NOM BLOG

New York Times Editor Notes Paper's Bias on Gay Marriage

 

Not surprised but happy to see it admitted! This from Arthur Brisbane, public editor of the New York Times

"...I also noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.

When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects."

11 Comments

  1. Randy E King
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Translation:

    We have lost all semblance of plausible deniability, so rather than deny the existence of the green curtain everyone can clearly see we will simply deny the existence of the man behind said curtain and declare the Times to be rudderless.

    We at the Times are not corrupt; we are incompetent.

    Sincerely,

    Karl Marx
    Editor

  2. Fitz
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    The first Public Editor the times had also recognized this bias specifically regarding the issue of same-sex "marriage"

    He said when it comes to issues like same-sex "marriage" the Times amounted to "something approaching naked cheerleading"

    He was the 1st or 2nd public editor at the time of the Goodridge ..Mass..decision.

    His name was Okenshot or Oakinfeild...???

    I have been trying to find his name and that column he wrote if anyone can find it...that would help.

    Combined with this admission that is TWICE now that the NYT own ombudsman has specifically said that on the issue of same-sex "marriage" the times is totally biased..

    Anyone have the correct spelling of his name... Or can find the link??

  3. Debbie
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    I was amazed when I read that article. And I didn't think ANYONE over there was even capable of seeing the problem. And now, he's gone!

  4. Posted August 28, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    That is, obviously, *why* he is gone.

    And everyone sees this.

    The credibility of Big Media is irretrievably lost.

    The bankruptcies of leading newspaper corporations constitutes the empirical confirmation.

  5. Fitz
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    The first public dditor the times had also recognized this bias specifically regarding the issue of same-sex "marriage"

    He said when it comes to issues like same-sex "marriage" the Times amounted to "something approaching naked cheerleading"

    He was the 1st or 2nd public editor at the time of the Goodridge ..Mass..decision.

    His name was Okenshot or Oakinfeild...???

    I have been trying to find his name and that column he wrote if anyone can find it...that would help.

    Combined with this admission that is TWICE now that the NYT own ombudsman has specifically said that on the issue of same-sex "marriage" the times is totally biased..

    Anyone have the correct spelling of his name... Or can find the link??

  6. Posted August 28, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    @Fitz, Here's what you're looking for. His name is Daniel Okrent
    "it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading."
    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

  7. Fitz
    Posted August 28, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    mominvermont

    Thank you so much....

  8. TWINGIRL2
    Posted August 29, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for sharing both of these references. Do you think we might expect such an admission from the NYT every 7 years in the future? If it still read by anyone outside New York by then?

  9. leehawks
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    I have often thought that the only way to combat bias in ultra liberal acadamia would be to have a form of affirmative action for conservative thought, maintaining a 50/50 balance. I think the same thing is necessary in all media outlets. It would help stop the bleeding of opinion into hard news stories and that subtle shading of the facts they like to do. If there was always someone there to call them on their bias it would have to negate some of the worst examples.

  10. Posted August 30, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    leehawks:

    Your solution is even much worse than the problem.

    Freedom of speech cannot be subject to some bureaucrat's determination of what "50/50" might be.

    Instead simply point out that the liars are lying each and every time they publish, and they lie in a pretty cynical and easy-to-detect way, since they hold us in contempt.

    That will adequately serve to inoculate any citizen still capable of acting as a free man or woman.

    If anything more than that is required we have already lost.

  11. leehawks
    Posted August 30, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Oh I don't mean govt. at all. I mean like a hiring thing. For instance the white house (a fresh one) could say, your white house correspondent's participation in press conferences will be suspended unless you're increasing the number of conservatives you're hiring. No law, but you play fair and you can come to our functions. Kind of a freeze out. Remember the current WH was willing to oust Fox news from the news pool.