Thanks Norman,
Earlier, before reading the NYT editorial post you point to, I had first read Elizabeth Edwards scathing opinion on the state of MSM reporting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html?
And while yes, I do agree with the point that you make about the NYT stepping up while others have fallen off, I couldn't help but to weigh that against what Elizabeth pointed to as a major failing when she wrote: "News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates "sells," we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve."
I had to include the NYT in her assessment. I also had to conclude that their editorial board's choice for presidential candidacy has affected their news reporting. The bias and slant has been generally evident and their reporting has been subpar to the point of fluff.
Although Elizabeth takes pains to exclude her husband when offering examples, it's my opinion that she had a strong case to include lack of coverage of his campaign as well. So, yes... thank you NYT... but it's not enough. We need to demand higher standards of excellence.
alienated in Seattle




Loading comments…
Posted April 27, 2008 | 07:40 AM (EST)