May 26, 2004

NYT DENOUNCES PARTISANS

Interesting line from the NYTís Daniel Okrent in this OJR piece on bloggers who challenge newspaper inaccuracies:

"In some instances, some are so partisan -- even though they're right in many instances -- they're immediately discredited within the newsroom because of their partisanship. If the comment comes from someone who isn't identified as a partisan, they take it much more seriously."

Explains a lot, doesnít it?

Posted by Tim Blair at May 26, 2004 02:35 PM
Comments

So it's only true if it comes from the right person?
In other words if the opposing partisans are correct, and your partisans ( who are really not partisan because, after all, they're on your side ) are incorrect, your partisans are still at least not incorrect, and possibly even right?

Posted by: RonG at May 26, 2004 at 02:58 PM

In all the euphanisms for terrorists, I'm surprised "partisan" hasn't made a come-back. Then we could get phrases like "One person's partisan is another person's activist".

Posted by: Andjam at May 26, 2004 at 03:23 PM

In other words, anyone who questions the journalism lords of the NYT is a partisan and can be safely dismissed.

Posted by: perfectsense at May 26, 2004 at 03:23 PM

Isn't this a variation of dissent crushing? Sounds like it to me.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 26, 2004 at 04:16 PM

Did you pick that photo Tim? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and think no.

Aah, the wonders of sweet sweet anonymity...

Posted by: attila at May 26, 2004 at 04:18 PM

Okrent dissembles, conveying bloggers are merely nitpicking, and the illustration of `arguable facts' isn't convincing either.


Very satisfying: bloggers are giving mainstream medja headaches, and that includes readership.

Very becoming photo Tim.You can't go out in public now without having spent time grooming. Stardom is hell.

Posted by: d at May 26, 2004 at 05:29 PM

"even though they're right in many instances -- they're immediately discredited....because of their partisanship"

Gee, that attitude wouldn't exist at this site, would it?


Posted by: Sincerity Slips at May 26, 2004 at 05:47 PM

Hey, SS, if Margo tells me that 2 + 2 = 4, I'll agree with her.

But usually, in her calculations, that sum ends up equalling BUSH HOWARD OIL JUNTA HALLIBURTON ARAB EXTINCTION TAMPA HEGEMONSTER. It's not that she's partisan; it's that she's an idiot.

Posted by: tim at May 26, 2004 at 05:52 PM

I would agree with her as well, after i had checked the maths of course, just in case.

Posted by: attila at May 26, 2004 at 07:04 PM

Yeah everyone needs to just call themselves "Moderates" like more and more liberal news media people are doing. This way you can feign an unbiased opinion.

Posted by: Dash at May 26, 2004 at 10:29 PM

You're only discredited here when you say stupid things like "We should fight to the pain. BLOGMIRE SQUWAK! BLAIRWATCH HAS A NEW POST UP tim doesn't campitalize his own name THANZ FAT AMERKIKANS CLICK"

Posted by: Sortelli at May 27, 2004 at 12:05 AM

i'm a moderate. everone else is an asshole

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 27, 2004 at 12:22 AM

of course, i spell like an asshole just to be one with the masses...

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 27, 2004 at 12:23 AM

In some instances, some are so partisan -- even though they're right in many instances -- they're immediately discredited within the newsroom because of their partisanship.

Mote, beam?

Posted by: R C Dean at May 27, 2004 at 12:30 AM

Interesting article.

Found this statement by Okrent very strange:

""The Times' position has long been that they choose a columnist, and that space belongs to the columnist until it no longer does," Okrent said. "A fact to you might not be a fact to someone else. .. "

I'm wracking my brain trying to think of an example to prove that my facts may not be someone else's facts. I can't. If I substitute belief, feeling, observation, etc. for fact then I can see my 'facts' may be different from someone else's 'facts'. But observations, beliefs, feelings, etc. are not necessarily facts.

