23 Comments

1. Curmudgeon:

I would gloat endlessly if I believed their troubles were primarily due to their outrageous editorializing and outright fabricating on the news pages, (and thus condign punishment). Unfortunately,all print media are suffering revenue declines, and I think the main reason is that we don’t have to pay to read anything anymore.

Mar 19, 2006 - 9:54 am 2. everyman:

So, remind me again why Miller was selected to be your keynote speaker in the first place.

Mar 19, 2006 - 10:14 am 3. Rick Ballard:

Curmudgeon,

Advertising revenue accounts for 80% of revenue while subscriptions account for the remainder – the Times could give their tripe away and stay in business if they could provide a believeable count of eyeballs. TV is “free” yet TV journalism is as much a zombie as the NYT. (Aside from Fox.)

Content still matters and people will still pay to be informed – but not to be instructed in “progressive” ideology. The accelerating rot of the Times corpse is due as much to the availability of original source documents as to their hallowed slant. They are being killed by the availability of original documents that make their slant risible. I don’t need Judy Miller telling me the “important” part of what is going on if I have access to entire transcripts.

The ‘Night of the Living Dead’ media still has another ten years to go before they will actually stay in the grave that they have dug for themselves. In the end nobody will care at all. Which is as it should be.

Mar 19, 2006 - 10:24 am 4. flenser:

Miller is probably correct in her assessment. “Bloggers” most likely did lead the charge against her. Of course the bloggers in question were left-wing bloggers, but I guess we can understand if she has a grievance with bloggers in general.

The left-wing blogs have established as conventional wisdom on the left (aka the NYT readership) the notion that Miller was funneling disinformation from Rove into the pages of the NYT, and that America would never have invaded Iraq otherwise. Assuming you are silly enough to accept these propositions then it follows that Miller is a war criminal in her own right.

Mar 19, 2006 - 11:01 am 5. David Thomson:

“Judith Miller is blaming the blogs for her problems.”

Correction: the center right blogs did not slime her! Miller’s troubles were mostly caused by the Daily Kos and his allies. She is supposedly Karl Rove’s media slut. We are owed an apology.

Mar 19, 2006 - 11:50 am 6. Robert Schwartz:

Last Sunday (March 11, 2006), the NYTimes ran a front page above the fold Abu Grahib story (something like its 90th such story).

Yesterday, they admitted that the previous story was inoperative, still claiming that it was “fake but accurate.”

Today, there is another Front page above the fold story “Before and After Abu Ghraib, a U.S. Unit Abused Detainees”.

Now, Why would anyone in his right mind read today’s story?

Mar 19, 2006 - 11:55 am 7. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

…Things would get instantly picked up, magnified, and volumized.

(Sounds more like what my hairdresser does with my thinning locks. But never mind.)

Very funny, Roger. Very good.

(Now, who’s your hairdresser? I could use some of that magnification and volumizination…)

Jamie Irons

Mar 19, 2006 - 12:28 pm 8. Terrye:

Well I suppose there were several reasons for Miller’s problems and the blogs may have played a part. The overall confusion in the intel community and the agenda driven stories were also part of it all as well as her own judgment.

But blogs are not perfect and lest we allow hubris to lead us astray it should be remembered that sometimes blogs get a tad ahead of themselves too.

Mar 19, 2006 - 12:36 pm 9. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Even absent the political bias, the print media would be having probems. Part of it is the technology and demographic shifts. But part of it is just a lack of innovative business thinking. Too often, things are done the way they always have been. Small example: why are stock listings done on a by-exchange basis (NYSE, NASD, etc) rather than a consolidated alphabetical listing? 9The only newspaper I’ve ever seen do the latter is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.) Another small example: why are movie theaters listed by the corporate name of the theater chain, rather than be neighborhood? The whoe spirit of continuous improvement seems to be entirely absent from these guys.

And yes, political bias makes it worse. I was about to pick up a copy of the Miami Herald today, but there was a front-page news story that looked more like an editorial, slamming Bush on Iraq. I decided to skip it.

Is it really reasonable to consider the typical newspaper publishing corporation an actual business, or are these actually political advocacy groups in rather thin disguise?

Mar 19, 2006 - 12:59 pm 10. scaramouoche:

Miller seems to put a lot of stock in the ability and importance of editors; indeed, I often hear this as a slam against bloggers–that, unlike MSM writers, they lack an editor to provide a “sober second thought” and clean up any messiness in thought and/or expression. But my question is: if the editor harbors the same biases as the writer and as the newspaper that employs them both, how is that an advantage?

