Name Change Needed: The New York Times-Democrat

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Apr 7, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Apr 25, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Times for a Name Change: Honesty's the Best Policy
    By MUGGER for Jewish World Review
    April 7, 2005

    It'd be an overdue act of integrity if the country's most influential liberal daily newspaper altered its name to The New York Times-Democrat. Any number of editorial employees might actually applaud the liberating move, but the "branding" implications would kill the idea in the business and marketing departments. Likewise, the elimination of the anachronistic and grand motto (and the Times sneers about George W. Bush's "hubris"!) "All the News That's Fit to Print" won't happen on a Sulzberger watch, even if the company's extensive tax breaks from the city aren't considered "news."

    So the paper's p.r. hacks, and editors, continue the charade that the Times is impartial in its news coverage and offers readers a wide array of views on its opinion pages. Executive editor Bill Keller is probably heartened by the claims of extreme left-wing media critics (often found rustling about the Neverland of college campuses) that in reality the Times is getting redder month by month. And not the "good" kind of red, but rather the color that television broadcasters decided five years ago represented states that voted for Bush rather than Al Gore.

    Todd Gitlin (60's revolutionary/radical), a journalism professor at Columbia—if aspiring reporters need one more reason to skip this expensive and wasteful master's degree, a trip to Gitlin's class might be just the eye-opener—unleashes his dismay about the imaginary GOP hijacking of the Times in April's American Prospect, an essay so insular you'd swear he lives and socializes exclusively with people who supported John Kerry. Oh wait, he does.

    Gitlin writes: "The mere notion that Times editors are… fretting aloud about how to live down their reputation as a blue-state paper, is worrying. It suggests an unseemly readiness to cave in before force majeure whenever some rampaging bloggers (or just plain readers) get mad." He goes on to say that since the Times is published in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, and presumably pleases its audience, management ought not worry about appearing completely objective. He concludes with a flourish: "Once you start imposing political tests on people whose business it is to see and smell what they haven't already seen and smelled, there'll be nothing left for American newspapers to do but die." I've no idea what the heck Gitlin means, but recent Times editorials, op-ed columns and news articles smell pretty rank.

Share This Page