NYT public editor: It’s hard to tell who our writers voted for

posted at 10:31 am on January 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, I thought the public editor was the one person at the Times deputized to acknowledge the plain fact that yes, the paper is indeed overwhelmingly, glaringly liberal. Two of Sullivan’s predecessors went even further than that and actually accused the Times of letting its “coverage” of certain issues turn into out-and-out cheerleading for left-wing causes. Remember Daniel Okrent’s shocking column in 2004 admitting that the sky is blue?

But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it’s disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that ”For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy” (March 19); that the family of ”Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home” (Jan. 12) is a new archetype; and that ”Gay Couples Seek Unions in God’s Eyes” (Jan. 30). I’ve learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I’ve met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I’ve been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.

Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn’t even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you’d have the makings of a life insurance commercial.

This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn’t appeared. Apart from one excursion into the legal ramifications of custody battles (“Split Gay Couples Face Custody Hurdles,” by Adam Liptak and Pam Belluck, March 24), potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.

Just last year, Arthur Brisbane confirmed that the sky is blue and that it also contains clouds:

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.

Per one survey, 93 percent of Washington correspondents vote Democratic. Those numbers aren’t unusual historically either: For all the concern-trolling about how far right the GOP has moved in recent year, even a more centrist Republican like Nixon trailed Humphrey and McGovern by 60-70 points in surveys of journalists. To take Sullivan seriously here, you have to believe either (a) that Okrent and Brisbane and everyone to the right of, say, the Center for American Progress is totally blinkered in their perceptions about the Times’s bias or (b) that we’re all correct but that that bias is somehow institutional and doesn’t travel with the Times’s writers once they leave the newsroom. If the staff’s liberalism is so entrenched that it’s creeping through into the paper’s writing despite professional norms that demand a “neutral” perspective, what are the odds that they’re suddenly deciding to pull the lever for the Romney/Ryan entitlement-reform agenda once they’re in the voting booth?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ha!

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM

What the heII is a journalist?

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Open the files on their political donations.

They’re sure to lie if asked.

Good Lt on January 25, 2013 at 10:34 AM

NYT public editor: It’s hard to tell who our writers voted for

To quote Joe Wilson: You LIE…

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Sure it’s hard to tell. Especially considering how neutral their election coverage was in 2012.

Doughboy on January 25, 2013 at 10:35 AM

but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds

See also, the most recent inaugural address referencing “collective action.”

The rot is deep.

rbj on January 25, 2013 at 10:36 AM

To take Sullivan seriously here, you have to

Double down on the Hillary Clinton willful suspension of disbelief.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:36 AM

risible

crrr6 on January 25, 2013 at 10:36 AM

NYT public editor: It’s hard to tell who our writers voted for

Of course it is hard! It will expose your paper as a yellow partisan rag, and you’re not quite ready for such admission.

Archivarix on January 25, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Yeah, it’s hard to tell who Michelle Obama voted for too…

Marxism is for dummies on January 25, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Someone please give this lady a clue.

WestTexasBirdDog on January 25, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Yeah. Total crapshoot. I bet we’d have a hard time discerning whether blacks voted for Obama en masse as well.

ButterflyDragon on January 25, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Let’s take a gander at what journalists support with their money come election time. This was in 2007, running up to the first Obama coronation:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/ns/politics/t/list-journalists-who-wrote-political-checks/#.UQKmo79EF8E

I’m sure you’ll be shocked at what you find at that link. SHOCKED, I TELL YOU.

Send this to the public editor at the NYT and ask why they can’t dredge up their vast resources to do a little report on their own editorial staff.

They’re acting like it’s some great unsolvable mystery on purpose. It isn’t. It can be determined who they voted for.

Good Lt on January 25, 2013 at 10:40 AM

All one needs to know is that the NYT buried the story on Hillary’s Benghazi testimony on…page A11.

Meanwhile, today may be trash day at The Old Gray Whore. NY Post:

The deadline for New York Times newsroom managers to take voluntary buyouts came and went yesterday — without reaching the target of 30 takers.

