Arthur Brisbane left his job as the public editor of the New York Times this past week, deciding before leaving to double the degree of damage he has done to that institution -- and to the newspaper business itself, of which the Times is the unchallenged leader.

I have been a consistent reader of the print edition of the New York Times since I was 13 years old. That is why I am gratified to see the Times ombudsman, Arthur S. Brisbane, in his swan song column finally state the obvious.

Arthur Brisbane accused the New York Times of having a liberal bias in his last column as the New York Times public editor — a piece that got a rebu...

It is remarkably ironic that this old anti-Hibernian slur -- 'hooligan' -- is applied primarily to soccer fans, for accounts that I have read describe the advocates of Ireland's team to be the most cordial and well-behaved in Europe.

What role should public editors play in today's newsrooms? Are they asking the right questions? What are they doing for readers and the news organizat...

I confess. I am a man of words and thus, increasingly, a dinosaur. The New York Times' public editor, conduit to America's most influential news organization, should be more.

New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane will leave his position on Sept. 1 of this year, completing a two-year term as in-house watchdog for the ...

New York Times' public editor Arthur Brisbane appeared on "Reliable Sources" to defend his controversial column asking whether the paper "should be a ...

January has not been a good month for media ombudsmen, as the in-house press analysts at our two leading newspapers have both come under attack for writing lazy, ill-considered commentaries that seemed to confirm the views of their most strident critics.

Let January 12, 2012, be marked as the date when the New York Times confessed, in an oblique but nonetheless conclusive way, that it theretofore had not been terribly concerned with discerning and reporting the truth.

Though the overwhelmingly negative response to Brisbane was warranted, the episode itself illustrates the degree to which major political forces have already succeeded in bending the mainstream media to its will.

Today the New York Times asked for input on "whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about." The response among my peers has been fairly unanimous: Are you f-ing kidding me?

In a game-changing move that could have a far-reaching impact on the way journalism is practiced in America, New York Times public editor Arthur Brisb...

A bitter argument has broken out at the New York Times about the paper's business coverage. On Sunday, Arthur Brisbane, the paper's ombudsman, wrot...

In response to the revelation last month that Ragan Communications was selling tickets to a "video rebroadcast" of David Pogue's advice for how PR pro...

New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane deserves a lot of credit this week for noting the mealy-mouthed way his own paper has treated the issue of torture over the years.

It is good that the New York Times has a "Public Editor" to keep an eye on the paper's ethics. But sometimes, it seems like valuable column space is wasted chastising Times staffers for minor missteps.

NEW YORK — The New York Times has named Arthur S. Brisbane as its new public editor. The newspaper's announcement appeared on its media blog Mo...