New York Times calls emergency meeting....

[VinceZeb]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE MAY 13, 2003 19:48:58 ET XXXXX

EMERGENCY MEETING CALLED AT OLD GRAY LADY; NY TIMES NEWSROOM IN CRISIS

[DRUDGE OBTAINED THIS INTERNAL E-MAIL TO NY TIMES STAFF]

Howell, Gerald and Arthur request that you join your newsroom colleagues at an open forum at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 14, to discuss the Jayson Blair matter and anything else you might have on your mind. The meeting will be held at the Loew's Astor Theater, the moviehouse just behind The Times on 44th Street at Broadway, across from Carmine's. Doors open at 2:15 p.m.

Please be sure to bring your Times i.d. card. No one will be admitted to the theater without their Times i.d.

You will be able to ask questions from the floor, or write them on cards that will be distributed at the door. In addition, we have set up an email address -- forum@nytimes.com -- where you can send questions, either in advance of the session or afterward.

On Wednesday morning, we will send out a separate email advising correspondents and bureaus outside New York how they may dial into the forum and listen to the session. Unfortunately, because of the short time available to set up the forum, people listening from a remote location will not be able to ask live questions. You may, however, avail yourself of the email address above. If you get questions to us before 2 p.m. EDT tomorrow, we will put them into the hopper. Otherwise, they will be answered later.

[mburbank]

You read this, right?

What do you or Drudge find shocking, surprising, or even noteworthy here?

If the Times staff were NOT having a major policy meeting right now, THAT would be shocking. I'd assume they want to review their oversight and enforcement policies, see how this all happened and try to make sure it never happens again.

What are you seeing here that I'm missing? Did you copy the whole thing?

[VinceZeb]

New reports are coming in of more reports being plagerists, Max.

[mburbank]

Reporters are plagerists. Reports, or 'stories', are plagerized.

That being said, you that information was... where in the article you posted?


AND, as I stated in the other thread already about this, all manner of crap journlism up to and inluding plagerism is a systemic problem. I would be very suprised if more isn't uncovered and the Times should be looking for it. Any Newsroom in the country that isn't having this meeting right now is arrogant and derelict in their duty. What do you think they should do right now, deny it happened? Say so what? Cover their ass? Or print a front page admission of the problem and immediately begin major efforts to fix the problems?

Are you saying you really believe that if FOX news, the NY Post and the Manchester Union Leader held similar meetings, your fairly sure they wouldn't uncover similar practices? You really think this is an isolated event?

[El Blanco]

What is really funny is that people who are actually from New York know what a rag the Times actually is. Granted, the Post and News aren't beacons of journalistic integrity either, but atleast they don't have the pretentious bullshit attitude the Times likes to sport.

[mburbank]

I agree personally that the NYT is pretentious.

But, what are you refering to it when you say folks who work there no it? I'm not doubting it, I'm wondering what you're making reference to. I think it's been at very least several years since any paper in the nation had the right to be proud of itself.

[El Blanco]

One of the many jokes in and about the NYC public school system is that teachers will bring in copies of the Times and hand them out to students.

Research? No.

Study writing styles? No.

Expand vocabulary? Sort of.

the assignment is to put the students into smaller group and each group has to produce a page of large words that were either mispelt or out of context.

I have a few friends teaching in the system and they say that the students never come up short and rarely repeat each other.

[mburbank]

Have they tried the same experiemnt with other papers and made a comparative graph? I think a multi-inteliigence approach makes for the best learning. make them puppies use their math skills.

If you like pretentious, I think the Wall Street Journals faux engravings take the cake.

I don't choose to defend the Times. I choose to say again, the state of journalism in America is rotten.

[El Blanco]

Hey, the Post is total crap and the News is only good for comics and sports. But, at least they both realize this. I agree with you that journalism altogether being crappy, but the Times is so haughty taughty you have to poke fun at them.

[mburbank]

I can go with that.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

What is really funny is that people who are actually from New York know what a rag the Times actually is.

Well, I am from New York, and considering all the other New Yorkers who read and buy it, I'm willing to bet your assumption here is a bit off.

People who don't like the reporting of a certain paper or news outlet tend to have issues with it because they don't like what they're reporting, or their inability to report it "right."