Now, insiders are worried that involuntary cuts — layoffs — will start.

Jill Abramson, the executive editor overseeing the process, declined to comment yesterday as the deadline passed but several insiders worried that as few as a dozen raised their hands and volunteered — meaning up to 18 heads must roll.

Del Dolemonte on January 25, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Yeah, it’s hard to tell who Michelle Obama voted for too…

Marxism is for dummies on January 25, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Ham sandwich?

Archivarix on January 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Yeah…the NYT…a shining beacon of diverse political philosophy…

*gag*

BigWyo on January 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM

> spit take <

kurtzz3 on January 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM

It is difficult. Sure, most probably voted Democrat for Obama, but some may have voted for Obama on the Communist line too.

Gingotts on January 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Since liberalism is the way to go these days, and it’s obvious most MSM reporters are liberals, why are they to afraid to admit it? You would think that Times circulation should go up if they came clean, wouldn’t you?

Liam on January 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM

I’ll actually give the NYT the benefit of the doubt here. It’s probably hard to tell whether some of their writers voted for Obama (Dem), Jill Stein (Green), Rocky Anderson (Justice), or some other minor left-wing candidate.

It’s pretty obvious who none of them voted for, however…

JimLennon on January 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Give the sweetie a break. I’d find it hard also to determine if the typical NY Times JournoTard voted for Stalin or Mao.

MNHawk on January 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Meanwhile, today may be trash day at The Old Gray Whore. NY Post:

The deadline for New York Times newsroom managers to take voluntary buyouts came and went yesterday — without reaching the target of 30 takers.

Now, insiders are worried that involuntary cuts — layoffs — will start.

Jill Abramson, the executive editor overseeing the process, declined to comment yesterday as the deadline passed but several insiders worried that as few as a dozen raised their hands and volunteered — meaning up to 18 heads must roll.

Del Dolemonte on January 25, 2013 at 10:42 AM

May Donald Trump buy out the old Gray wh0re and fire the entire editorial staff…

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Silly me, I thought they were mostly Palin supporters. How did I miss that?

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Needs to work on those lying skills.

mojo on January 25, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Since liberalism is the way to go these days, and it’s obvious most MSM reporters are liberals, why are they to afraid to admit it? You would think that Times circulation should go up if they came clean, wouldn’t you?

Liam on January 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM

An official admission of partisanship may pose a problem in making public libraries, hotels, and other allegedly-nonpartisan institution pay for a subscription. I’d sure make a fuss with my township library were they to waste my tax money on a rag that is liberal on record.

Archivarix on January 25, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Said with a straight face. These people are evil.

Fallon on January 25, 2013 at 10:47 AM

NYT public editor: It’s hard to tell who our writers voted for

Thanks AP, I needed the laugh this morning.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on January 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM

I’ll bet my vast fortune that she voted straight democrat.

Vince on January 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM

It’s hard to tell who our writers voted for

And all this time I thought such a position at the newspaper required a modicum of intelligence. Guess not.

GarandFan on January 25, 2013 at 10:51 AM

When are these people going to figure out that a lot of us couldn’t possibly be as stupid as they think we are?

Cindy Munford on January 25, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Me thinks Brisbane’s old haunt, the KC Star, could use his deft touch, again.

locomotivebreath1901 on January 25, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I take her literally: Openly advertising one’s partisan political preference, say, around the water cooler (or perhaps they serve domestic champagne?) is (perhaps) not done at the paper.

Inferences and implications are another matter.

Seth Halpern on January 25, 2013 at 10:53 AM

In order to do so would require them looking into the background of liberals and that is completely forbidden by NYT policy.

Flange on January 25, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Del Dolemonte on January 25, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I’m going to be petty and hope that Ms. Abramson doesn’t feel compelled to go on camera to discuss this. I’d rather listen to nails on a chalkboard than her voice.

Cindy Munford on January 25, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Cindy Munford on January 25, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I think they have hope they can capture the other half. Having so much success with the one half they have snookered.

