NYT newsroom gathers to remember David Carr. pic.twitter.com/BHlhymdnXf
— Alastair Coote (@_alastair) February 13, 2015
Mollie Hemingway writes:
…It’s absolutely not true that the New York Times cares one whit about the religious (or otherwise) sentiments of peaceful families in Brooklyn. If they did, they wouldn’t run so many depictions of anti-semitic caricatures in stories about anti-semitic caricatures. Or of blasphemous anti-Christian art in stories about blasphemous anti-Christian art. Or of gross ethnic and racial stereotypes in stories about gross ethnic and racial stereotypes. When the New York Times wrote about Catholic outrage over an art exhibit that featured a “black Madonna with a clump of elephant dung on breast & cutouts of genitalia,” that story featured a color photo of the art in question. Heck, it still does. Right there on the web site.
Becket Adams reports: New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet explained Thursday that the Grey Lady won’t republish provocative Muhammad cartoons from a French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo because the images are simply too obscene.
“…they don’t meet our standards. They are provocative on purpose. They show religious figures in sexual positions. We do not show those.”
— New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet
“Was it hard to deny our readers these images? Absolutely. But we still have standards, and they involve not running offensive material,” Baquet told the Washington Examiner. “That includes the videos of beheadings, by the way.”
Likely Islamic terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo’s Paris offices on Wednesday, murdering 10 journalists and two police officers. It’s believed that the magazine’s many cartoons mocking the prophet of Islam prompted the attack.
As such, the cartoons are now at the center of the story, their images reportedly the entire reason for the Paris massacre.
“I agree that the cartoons are central to the story. And it was hard as hell not to publish them. But to understand the real sensitivity of this issues you would have to publish the most sensitive images,” Baquet said. Read the rest of this entry »
New York Times to Eliminate 100 Newsroom Jobs While Preserving Its Prized Role as Most Overstaffed, Overpaid, and IrrelevantPosted: October 1, 2014
The New York Times plans to eliminate about 100 newsroom jobs, as well as a smaller number of positions from its editorial and business operations, offering buyouts and resorting to layoffs if enough people do not leave voluntarily, the newspaper announced on Wednesday.
“They said they had decided to wind down NYT Opinion because it had not drawn a substantial audience.”
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the newspaper’s publisher, and Mark Thompson, its chief executive, said that in addition to the job cuts, NYT Opinion, a mobile app dedicated to opinion content, was shutting down because it was not attracting enough subscribers.
“The Times has made cuts to its newsroom staff several times over the last six years. The paper eliminated 100 newsroom jobs in 2008, another 100 in 2009, and 30 more senior newsroom jobs at the beginning of last year.”
The reductions, they said, were intended to safeguard the newspaper’s long-term profitability.
“Despite those cuts, the newsroom staff has grown to about 1,330, approaching its largest size ever, according to the company, up from about 1,250 at the end of last year.”
“The job losses are necessary to control our costs and to allow us to continue to invest in the digital future of The New York Times, but we know that they will be painful both for the individuals affected and for their colleagues,” the announcement said. Read the rest of this entry »
If the NYTimes pays Baquet more than Ambramson, it’s proof they are sexist. If it doesn’t, it’s proof they are racist AND sexist.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 14, 2014
For Breitbart.com, Warner Todd Huston writes: On May 14, Jill Abramson, the first female executive editor of The New York Times, was suddenly fired by the paper. A myriad of explanations have been offered for her ouster, but an intriguing one flying under the radar is the ire she reportedly raised by launching an investigation into charges that the paper’s CEO, Mark Thompson, had a role in a sex scandal that embroiled the BBC, as Breitbart News previously reported.
“Jimmy Savile, was rocked by sex abuse accusations that went all the way back to the 1960s when Savile was a young broadcaster with the BBC.”
Ken Auletta of The New Yorker magazine noted that Abramson was not in attendance with Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the Times’ publisher, and Managing Editor Dean Baquet during the annual City University Journalism School dinner on Monday, May 12. This was likely the first public sign that Abramson was on the way out as only two days later the paper announced she was fired.