I am in the same boat, guilty as charged. I have often criticized the Times for being too conservative in their reporting, while many on the Right see it as a bastion of Liberal lying and deceit. Meanwhile, I spoke to a Communist friend of mine today, and he called the Times the most conservative paper he has ever read. It's like NPR. People on the Left call it "National Pentagon Radio," whereas folks on the Right call it "National Palestinian Radio." I'm more than convinced that if everybody hates you, on all sides of the spectrum, then you must be doing something right.

Granted, the Post and News aren't beacons of journalistic integrity either, but atleast they don't have the pretentious bullshit attitude the Times likes to sport.

Well, then right here we have the two extremes. You admit that the Post and others are shit, yet you find the Times to be too pretentious. The Times, by FAR, has broader reporting, better coverage, and more thoughtful editorials than the Post, hands down. Which would you rather have, a tabloid fronted as a serious newspaper (and to argue that they don't take themselves seriously is a bit naive), or a decent paper that may misuse the word "precocious" from time to time...?

One of the many jokes in and about the NYC public school system is that teachers will bring in copies of the Times and hand them out to students.

Research? No.

Study writing styles? No.

Expand vocabulary? Sort of.

the assignment is to put the students into smaller group and each group has to produce a page of large words that were either mispelt or out of context.

I have a few friends teaching in the system and they say that the students never come up short and rarely repeat each other.

Cute story, but Max is definitely right. Have they done the same with the Post, the Daily News??? How about Newsday, or the L.A. Times?? What about the Miami Herald or the Houston Chronicle??? The reason we can all snicker and joke about the Times is that it has a certain reputation to uphold, one that they generally hold true on. These other publications are not held to anything close as the same standards, and thus this issue, for example, with someone like Jayson Blair, never becomes an issue.

but the Times is so haughty taughty you have to poke fun at them.

So I suppose it takes a more "observant" reader to see through this?? Battling condescension with condescension are we????

Again, what do you want? We all like to read outlets and publications that reinforce our own opinions. Again, I go back to my point in the other thread. This isn't indicative of the Times, rather, it's indicative of journalism. Spinster is on to something. Would any other paper be as open, responsive, and as introspective on a matter such as this? IMO, this doesn't stand as a strike against the Times, rather, it stands as a testament to their rigorous editing procedures.

[theapportioner]

Depends on the extent, but if the damage isn't too bad, the Times will come out stronger in the long run. Raines may lose his job though. The outrage is appropriate, but some people, in their glee at seeing the Times seemingly toppled, are missing the point.

On elitism, it may be a cultivated part of their image, a PR thing, but more importantly, journalists for respected newspapers such as the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal treat their profession as exactly that -- a profession. And these journalists are professionals. A profession with a well-defined ethical code of conduct, a sense of purpose to their craft. Something that can't be said for other newspapers, newsmagazines, tv news, etc.

[El Blanco]

My point is, the Times is as bad as the News (maybe not the Post, they are uber-shitty). The Times reporters are every bit the hacks every other paper is. The Times just likes to take big words and butcher them. The News and Post don't even try to use words most of us don't use.

I haven't use their liberal stanse in this argument. Believe me, I can point to plenty of instances, but that isn't the point.

[Les Waste]

You people are all uninformed.

Try this conversation after having the New York Times and Washington Post as fucking homework.

[Protoclown]

Originally Posted by Les Waste

You people are all uninformed.

OMG THEY MUST HAVE DISAGREED WITH VINCEZEB

[mburbank]

I sure am have been being, bar none. Many of us who are is as per the saying of it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

My point is, the Times is as bad as the News (maybe not the Post, they are uber-shitty). The Times reporters are every bit the hacks every other paper is. The Times just likes to take big words and butcher them. The News and Post don't even try to use words most of us don't use.

Every paper has spelling and grammatic mistakes. Whether or not they own up to them is the problem.....

I think you're mistaken in saying that the Times are "every bit the hacks every other paper is," because that's a lot of bad journalism you're throwing in there, especially against a paper that does a pretty decent job, IMO.

I haven't use their liberal stanse in this argument. Believe me, I can point to plenty of instances, but that isn't the point.

I think it is the point, it's the very reason folks like Vince made a big deal about this (perhaps I should refrain from lumping you in with him). If this were Fox this was happening to, or even the Post, A. Conservatives would downplay it, or B. Nobody would care, b/c they expect these publications (particularly the Post) to suck.