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 10:56 AM

It’s hard to tell who our writers voted for

So it’s true then. Reading materials in order to determine content and context is no longer taught in editor school.

Lily on January 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Well they can certainly feel free to try to bribe me to their way of thinking. Oh, wait, they don’t have any money. Obviously they are doing something incorrectly.

Cindy Munford on January 25, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Correspondents?

Court Jesters, perhaps.

At the most stenographers.

There is not a correspondent among them.

StubbleSpark on January 25, 2013 at 11:02 AM

It’s not hard for the rest of us to tell. The NYT writers are propagandists for the left, hiding, ignoring or minimizing anything that might hurt the left and trumpeting, distorting, and overblowing anything that might hurt the right.

It would be one thing if the leftists throughout the mainstream media presented the facts honestly and then made their left-wing arguments based on them. But they often outright lie and lie by omission, twisting the facts or leaving out critical relevant facts so that people who don’t seek out alternate voices are not informed, but misled. Liberals love quoting Stephen Colbert’s line, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” That’s because in their telling, they leave out all relevant facts that show it doesn’t.

Cara C on January 25, 2013 at 11:02 AM

When are these people going to figure out that a lot of us couldn’t possibly be as stupid as they think we are?

Cindy Munford on January 25, 2013 at 10:53 AM

What makes you think were not? If we weren’t as stupid as they believe we are, mobs with torches and pitchforks would have burned the NYSlimes to the ground a long time ago.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Phsssst, I wouldn’t waste my time and fire on that POS I’d go directly to DC. If I’m going to jail, I going to make a real statement. I hope the moderators will accept this as the rhetoric it is intended to be.

Cindy Munford on January 25, 2013 at 11:08 AM

For most people, politics is fashion; the NYT is an accessory, nothing more. It is not unlike the trendy eyeglasses on Joe Scarborough’s beedy-eyed mug.

M240H on January 25, 2013 at 11:08 AM

It’s hard to tell how the NYT is still solvent.

CorporatePiggy on January 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM

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.

I don’t understand the comparison of the Occupy movement to gay marriage. I mean, I am sure that some Times staffers themselves, as well as some family members and friends of Times staffers, are gay and wanted to have the right to same-sex marriage.

But, on the other hand, I find it harder to imagine that many Times staffers, or their family and friends, would get much enjoyment out of sleeping in a park, shouting slogans, and using police cars as toilets.

J.S.K. on January 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM

An official admission of partisanship may pose a problem in making public libraries, hotels, and other allegedly-nonpartisan institution pay for a subscription. I’d sure make a fuss with my township library were they to waste my tax money on a rag that is liberal on record.

Archivarix on January 25, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Before you do that, make sure that the township library doesn’t subscribe to National Review or any other conservative publications. If they do subscribe to any conservative publications, then I would recommend forgetting about making a fuss about the liberal publications.

J.S.K. on January 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Not an unreasonable conclusion: there were some candidates to the left of Obama, after all….

PersonFromPorlock on January 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM

But, on the other hand, I find it harder to imagine that many Times staffers, or their family and friends, would get much enjoyment out of sleeping in a park, shouting slogans, and using police cars as toilets.

J.S.K. on January 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM

No but the sure appreciate others doing it for them. Cheerleaders, so to speak.

Cindy Munford on January 25, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Before you do that, make sure that the township library doesn’t subscribe to National Review or any other conservative publications. If they do subscribe to any conservative publications, then I would recommend forgetting about making a fuss about the liberal publications.

J.S.K. on January 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM

The National Review does not pretend to be an unbiased news source. It doesn’t even pretend to be a news source at all; it is loudly announced conservative journal that is in the business of reviewing public policy. The New York Times should be located somewhere between The New Republic and Mother Jones.

M240H on January 25, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Covering the eyes and ears, this t^rd says

“These are not the droids you are looking for.”

Sir Napsalot on January 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM

It is hard to tell…whether they’re merely in the tank or deeply, truly head-over-heels.

