutely accurate and completely without bias, well, I guess they'll have to wait until robots can do reporting. You have to *think* as well as *read*, folks. My 7th grade teacher called it "critical thinking." Try it sometime.

[stayleft]

09:44 PM on 09/25/2007

BushClintonClintonBushBush - Clinton?Clinton? *Obama08*

[BUCKSBOWLBOUND]

09:19 PM on 09/25/2007

Times circulation and reputation have gone to hell because most people don't want to read a newspaper which is more interested in agenda than news. The Times is a scrupulously left wing publication, making its news reporting wholly untrustworthy. Its slide into a richly deserved oblivion will continue as long as it remains the media arm of the democratic party and the rest of the American left.

[elleng]

09:00 PM on 09/25/2007

In fact the Times has betrayed us for years, and all I can do at this moment is to guess for how long.

For some time I thought that J.Miller really was a military expert; imagine my surprise! And to closely watch 2004 primaries to discover that the Times actually misstated and misconstrued statements of candidates, and then failed to cover them, well, that was it.

I wish I saved first edition wherein I noticed punctuation and spelling errors!

Maybe I shouldn't have told my ageing father, who's been reading the Times since he was a kid in NYC, that they're no longer reliable; my mother could take it because she's not from NYC, and knows that the Sun Sentinel does a pretty good job.

Pinch does have a burden to carry; maybe he's like Diana's kid who said 'I don't want to be king!' But seeing that in himself, Pinch should have figured out how to remedy the situation, instead of allowing the Grey Lady to wither on the vine AND TAKE THE ENTIRE ORCHARD WITH HER.

[joe6671]

08:40 PM on 09/25/2007

MY PERSPECTIVE. 1) I congratulate BIO for talking to this subject. 2) I think the USA has a press problem. People working for the press probably know much more about this than u or I. They hardly address the subject most likely because they dont seek "martyrdom"; they too have to make a living.
I believe that any reasonably thinking bright person would have become suspicious of the press long ago. I became suspicious of the press, in toto , in 2000 , during the Bush-Gore campaign. I was puzzled and remain puzzled to this day how it was possible for college trained professionals to treat Bush as the better of the two in the debates and in other fori. I'm sure it was not a conspiracy organized at some summit of elders. But the irrational and impossible happened. The only hypothesis that sounds reasonable to me is that every press organization felt it must do so for its good. If I am at all right , it follows that the press has become politicized to the point that it is largely not free in matters relating to the highest policy makers . The MOVEON thing is just a small pebble on the beach.It's time to inspect the boulders. The NYT was and remains guilty of this sin, in my eyes.

[jtothez]

07:51 PM on 09/25/2007

Count me in as another person who doesn't read the Times or most other traditional media sources unless I come across an article mentioned on sites like this one. Traditional media, and the Times in particular, are either pandering to politicians or big business, or they are just straight up behind the times (pun not intended, but oh well).

Thank god (or more accurately, Sir Tim Berners-Lee) for the internet (I suppose I could make an Al Gore joke here, but I'll leave that to people who are snarkier than me) and all the amazing grassroots and community efforts being made (for more info on that, check out projects like this one - http://newschallenge.org).

Anyways, here's one more person joining the "damn, the Times is screwed" pile-on here. Not that it's necessary, but there's strength in numbers. Or something.