The NYT Goes ODM
What’s the difference between CR?N, the National Enquirer and the New York Times? Only one of these tabloids is based in New York City.
For those of you who aren’t political junkies, the past couple of days have been interesting, watching the New York Times (the “paper of record” for the USA, said with tongue-firmly-in-cheek) take its lessons from ODM’s. Granted, most observant Christians have noticed that the Times, the Enquirer and CR?N have about as much a firm grasp on the truth as Bill Clinton under oath, but it was rather pathetic seeing the Times go ODM yesterday, even by its own (low) standards.
I’m not a big fan of John McCain (though I think he’d be miles better as a leader than any of the existing alternatives left in either race), but yesterday’s story on McCain and a lobbyist (who it turns out was verbally slapped down by a McCain aide for bragging to other lobbyists that she had inside access to his committee, despite evidence to the contrary) was shoddy - almost to the point of mirroring ODM “standards”.
1) It dredged up years-old information, as if it were current events, for the purpose of smearing its target with even older accusations.
2) It presented the information it had in a way most potentially damaging to the subject, in complete absence of any sense of objectivity and likelihood.
3) It purposely omitted facts and information contradictory to its flawed theseis.
However, despite these flaws, the Times showed a whit more integrity than the rock-bottom bar of ODM’ery in that it actually contacted McCain for comment before running its fatally flawed hit-piece. You know it’s sad when your expectations of a secular corporation with a tradition of corruption are still higher than what you’ve come to expect from “Christian” publications.
HT: Brendt, for making the connection for me…
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Great post Chris L.
I had read a bit about the McCain situation and noted how long ago it happened… and dismissed it… so you can see how effective these tactics really are. LOL!
iggy
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
it looks like they only came out with the article when they did because they were about to be scooped by another publication.
if so, that could account for some of the missing pieces.
they had the story in December. and John McCain should thank his lucky stars they didn’t run it then, because he wouldn’t have made it through primary season if they had. now he’s the presumptive nominee. look, if they had this info, they weren’t going to sit on it forever.
likely, they were bullied into keeping quiet for fear of being labeled “liberal”, but then ran the story because being scooped trumps their fear of conservatives.
it’s the NYT’s consistent quandary…
but they’re going to be labeled as liberal, regardless of what they report on, because that’s the “conventional wisdom.”
never mind that it was their own Judy Miller, and their own editorial page, that was complicit in spreading the lies of the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war.
details, details…
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Chris, you make a very good comparison here. The comparison of “ODM”s to tabloids make me laugh out loud and say “ouch” at the same time.
I had a thought– it’s obvious newspapers really aren’t the best sources of information and tabloids are complete trash. But I really don’t see internet blogs as a good source of information either– blogs are meant to be opinions, like the editorial section of a newspaper, not the front page that presents facts. I’d compare blogs to the editorial section of the newspaper, not the whole newspaper itself. I’ve never read a tabloid, but I’d doubt it has an editorial section.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
merry,
this is for you!
iggy
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 am
Thanks . . .
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 am
Ya think? Actually, man himself is not a great source of accurate information since it always come filtered through personal perception, environmental imperfections, preconceived notions, hidden agendas, peer considerations, wrong assumptions, incomplete facts, and the overall effects of a prideful fallen nature.
Of course if you are aware of all these things like I am you can successfully guard against any error in your views.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Good point, Rick, but did you read my whole comment? The part of my comment that you quoted wasn’t the point. I was just saying that blogs are opinions and newspaper articles present facts, and I see a slight difference between the two.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“…newspaper articles present facts”
Since when?
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
In theory, they are supposed to. We all know they don’t, but I was talking about the original purpose it was supposed to serve.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Only the NY Times presents the facts, all the rest are spurious rags!
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Rick: My hometown paper isn’t a “spurious rag!” Johnny Paul Jason really did win the third grade spelling bee last week! I’ll ask you to refrain from such generalizations in the future.
8^)>
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
this conversation gets into the fallacy of “fair and balanced” news reporting.
the fact is that all reporting/documenting comes through someone’s lens, and the most accurate news sources tend to be the ones that don’t shout from the tops of mountains about how “objective” and “fair” and “balanced” they are.
plus, in the mainstream media, true investigative reporting is all but dead, and the populace is worse off because of it.