Monday, September 28, 2009

The New York Times calls its bias "insuffient tuned-in-ness"

The New York Times published the nuttiest thing I ever read today. The Public Opinion Editor, Clark Hoyt, tried to explain why the New York Times was so slow in reporting the Van Jones and ACORN stories.

In a nutshell he chalks it up to “insufficient tuned-in-ness” (how’s that for an ugly use of the English language) to conservative opinion sources. Meanwhile as he describes the turn of events that led to the Times insufficient tuned-in-ness, he ends up giving example after example of the paper’s bias towards conservatives.

Hoyt tells us that the Times has solved the problem of “insufficient tuned-in-ness” by appointing an unnamed editor to “monitor opinion media” (i.e. Fox News, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere)

This is such a joke. Does the Times actually think that will bring them up to speed? Basically they are going to pay some editor to sit and watch Glenn Beck, listen to Rush and read Michelle Malkin and think that they will be up to speed with conservative “opinion media”. Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!

The conservative blogosphere alone moves at the speed of light. I am already embarrassingly late posting on this topic; surely The New York Times with its vast resources can shoot for better.

The New York Times problem has always been its bias. It can make excuses all over the place, but we all know it is the bias. Hoyt himself make that clear when he said this [emphasis added]:

But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.

How polemical can these sources be when the were correct about both stories? That is where the problem lies New York Times. Luckily Michelle Malkin offers a helping hand to the new Tuned-in-ness Editor.

Personally I have no problem with the New York Times' bias. What bothers me the most is their utter dishonesty about it. I have far more respect for the Daily Kos, Huffington Post and leftwing bloggers because they are upfront about their slant. They do not pretend to be anything else but left of center. The New York Times would go a long way in improving their credibility if they would simply come out of their make believe closet once and for all.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: Michelle Malkin

10 comments:

LL said...

There's been talk of the bail-out by the US Government.

Maybe this is an effort by the TIMES to provide a sop to the conservative side of the aisle to take the wind out of any strident complaint they'd be getting from the Patriot Crowd at a government take-over.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Fantastic post, and I totally agree. I don't really mind the Times' left slant, either, but what I do mind is that they pretend that they actually report news. They haven't done that in at least a decade, maybe longer, and during the Bush years, they veered so far left that they truly became nothing more than a leftist op-ed. Pages and pages of it.

namaste said...

exellent post, clifton! you gave me a good laugh.

yes, "insufficient tuned-in-ness" is not only an ugly phrase, it's idiotic. i can't believe they published such a silly article. nice catch.

Hazaa Blue-Eyes said...

It cracks me up that liberals don't seem to know the meaning of little words, like "tax" and "is", but come up with odd terms like "insufficient tuned-in-ness”.

Anonymous said...

Well said - I really couldn't believe my eyes when I read thet piece yesterday - so dishonest - about being dishonest! Boggles the mind.

Clifton B said...

LL:

The Times would think that their ridiculous plan would placate conservative voices. They are mistaken, a newspaper bailout has two major problems that the Times' new editor cannot solve.

1. A bailout makes the newspapers beholden to the government and thus brings their creditability into more question.
2. We are broke! We cannot afford to bailout every unsuccessful enterprise.

Clifton B said...

Fuzzy Slippers:

My nickname for the Times is the DNC Newsletter. Did you see that poll that showed 90% of Americans believed that the media helped Obama during the election? With numbers like that it is ridiculous to continue to pretend they are impartial.

Clifton B said...

namaste:

When you think of all the resources at the New York Times' disposal, you have to laugh at the entire insufficient tuned-in-ness idea!

Did it ever dawn on the Times to send actual reporters out to check things out themselves rather than cut and paste White House Press Releases?

Clifton B said...

Hazaa Blue-Eyes:

It cracks me up that liberals don't seem to know the meaning of little words, like "tax" and "is", but come up with odd terms like "insufficient tuned-in-ness”.

It cracks me up too, but we all know why they do it...to obscure their true thoughts.

Clifton B said...

Anonymous:

..so dishonest - about being dishonest!

Perfectly said!

Related Posts with Thumbnails