Does he mean facts are fluid and can change from person to person -or- does he mean that facts person A has may not be known to person B?

If it's the latter, I have no problem with that. We all know different things and it's absurd to assume everyone has the same knowledge and therefore the same facts.

However, if he means facts are fluid I have a problem with that. Especially from a journalist.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at May 27, 2004 at 12:45 AM

well, i guess he's saying that, since RWDBs are not reasonable creatures they can therefore not have a grasp of 'fact' to the extent that the gods of times square can.

or something.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 27, 2004 at 01:00 AM

Shazz-amm!

Posted by: Don at May 27, 2004 at 01:52 AM

"A fact to you might not be a fact to someone else. .. "

So does that mean, to the NYT, facts are "unknowns we don't know..."?

It seems they've reversed that dictum of a fine American: "Verify, but don't trust..."

Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 27, 2004 at 01:59 AM

Well, maybe facts aren't really facts to the NYT unless they make the facts up themselves. You know, a variation of "not invented here".

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 27, 2004 at 02:16 AM

The Times' position has long been that they choose a columnist, and that space belongs to the columnist until it no longer does

Well, that certainly clarifies things.

Posted by: R C Dean at May 27, 2004 at 03:35 AM

Has the word "partisan" now become code for "conservative"? Or, does Okrent also dismiss corrections from the DNC, NOW, ACLU, NAACP, Brookings Institute, People for the American Way, Center for American Progress, environmental groups, Hollywood activists, MoveOn and Michael Moore types, Democrat politicians, and all liberal/ leftist bloggers?

Wait, nevermind. Why would they need to demand corrections when their viewpoints are already sympathetically embedded in the Times' text and subtext? To the Times, none of the aforementioned are really "liberal/ leftist"- they are simply non-partisan moderates and progressives. Okrent admitted to more bias than he intended---

Posted by: c at May 27, 2004 at 05:10 AM

Hey, Tim, if Andrea tells me that 2 + 2 = 4, I'll agree with her.

But usually, in her calculations, that sum ends up equalling ADAMS MOORE MEDIA-BIAS UN ABC TERROR MEDIA-BIAS FAT-MOORE STUPID-LEFTIE HEGEMONSTER. It's not that she's partisan; it's that she's an idiot.

And an idiot who, as the gate-keeper of this site, frequently censors opinion that challenges her "view" .

Posted by: Sincerity Slips at May 27, 2004 at 01:41 PM

SS, your attempt at sarcasm was poor, to say the least.

Posted by: Quentin George at May 27, 2004 at 05:37 PM

When did the subject turn yo me here? SS, obsess much?

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, this isn't a newspaper, but Tim Blair's personal blog. Of course it will be "biased" towards his viewpoint on things. And all the comments here aren't objective reports of reporters on world events, they are personal observations and opinions by the readers of this site, so of course they will be "biased" towards the personal viewpoints of those readers.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 27, 2004 at 08:22 PM

What, Quentin, at some point you expected more than that from the Slipster?

Posted by: Sortelli at May 27, 2004 at 08:22 PM

And by the way, you are welcome to take over financing of this site. As long as I and Tim (and other contributors) are paying for it, I have no reason to allow my webspace and bandwidth to be taken up by idiocy. That's why I "censor" trolls who take comment threads off into never-never land, post nothing but gratuitous insults, and so on. I haven't the deep pockets to fund an Australian version of Democratic Underground, which is what you and your ilk would turn this site into given half a chance.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 27, 2004 at 08:25 PM

SS, when the doctor tells you that you're not supposed to stop taking your medication, he means it.

Posted by: PW at May 27, 2004 at 08:38 PM

That's the same person in all three photographs. Maybe ten years or kilos apart, but the same person.

Oh shit, did I just take this thread off into never-nev...

Posted by: Flashman at May 27, 2004 at 08:44 PM

Ironically, that's also how news from the Times is received in many quarters.

Posted by: Crank at May 28, 2004 at 03:36 AM