“…investigations by British authorities uncovered hundreds of teens, both girls and boys, that were sexually abused and exploited over the decades by Savile and a handful of other BBC employees.”
Still, the media has been filled with many reports over the last year that the editor was grating on her bosses. Since her firing, several reasons have been proffered in the press as to why the first female editor was released by the paper of record but one in particular seems to be flying below the radar and may be of far more importance than it seems.
NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik pointed out on Twitter that one of the things Abramson did that riled her bosses was to send an investigator to London to investigate the past conduct of Times CEO Mark Thompson, who was the head of the British Broadcasting Corporation during the biggest child sex abuse scandal in the history of British media. Read the rest of this entry »
For Big Journalism, John Nolte reports: The New York Times itself is reporting that its own Executive Editor, Jill Abramson, is being “unexpectedly” replaced by Dean Baquet. The Times says the reasons “aren’t immediately clear.”
“This is not about any disagreement between the newsroom and the business side.”
Jill Abramson, the executive editor of The New York Times, is unexpectedly leaving the position and will be replaced by Dean Baquet, the managing editor of the newspaper, the company said Wednesday. Read the rest of this entry »
If you’ve noticed that the active anti-war movement seems smaller these days, you’re not alone – and just at the moment when the public seems to support their cause.
Top editors at the supposedly objective New York Times admitted on Friday that its coverage of Syria differs substantially from its coverage of Iraq thanks to the newspaper’s warm feelings toward President Obama. Margaret Sullivan, public editor of the newspaper, wrote, “I’ve been observing The Times’s Syria coverage and its editorials for many weeks, with an eye to this question….the tone cannot be described as consistently skeptical….I have also found that The Times sometimes writes about the administration’s point of view in The Times’s own voice rather than providing distance through clear attribution.” The Times, she pointed out, “seems to take the government’s position at face value.”
The NYT kept the Libya hearing off the front page because “It’s three weeks before the election and it’s a politicized thing…”Posted: October 15, 2012
Why, yes, it is a politicized thing, isnt it? Oh… you didnt mean your coverage of the news, did you?
The NYT managing editor Dean Baquet was explaining to the NYT public editor why the decision was made to go with the 6 stories they did put on the front page……
one on affirmative action at universities, one on Lance Armstrong’s drug allegations, two related to the presidential election, one on taped phone calls at JPMorgan Chase, and one on a Tennessee woman who died of meningitis.
“I didn’t think there was anything significantly new in it.”
“There were six better stories.”
They put the story on page 3.
To be fair: The NYT put the original news of the Watergate break-in on an inside page. Was it page 18? Sorry, Im not finding that fact as easily as I think I should. I did come up with the information that when Deep Throat/Mark Felt wanted to communicate with the Washington Post, Bob “Woodward’s home-delivered New York Times would arrive with an inked circle on Page 20.”
So the myth of the inside pages of the New York Times looms large in the annals of presidential scandal.
Is the Libya scandal as big as Watergate? The substance of it may be much worse than Watergate, and the Obama administration seems not to have heeded the old Watergate lesson that its the cover-up that gets you, but if Obama loses the election, that will limit the dimension of the scandal. If he wins the election — especially if its very close or contested in some way — Republicans may work themselves into a frenzy going after Obama. Remember that Richard Nixon was reelected after the Watergate scandal broke. The break-in was 5 months before the election, and the first stories had come out. The next 2 years were hell for Nixon, and he was drummed out of office. And Nixon had won by a landslide.
- No Mention Of Libya On The NYT’s Front Page (sweetness-light.com)
- New York Times: Nothing ‘significantly new’ in Libya hearings (politico.com)
- Why Wasn’t Libya Hearing on Page A1 of The Times? (publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com)
- EXCEPT NOBODY DIED AT WATERGATE: Jennifer Rubin on Watergate Redux – “In hearing, the Libya scandal… (pjmedia.com)
- Watergate: Where Are They Now? (history.com)