-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
The New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt thinks the paper could have done a better job in covering Palin.
WHEN a newspaper like The Times takes a tough, critical look at a candidate in this year’s presidential election, it has to give readers enough solid evidence to make up their own minds about whether it is being accurate and fair. Consider two front-page articles last weekend: I think one delivered the goods and one fell short.
The first, in Saturday’s paper, reported that John McCain had drawn “an avalanche of criticism” from Democrats, independents and even some Republicans “for regularly stretching the truth” about Barack Obama’s record and positions.
Without relying on others to make the charge, the article declared that the McCain campaign had “twisted Mr. Obama’s words” to suggest he had compared Sarah Palin to a pig. It also stated that McCain himself had “falsely claimed” that Obama supported comprehensive sex education for kindergartners, had “repeatedly and incorrectly asserted” that Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, and had “misrepresented” Obama’s positions on energy and health care.
This is strong stuff, and it offended some readers who thought the paper was taking sides. William Cunningham of St. Peters, Mo., asked, “Doesn’t this belong on the editorial page?” Indeed, many newspapers have traditionally been more comfortable when they could simply quote candidates trading accusations about false statements, without making an independent judgment of the truth. Even reporters and editors committed to digging out the facts feel best when they can present the sins of each side in relatively evenhanded fashion.
Hoyt has shown is isn’t a dyed in the wool schill for the paper and is willing to bite the hand that feeds him which many ombudsmen refuse to do.
Share This
About the author
Don Irvine is Chairman of Accuracy in Media. He is active on Facebook and Twitter. You can follow him @donirvine to read his latest thoughts.
5 Comments for NYT Public Editor Critiques Palin Coverage
AlaskanMilk, please help me out, Clark Hoyt’s comments were only about McCain’s alleged untruths, nothing directly about Palin, so could you fill me in on the program Gov. Palin was involved in that you are talking about. Thanks!
Charlie
The writhing liberals are prone to unabased polemics and lies. They will throw out the most outlandish comments and use the most emotional phrases possible in an effort to stop discourse. Similar to the “uc-berkley spitters” who would surround a ‘conservative’ in an argument and try to shout them down and spit on them—- the liberals are neither liberal nor democratic.
Rather than ignore them, challenge their comments vigorously through 2-3 rounds and watch their spasms—then immediately return to your point.
DO not let them steal your right to honest, civilized discourse.
This really no surprise that the NYTimes becomes Obama’s campaign spokesperson. This paper can’t get anymore liberal than it already is. This has been proved time and time again, for those that have been paying attention.
What? The leftist media was completely biased against the conservative candidates? I’m aghast and taken aback! No, but seriously, it has taken on a whole new life this election. If I ever thought Bill Clinton was their glamor boy I had no idea what the real thing could look like. NObama can’t do anything wrong.
I admire anyone who wants to write the media and fight with them about this bias. I do it sometimes but I find myself doing it less and less these days. When it comes to the written media though, more people have just chosen to withdraw their readership and go elsewhere for information and news. I know I don’t miss the horrible writing, grammar, spelling and general misuse of the English language I used to suffer reading newspapers. They are losing readers, advertisers and money and becoming a thing of the past. They will bury themselves.
There’s a problem Clark Hoyt’s analysis too.
He didn’t tell the public that it was also Palin who immediately FIRED HER FRIEND when she judged that the program would fail in the end.
To Alaskans like me, the SARAH’S INTENTION WAS NOBLE. She really listened to us when asked for the intervention. She was also quick to inform us that the program had to stop.
That’s courage of A GOOD LEADER. You immediately make reparation of your actions if plans didn’t work out as intended.