Gravitas and the Old Grey Lady
I was struck that several of the contributors to the thread about Luttwack’s column decried that it had appeared as an op-edu piece in the NY Times and some of them suggested that a certain authority accrued to it by virtue of its having been published there. I wonder if it is not time to question how much authority the Times actually has today. For whom does the fact that the Times publishes an essay give it greater weight? How large is their number? Where do they live? Similar questions can be asked about the editorials that appear in the Times? How many people really care what a few people in an office in Manhattan think about anything? Would anyone’s vote be altered by an endorsement by the Times?
Isn’t it time to ask whether the Old Grey Empress is wearing any clothes?
(I realize that this may count as heresy.)
I’ll lead this off. As a Republican, I do not like the NY Times nor do I agree with its ediutorial positions (which, I feel, are far too often included in its supposedly objective reporting). But that said, I do respect its powre and position. Something that appears in the NY Times WILL be given greater weight by others in the media (indeed, the NY Times has its own press service to rival AP, and thus NY Times stories are repeated in smaller newspapers aorund the nation and the world) … now, will anyone’s vote be changed? Probably not by a Times editorial (and even less by an op-editorial), but certainly by Times reporting, by the stories they choose to report on and those which they choose to ignore or downplay–those will affect how people vote (even if the people don’t realize it)
As a Democrat, I’d agree with Robert Reid to some extent. I think that because of the NYT’s reputation, a commentator could easily fall into the trap of thinking that “if the NYT prints this, why, then (and I) it must be brilliant!”
NYT reporters probably fall into similar traps at times, witness the story about McCain and the lobbyist that appeared some months back.
Generally, I think the reporting is good (except for the arts and style reporting that’s written for some sort of in-crowd that clearly includes nobody in Michigan, not even the rich people in Bloomfield Hills. Also, there aren’t enough book reviews.)
It behooves people to make sure they get news from a variety of sources so they can weigh what they’re being told critically. My main source of news is still NPR.
And I think it’s good to be publicly critical of all news sources, something the Internet makes possible, just to keep ‘em on their toes.
I generally regard the New York Times very highly, but there was recently an editorial about the high price of textbooks that I thought was simpleminded and ill-informed. (I work in the textbook industry, and while I acknowledge that textbooks are expensive, it’s not for the reasons the Times gave.) It seemed so wrong to me that it made me wonder if all the editorials are that faulty, and I just don’t know enough to see it.
Many, many years ago, I was involved in a strike that got a great deal of publicity, including articles in Time magazine and The New York Times. While the coverage was not downright wrong, it was certainly not totally accurate. It was, I suppose, close enough.
I found it curious that so many of the science reports in the NYTimes were – not wrong – but fuzzy. I asked a doctor friend. He agreed and said he read the rag for the bridge column. Can’t cheat there.
I suppose its difficulties arise from its having degenerated into a false religion. The current publisher, asked about his religion, replied: “I have the [NY] Times. That’s my religion”.
Distressingly sad from a Jew. But especially sad in light of the Passover hymn:
“By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres” (137, 1-2).
“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy.” (137, 5-7).
“Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion!” (147, 12).
The NY Times is like democracy. The best we have but imperfect. Because the paper is so great and comprehensive we forget that it is all so human.
I don’t take the times as gospel. I’m sure they have a lot more information at their disposal than I do. Here is the hard question. If you are going to pick a Sunday paper that covers international, national, and local NY news, plus business and arts with an interesting magazine section at least as far as William Safire and a book review, what’s a better choice. I think it’s up to each person who reads to use their descration on how much weight they want to give the opinions. I think that’s the same with everything you read.
Except for conservative ideologues (who also support the purporetesly “fair and balanced” Fox News0, the Times, warts and all, is still the best paper day in and day out.
Obviosusly, as Jean notes, you need more -NPR is often quite good.
CNN on cable news has deteriorated under the repetitiveness of Anderson Cooper and the alleged “best political team on TV.”
Major Networks have degenerayted significantly under the wieght of Cable competition.
By the by, ther eare excellent commentaries in a number of magazines – including Commonweal!
As today’s contretemps makes pretty clear, the op-ed page is not the Everest of the Times. Was it ever?
But two recent news stories (mentioned by the public editor this past Sunday) show the contribution the paper makes to our understanding of national events, both invovling FOIA and the Times’s deep pockets and willingness to go to court to get government documents that belong to us.
One was Nina Bernstein’s story about undocumented immigrants who die in custody; the other the story of the Dept. of Defense’s use of retired military to “brief” TV viewers on the war in Iraq. Not a story TV was about to beg to know more about.
But Joe, who’s been reading the Times longer, I believe, than I have, is probably right; it’s not what it was. And what will replace it, when it is no longer economically viable? I shudder to think (even though Luttwak on the op-ed page this AM was unworthy of the paper).
We subscribe to the NYT and the WSJ. We don’t necessarily believe everything we read nor do we read everything in either paper. The Styles section of the NYT in particular seems to cater for people I would not want to meet and yet might even feel sorry for. But you take the bitter with the better, as Jane Ace used to say. How many of you remember Jane Ace? I bet Peggy Steinfels does.