Mar 19, 2006 - 1:23 pm 11. David Thomson:

ìI often hear this as a slam against bloggers–that, unlike MSM writers, they lack an editor to provide a “sober second thought”

The blogging community relentlessly checks-and-balances its own. It is as much of a pure meritocracy as possible in this imperfect world. After awhile, we learn who is worth listening to. Mistakes are remembered. If nothing else, others who are willing to invest the effort and time can ìgoogleî you.

Mar 19, 2006 - 1:41 pm 12. Squiggler:

Those of us who were not blogging until this last year were complaining about the New York Times long before the blog. Blogs just give us “little gals” a place to say what is on our minds. The fact that lots and lots of “little people” have something to say is what is the most shocking to the elites who think/thought the NYT was the be all and end all of reporting.

I think this whole “no editor/editing” argument is a red herring. There may not be an editorial board passing judgment on articles, but instead an entire blogosphere to act as editors. Post something full of lies/libel/slander or total inaccuracy and it takes less that 24 hours for a myriad of voices to chime in with corrections that make it to headline status. The MSM try to gin up an Iraqi civil war, those with boots on the ground quickly counter the claim with first hand accounts and analysis. A politician makes some outlandish claim that gets picked up by either side and quickly there are myriads of bloggers presenting the counter arguments.

And, I don’t think there is any way to judge, at this point, the incredible advantages the blog world brings to projects like translating and analysing subjects or material like the recently released Saddam documents. There are hundreds of thousands of people out here in cyberworld who would love to feel they are contributing, but just don’t know how. Drawing on the time and expertise of all these “pajama clad” army of David’s is going to be what moves the blog into the really big time.

Mar 19, 2006 - 3:35 pm 13. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

The “no editors” complaint reflects the great difficulty some people have in comprehending systems that are not centrally managed. When the Internet first came into public consciousness, many people found it remarkable that ‘there’s no one in charge.’

Of course, the same could be said of many other systems. For example, there’s really no one in charge of the U.S. freight railway system, either…it’s an aggregate of independent entities…but millions of tons of freight get moved reasonably well.

Mar 19, 2006 - 4:15 pm 14. chuck:

Well I suppose there were several reasons for Miller’s problems and the blogs may have played a part.

I lost my interest in Miller way back in the beginning because she was always breathlessly reporting potential WMD finds. I suppose that was due to a combination of factors: 1) she was convinced Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, and 2) she wanted the scoop. Now why did I find that a turnoff? Because I am a cautious fellow who wants the facts, not dramatic maybes. Miller may have fallen out with the NY Times because her views didn’t fit well with the editors, but she lost my support for the same reason that the NY Times as a whole has lost my support: lack of reliable and newsworthy content.

Mar 19, 2006 - 4:17 pm 15. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

A couple of issues…

The cooperative editorialship mentioned by photoncourier also exists in Wikipedia ( wikipedia.org ) and there has been hijacked. The same might happen to blogs, in the sense that the steering currents that bloggers sail might be taken over or strongly influenced by one side of a debate. The Left is especially good at motivating people to do this sort of thing – to maliciously use cooperative systems to their political advantage.

So we need to be a bit careful here. We are, to some extent, inside an echo chamber as bloggers.

…………

Also, I’m afraid that the trend we see of the MSM fading and the NYT losing its newpaper of record status is very long term. In the shorter term (next few years), we will still have a rabidly biased, agenda pushiing media that will be the only source of information for a significant percentage of our population. Hence, the “big lie” technique, used so well over the last few years (example: that the NSA wiretaps were “domestic”) will continue to favor the left, the anti-American, the Bushhitler-haters, and the appeasers.

So we see a good trend, and it has had some clout (costing the vicious partisan bastard, Dan Rather, his job, for example), but it has a long way to go.

…………….

The current administration is just fortunate that the blogosphere is around to help it, at least a little, because the administration is so terrible at helping itself. But we can’t do all the heavy lifting – the blogosphere has a little power, but that’s all. A little power.

Mar 19, 2006 - 6:11 pm 16. mrbones:

Jamie, “(Sounds more like what my hairdresser does with my thinning locks. But never mind.)” is funny, but no thanks to Roger. That’s Shafer’s line.

