It's official: Parakeets and their owners everywhere heart the NYT best of all for catching bird droppings and all those nasty little seeds they eat 24/7/365 whether it's The Times shredded or The Times unshredded editions.
Or so said Brent Bozell Thursday while talking about the growing irrelevance of the New York Times to all non-parakeet species and their owners in the rest of the world---readers, investors and media watchers in general. Bozell went on to say on Fox News that if the Times wasn't careful, it would be dead and buried in five years.
He was opining about The Times in the aftermath of the completely unsubstantiated story, using unknown, anonymous sources on John McCain's alleged romantic inclinations towards a female lobbyist back in 1999. Bozell, among many others, thought it was one of the poorest examples of journalistic unprofessionalism ever printed. It was a first-class hack job.I agree. In my days as a newspaper reporter, my editors would never have let me get by with such a story. They didn't print innuendo---no matter how juicy---based on rumors that couldn't be traced back to something substantive or a real person who was identifiable and credible. Period.
The Times reputation is on a steep, steep one-way downhill slope, so expect more layoffs, stock declines and lower journalistic standards. On the other hand, expect an uptick in parakeet demand.
**********
Last night, HG, my good friend and intrepid liberal sparring partner, brought me a copy of Friday's NYT's editorial page, pointing out that whereas 85% of the Letters to the Editor were usually pro Times, yesterday, a much higher majority of readers were offended by the liberties the Times had taken with McCain.
Even he--HG--admitted this was not a good sign for his favorite newspaper of record. He left me the paper and this morning I quote from some of the letters readers sent in:
Mr. J. Mitchell of Greenville, S.C. writes:
"The article on your front page concerning John McCain is unworthy of your publication. I am not a supporter of Senator McCain; however, I am uncomfortable with the way you portrayed him.
"As far as I can tell, he may or may not have done favors for a lobbyist; he may or may not have had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist.
"This is all supposition; why print allegations if you cannot at the same time print the smoking gun or letter that clearly indicates he did something wrong?
"It's bad enough to hear that the candidates do this sort of thing, but I would think that The New York Times would try to rise above this."
"This is all supposition; why print allegations if you cannot at the same time print the smoking gun or letter that clearly indicates he did something wrong?
"It's bad enough to hear that the candidates do this sort of thing, but I would think that The New York Times would try to rise above this."
Julie Fordyce of New York writes:
"The article appears largely mired in innuendo and gossip, and as such, falls far below the editorial standards I ascribe to The New York Times.
"It's probably inevitable that the Keating Five scandal should re-emerge---and perhaps appropriate---but why are you wasting above-the-fold space with rumors of a romantic relationship? Have we learned nothing from the Monica Lewinsky debacle? Don't we have more important issues to resolve?"
Finally, I give you Mark Proctor of Brandon, Florida:
"Senator John McCain is a genuine American hero, but that would not excuse him for inappropiate behavior; however, while this article does not claim as much, it leaves many questions in the reader's mind.
"All candidates running for president should be scrutinized appropriately, but the news media should use caution before publishing stories based on rumor.
"If there is more to the story then I challenge you to publish everything immediately. The New York Times owes it to its readership to come forth with all the facts.
"The alternative is an unacceptable drip, drip, drip."
I say, is it drip, drip, drip, or drop, drop, drop?
Only the parakeets and the poppycock know for sure.
"The article appears largely mired in innuendo and gossip, and as such, falls far below the editorial standards I ascribe to The New York Times.
"It's probably inevitable that the Keating Five scandal should re-emerge---and perhaps appropriate---but why are you wasting above-the-fold space with rumors of a romantic relationship? Have we learned nothing from the Monica Lewinsky debacle? Don't we have more important issues to resolve?"
Finally, I give you Mark Proctor of Brandon, Florida:
"Senator John McCain is a genuine American hero, but that would not excuse him for inappropiate behavior; however, while this article does not claim as much, it leaves many questions in the reader's mind.
"All candidates running for president should be scrutinized appropriately, but the news media should use caution before publishing stories based on rumor.
"If there is more to the story then I challenge you to publish everything immediately. The New York Times owes it to its readership to come forth with all the facts.
"The alternative is an unacceptable drip, drip, drip."
I say, is it drip, drip, drip, or drop, drop, drop?
Only the parakeets and the poppycock know for sure.
1 comment:
lol..exactly!...its such yellow journalism they dont even try to masquerade it!
Post a Comment