The other side of this question might be that we might have changed (or grew up) more than the times. I admit that at one time I had to read James Reston before I formed my opinion. It was like he could not be wrong. Turned out he was a bit flawed, too. http://www.fair.org/extra/9603/reston.html
Then there was Arthur Daley, preeminent sportswriter. I am still in awe. http://therail.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/to-the-swift-arthur-daley-on-churchill-downs/
And here on Jackie Robinson’s debut on opening day, 4/15/47. http://www.nytimes.com/specials/baseball/robinson-041647.html
Ah yes, Arthur, my heart is in that opening day with you. And I must pause till it come back to me.
My problem with the New York Times has always been not what it reports but what it doesn’t report, most noteworthy being theology and strictly religious matters. (I mean religious matters which do not impinge on the civic arena.)
That might be changing. (Has the Washington Post’s new On Faith blog taught the Old Lady that religion is of intense interest even to many highly educated folks?) Happily, David Brooks has an interesting op-ed piece today about neuroscience and mysticism. Unhappily, I think, the article exhibits the usual assumptions of the neuroscientists, viz., that there is only one kind of mystical experience, but what the ho, a half a loaf is better than none.
Anyway, the worm might be turning, and let’s hope circulation increases because of it.
The Brooks piece is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13brooks.html?em&ex=1210824000&en=787e405a3a54e904&ei=5087
Editorials and op-ed pieces usually have little influence on the general public, but they do impress decision-makers. Politicians and various advocates will go to great lengths to get a favorable word on the opinon pages, especially in The Times because of the paper’s reputation for being authoritative. So, yes, I do think an editorial or op-ed piece in the Times carries particular clout among decision-makers. And yes, I think The Times dropped the ball with the op-ed piece that prompted this discussion, since I assume the writer does not have ample background in Islamic law, which can be quite nuanced. But The Times deserves a lot of credit for many other reasons.
The Times does indeed do some things well. My point is: Why should “decision-makers” give it such “particular clout”; its authority is a function of their attitudes.
I have a list of complaints about the Times that is as long as the Israelites’ trek through the desert. How could one work there for a decade and write there for almost another decade and not have such a list?
Primarily these complaints have to do with things already mentioned: a portion of the editorials, the Op-Ed page and some of the columnists, the various style and greed sections (which nonetheless pay for much of the international reporting). … even the religion reporting under yours truly.
It is also disturbing to see so much of the national and international news agenda on TV shaped the front page of the Times, which partially answers Joe’s question. No one else is doing so much hard work and concentrating it in a single paper.
.
I am also told that the place can be riddled with rivalries and sabotage — I experienced virtually none of that.
What outweights all of that in my mind, however, is the enormous commitment to a calling, yes, a vocation, that I have witnessed there. Willingness on the part of management to spend enormous sums to get stories, and not stories that are going to win customers or advertising (though they sometimes win Pulitzers) but are pursued simply because they are judged important for the polity and society. Keeping bureaus open in other countries when everyone else is closing them to save money. (And readers don’t care about foreign news, do they?) Sending reporters across continents to report on some development.
Willingness on the part of journalists to work themselves to the bone and take enormous risks because of their commitment to their calling. Sure, there are less elevated motives involved, like Fame and Adventure, but what I saw went much deeper than that. Whenever I listen to church folks grouching about the news media, I am reminded that journalists are getting killed these days at a much higher rate than missionaries.
Finally, willingness to recognize many of the shortcomings and failures that are avoidably and unavoidably part of such a newspaper’s performance.
A lot of mistakes make it into print everywhere but a lot fewer in the Times than almost any other publication attempting to provide that much coverage of that many fields and so quickly. (You have to report a few complicated stories to realize exactly how many errors are possible! Approximately one or two per sentence.) To be on the end of a backfield editor’s or copy editor’s questioning is to learn firsthand about the conscientiousness that is part of the paper’s culture.
In my time at the paper, there were daily and weekly reviews in detail of what had been done well and done badly.
I have a reliable laugh line in talks when I explain the Times’s extraordinary interest in the papacy — as the only other institution that claims infallibility.
But it’s also true that the Times (today’s version and not the legendary Old Grey Lady) publishes more and more corrections (actually, this takes staff time and costs money); and, unlike the papacy, doesn’t wait four centuries.
I don’t read German (at more than five paragraphs an hour) or Japanese (at all), but I have a passing familiarity with the better press in France and Great Britain and Italy, and in that world of journalism, the New York Times is far and away the best paper going.
None of the above will prevent me from cursing at the next embryonic stem-cell editorial or the next editor who dares question my copy.
I made 3 promises to myself upon retirement lo these 5 years ago:
1. Volunteer in my parish and another totally different non-profit organization.
2. Have breakfast out at my favorite diner with the rest of the old retired folks.
3. Read the daily New York Times, Monday – Friday.
I have kept all 3 promises and have no regrets about any of the 3. I have, unfortunately, gained weight because of #2.