And Roger, from whence does your ever-shrill rancor for The Times spring? (I mean, aside from their oh-so-obvs case of Bush hatred) Is it a reaction to the “black room” story?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Curse those treasonous scoundrels at The Times for bringing us this bad news! My god, if we lose the war, surely The Times will be to blame! As opposed to the insurgents, right?

If that story’s the sign of a “relative demise,” than I hope they keep sinking.

Remind me, btw, what stories PJ has broken, aside from the admittedly hysterical public reaming at the hands of a Senator?

Mar 20, 2006 - 5:45 am 17. Daniel in Brookline:

John Moore:

The cooperative editorialship mentioned by photoncourier also exists in Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) and there has been hijacked. The same might happen to blogs, in the sense that the steering currents that bloggers sail might be taken over or strongly influenced by one side of a debate. The Left is especially good at motivating people to do this sort of thing – to maliciously use cooperative systems to their political advantage.

So we need to be a bit careful here. We are, to some extent, inside an echo chamber as bloggers.

I have to disagree. The problem with Wikipedia is that, while it is not centrally managed, it is centrally located — it is a “commons”, where all can share and we are all hostage to the single user who spoils it for everyone.

By contrast, hack attacks aside, nobody edits my blog content except me… and, absent Chinese-style censorship, people will read my blog if they think it’s worth reading.

Perhaps it’s a failure of imagination on my part, but I don’t see what the Left can do to use this cooperative system to their political advantage, other than write blogs of their own. (This they are doing — Daily Kos remains popular. They’ve tried it with other independent, mutually-competitive media as well; witness Air America. But none of this has detracted from the center-right blogs or talk-radio stations.)

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

Mar 20, 2006 - 10:51 am 18. markus:

Does anyone think that the rise of the blogospere will help conservatives/Republicans more than progressives/Democrats? I’ve never understood the argument. For every person hitting on PJMedia, someone is likely to hit on Daily Kos. Speaking just in political terms, it looks like a wash to me.

Mar 20, 2006 - 2:54 pm 19. david72:

Your attitude toward the NYT is far too benign. First of all, NYT didnít get to be the rag of record purely on editorial merit.The Sulzbergers and the Ochsen knew something about promotion.

My first class trip in grade-school (1956?) was a tour of NYT. We used classroom materials provided by NYT. We read articles in the NYT and wrote reports on them for homework.

My own father taught me the front-page hierarchy and how to navigate the paper. If you wanted to be counted one of the smart kids in high school you quoted the NYT which, you let it be known, you read on your own. Later on, the NYT became a daily habit and Sunday morning ritual.

My attitude toward the NYT changed when I learned that its Jewish owners had knowingly and deliberately kept the destruction of European Jewry out of their Paper of Record. Among Orthodox Jews with whom I identify, the last generation of Jewish owners of the NYT are held complicit in the gassing and incineration of their brethren. In Jewish law someone who witnesses murder without intervening is as guilty as the person who wields the murder weapon.

It is also commonly assumed among less secular, more ethnocentric Jews that the incessant and malicious slander of the Jewish State in the news and editorial columns of the NYT is not an independent political position but part of a world view peculiar to conflicted Jews and Christians of Jewish descent suffering from a deep, albeit unacknowledged form of self-conscious disturbance that might be called Tourquemada Syndrome.

If all this sounds parochial and irrelevant, think again. The NYT sets political fashion in this country as does no other institution, private or public. And the fashion it has championed since Vietnam and succeeded in popularizing across the nation is sedition.

Iím not suggesting that the NYT accomplished this alone. Whole armies of graying faculty at the universities and graying apparatchicks at the State Department and the CIA did their worst to support the effort. Reducing large portions of the population of the most powerful and democratic nation in the world to a confused, self-doubting, guilt-racked, defense-averse pack of mice is no small feat. But the NYT was a major trendsetter.

So Iím not one for waiting for the NYT to quietly fade away. I think something more proactive is required. Recall how stubbornly unwilling the powers at the NYT were to investigate the Watergate break-in. To believe their excuses, you would have to credit the notion that a group of Cubans from Florida with known CIA ties traveled to Washington during a Presidential election and broke into Democratic National Headquarters in order to steal IBM typewriters and Hewlett Packard calculators.