Christien on January 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM

It’s hard to tell how the NYT is still solvent.

CorporatePiggy on January 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Supposedly the company’s “corporate structure” is designed primarily to protect the Sulzbergers, and not much more than that.

Del Dolemonte on January 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Well, some probably did write in Stalin.

pat on January 25, 2013 at 11:30 AM

I’m sure a handful went for Ralph Nader or an ironic Randee of the Redwoods write-in.

3.14159 on January 25, 2013 at 11:39 AM

LOL 100% Obozo

stormridercx4 on January 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Sure it’s hard, because liberals can’t figure out anything. They don’t feel that they slant things. They feel that they are simply telling the truth. They don’t like to feel that they are being political hacks or in the tank because those are not good things. The want to feel like they support only good things and feel good about it.

So they approach it as they usually do. They sloganize it and propagate it among themselves until the echo chamber is filled with that sentiment and then they take a bath in the thrill of consensus, and the outside world of facts fades away.

Axeman on January 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM

If she can’t tell then she needs to be fired for stupidity.

Tater Salad on January 25, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Is it hot in here, or is it just m……. my pants!!

-@AsalamaTweetum

Opinionnation on January 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM

She needs to have the dog crap slapped out of her head so she can think straight…..

wepeople on January 25, 2013 at 12:16 PM

and stupid Americans believe her, and they are the majority in this country

burserker on January 25, 2013 at 12:27 PM

NYT public editor: It’s hard to tell who our writers voted for

It just means she has her suspicions about some on the staff who may or may not be guilty of certain thought crimes, based on a look, a gesture, a word out of place, their race, etc. and still need to be purged…

Harbingeing on January 25, 2013 at 12:30 PM

If It Wasn’t For Social Media, You Wouldn’t Know Who Our Reporters Voted For

I think she just called us stupid. Or maybe she thinks everyone is as clueless as she is.

RadClown on January 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM

“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”

- Vladimir Lenin

Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 1:08 PM

As much as I dislike the media’s bias, In lislike the fact that they are liars even more.

bw222 on January 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM

NYT public editor: It’s hard to tell who how many times each of our writers voted for obama. “Vote early, and vote often” is our motto.

Pork-Chop on January 25, 2013 at 1:16 PM

crrr6 on January 25, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Wouldn’t ludicrous or farcical be more apropos?

belad on January 25, 2013 at 1:22 PM

This just sort of seems like the equivalent of he who smelt it dealt it. If they have to say than we all know it’s not true.

earlgrey133 on January 25, 2013 at 1:42 PM

NYT public editor: It’s hard to tell who our writers voted for. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to take a hit off my bong.

FIFY.

Dopenstrange on January 25, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Sure, and it,s hard to tell if a bear sh@ts in the woods.

Bacon4allah on January 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM

I thought this paper had changed it’s name to the Volkisscher Beobachter a while back?

acyl72 on January 25, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Stupid, or a Liar!
Either way highly qualified for a position at the Times.

Another Drew on January 25, 2013 at 1:59 PM

What the heII is a journalist?

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Legends say that once they were a proud race who stood for speaking the truth, with honesty, integrity, an open-mind, and a desire to tell only the facts and nothing else.

But it is suspected that they were nothing less than a myth.

pilamaye on January 25, 2013 at 2:04 PM

The NYT cosmology: it’s congenital liars at the top, and then another layer of congenital liars, and then congenital liars all the way down.

drunyan8315 on January 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM

It’s hard to tell who our writers voted for

And all this time I thought such a position at the newspaper required a modicum of intelligence. Guess not.

GarandFan on January 25, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Not in decades.

talkingpoints on January 25, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Moochelle always votes for Moe Lobstah.

The NY Times DNC shills reputedly still are writing in “Uncle Joe Stalin” for every presidential ballot.

viking01 on January 25, 2013 at 5:45 PM

This woman is deaf, dumb, and blind!
Never mind the fact she is a cerebral midget

Delsa on January 25, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Oh, Lawdy, my sides hurt. Heh.

S. D. on January 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM