Comments on: Will the NYT drop the public editor position? http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/03/will-the-nyt-drop-the-public-editor-position/ Don't dis or dismiss this miss! Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:23:12 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: benning http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/03/will-the-nyt-drop-the-public-editor-position/comment-page-1/#comment-652996 benning Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:19:10 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/03/will-the-nyt-drop-the-public-editor-position/#comment-652996 I don't read the NYTimes, nor do I pay attention to anything they print. If an actual Saint took that position it would make no difference in the NYTimes' positions at all. I don’t read the NYTimes, nor do I pay attention to anything they print. If an actual Saint took that position it would make no difference in the NYTimes’ positions at all.

]]> By: Mwalimu Daudi http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/03/will-the-nyt-drop-the-public-editor-position/comment-page-1/#comment-652454 Mwalimu Daudi Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:53:13 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/03/will-the-nyt-drop-the-public-editor-position/#comment-652454 ST, I am an agnostic on this issue. On the one hand I doubt that the <em>NY Times</em> created this position in an honest effort to improve itself. Spin - not ethics - was the motivation here. Since the <em>Times'</em> Democratic pets control Congress, and since Calame has not been entirely dormant during his tenure, off with his head! That would seem to argue in favor of an ombudsman. On the other hand, there is something strange about a hard left political organization like the <em>Times</em> having an ombudsman in the first place. Kind of like the KKK having one of its members in charge of monitoring civil rights violations. Common sense compels you to hold the independence of such a position in question, to say the least. Personally, I feel that the <em>Times</em> has done nothing to earn the fig leaf of an ombudsman. And what is to prevent the <em>Times</em> from installing a total bootlicker once Calame is gone? In short, I don't really care whether there is an ombudsman or not at the <em>Times</em>. It's not like anything is going to change one way or another. ST, I am an agnostic on this issue. On the one hand I doubt that the NY Times created this position in an honest effort to improve itself. Spin – not ethics – was the motivation here. Since the Times’ Democratic pets control Congress, and since Calame has not been entirely dormant during his tenure, off with his head! That would seem to argue in favor of an ombudsman.

On the other hand, there is something strange about a hard left political organization like the Times having an ombudsman in the first place. Kind of like the KKK having one of its members in charge of monitoring civil rights violations. Common sense compels you to hold the independence of such a position in question, to say the least. Personally, I feel that the Times has done nothing to earn the fig leaf of an ombudsman. And what is to prevent the Times from installing a total bootlicker once Calame is gone?

In short, I don’t really care whether there is an ombudsman or not at the Times. It’s not like anything is going to change one way or another.

]]>