The NYT let the Washington Post run away with the story because after locking horns with Nixonís White House over Daniel Ellsberg and the stolen Pentagon Papers, the NYT wasnít ready for a rematch. Richard Nixon, as the North Vietnamese found out after they left the bargaining table and had to be goaded back with B-52s, was not someone to trifle with. What Sulzberger Sr., the pioneering Jewish holocaust denier was afraid of was a knock on the door in the dead of night by large men in uniform waiting to frog-march him off to jail for the seditious traitor by nature and inclination that he was.

W would do well to borrow a page from Nixonís book of tricks. If they insist on undermining the war on terror, Punk Sulzberger and company need to be terrorized. This neednít interfere with their first amendment rights, either. Clip their wings. Leave them to run the NYT intact but Baby-Bell Times Books and their broadcast outlets. Narrow their media holdings and reduce their influence.

Of course, if so purely economic and civilized an approach isnít feasible, other alternatives have to be considered. Like frying their hard-drives and taking sledgehammers to their presses.

Mar 20, 2006 - 3:32 pm 20. rosignol:

Does anyone think that the rise of the blogospere will help conservatives/Republicans more than progressives/Democrats? I’ve never understood the argument. For every person hitting on PJMedia, someone is likely to hit on Daily Kos. Speaking just in political terms, it looks like a wash to me.

Looking at just the internet, sure. But when the MSM is factored into it, you have to take into account that the overwhelming majority of media outlets is sympathetic to the soft left.

What the internet does is give non-left groups an alternative channel that bypasses the ‘gatekeepers’ who decide what is important enough to get coverage on any given day.

That’s a win for everyone but the leftists.

Mar 21, 2006 - 5:15 am 21. markus:

David72 — you might wish to talk to some of the people who visit the Kahanist discussion boards about your recommended actions, which, as you know, are felonies. I think you also insult nixon when you claim that sulzberger was seriously afraid that the president would “frog-march him off to jail for the seditious traitor by nature and inclination that he was.”

You’re a crank, and I don’t expect that anyone else reading this shares your goofy views. But I do wonder whether Roger would tolerate the posts of someone who advocates “frying the harddrives” of Pajamas Media, or “smashing the presses” of Commentary or The Weekly Standard.

rosignol — i think the “MSM” ably disseminates the best PR that the mainstream “Left” and the mainstream “Right” are able to put together, to the the overwhelming majority of Americans who think about politics less than ten minutes a week. For us weirdos who think about politics more than ten minutes a week, the Internet provides a smorgasboard of options with which to reinforce or challenge our partisan prejudices.

Mar 21, 2006 - 8:03 am 22. david72:

Dear Markus:
Thank you for the forthright critique. I can’t but plead guilty as charged. Crank I am. It runs in the family. I come from a long line of nudniks.

As for talking to Mayer Kahana’s folks, I don’t need a message board. I live in Jew Central and they are around. I see one or two of their more prominent people regularly in the neighborhood and we chat.

Unfortunately, Kahaneniks are no more interesting or attractive up close than they are on tv, as when they made jackasses of themselves storming Pat Buchanan on stage. (Paddy Pig and company batted them away like nine-pins. It was pathetic.)

For the record, I do not advocate getting out the pitchforks and torches and transformers and sledgehammers and marching to Times Square or Hoboken or wherever the NYT is manufactured these days.

I voted for Richard Nixon and I agreed with much of his foreign policy. I meant him no insult. That said, who can deny that Nixon was a scary guy?

Nixon was the son of Quakers who sent birthday greetings from the Prince of Peace with carpet-bombing B-52s that reduced Hanoi to rubble and the paddies and jungle around it to a moonscape. Nixon threw psychiatric confidentiality out the window and would have done the same for the Confessional if the need arose. During his time as a lawyer in Cuba, he hobnobbed with Batista and Lansky and their ilk. He employed ratfuckers, and spooks and burglars and bagmen.

Sorry, Markus, but them’s just the facts. My take on why the NYT held back on Watergate is pure supposition but I think I’m on the money. Sulzberger had legitimate reason to fear, though probably not from anything so overt as legal arrest and formal charges as I suggested. Those were strange times.

Why you drag Simon into the discussion, I don’t understand. I neither asked for nor received his endorsement.

Kindest regards.

Mar 22, 2006 - 4:13 pm 23. markus:

David72 — OK, I get it…you were joking.

I do have a sense of humor, and an ability to appreciate writing. Sincerely: your paragraph w/ the words “ratfuckers”, “Lansky”, “Hanoi”,
“Prince of Peace”, “moonscape” and “psychiatric” is good poetic prose.

Mar 23, 2006 - 8:05 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: