2 ms·

> What she does have in terms of power is getting to say whatever she wants, about anyone at the Times, without fear of being fired. Do you really think a corp

> What she does have in terms of power is getting to say whatever she wants, about anyone at the Times, without fear of being fired. Do you really think a corporation would allow serious injury to come to its reputation especially when its reputation is critical to its business? Do you think if the public editor starting leveling serious critique at the NYT in the vein of FAIR, Media Lens or Chomsky they would retain their position? Do you think the NYT would ever appoint members of those organizations as public editors?

danso 13y ago
The position is generally given to a veteran journalist...Sullivan was formerly the editor of the Buffalo News. So to answer your question, she, and others before her, aren't likely to launch bombs at the NYT because like most members of a group, you have enough experience to know that controversies are more complicated underneath the surface. So no, they're not going to hire someone who is either actively bent on discrediting the newspaper...because that would imply the newspaper execs believe that the newspaper is something to be destroyed. The position is meant to be one that improves the newspaper and its accountability to the readers. Many of her columns raise questions and doubts about Times' coverage, but the expectation is that this makes the newsroom a better place...similar to how transparency in government ostensibly makes it better in the long run. But, on the other hand, if Sullivan became the David Souter of the Times...she would be for all intents and purposes, difficult to fire without creating a shitstorm. I'm not sure what's in the NYT's actual 4-year-contract with her, but barring her committing some journalistic crime (like plagiarism), it's not likely she can be removed for the content of her criticism.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  The position is given to someone that is sympathetic to corporate journalism, it has nothing to do with being a "veteran". And the fact that "complicated" issues, as defined of course by someone employed by the NYT, are off-limits just serve to bolster my point. Notwithstanding the fact that nearly all of the important criticisms are dead simple. Why are the main issues raised by serious media critics, like systemic bias and corporate influence, never raised by the public editor? The intent of real criticism is to improve the actual role of the newspaper in relation to the public. The NYT doesn't hire people who do real criticism because real accountability to the public isn't the main incentive of the NYT: revenue and power relations are. The illusion of accountability is necessary, which is why they have the public editor in the first place, because otherwise people wouldn't buy their products, be influenced by their messages and see their ads. It is the height of absurdity to believe that someone who gets paid by an organization would be unbiased in its criticism of it or that they would act in the interests of a third party, in this case the public, from whom they receive no direct benefit.

danso 13y ago

The position is generally given to a veteran journalist...Sullivan was formerly the editor of the Buffalo News. So to answer your question, she, and others before her, aren't likely to launch bombs at the NYT because like most members of a group, you have enough experience to know that controversies are more complicated underneath the surface. So no, they're not going to hire someone who is either actively bent on discrediting the newspaper...because that would imply the newspaper execs believe that the newspaper is something to be destroyed. The position is meant to be one that improves the newspaper and its accountability to the readers. Many of her columns raise questions and doubts about Times' coverage, but the expectation is that this makes the newsroom a better place...similar to how transparency in government ostensibly makes it better in the long run. But, on the other hand, if Sullivan became the David Souter of the Times...she would be for all intents and purposes, difficult to fire without creating a shitstorm. I'm not sure what's in the NYT's actual 4-year-contract with her, but barring her committing some journalistic crime (like plagiarism), it's not likely she can be removed for the content of her criticism.

foobarqux 13y ago
The position is given to someone that is sympathetic to corporate journalism, it has nothing to do with being a "veteran". And the fact that "complicated" issues, as defined of course by someone employed by the NYT, are off-limits just serve to bolster my point. Notwithstanding the fact that nearly all of the important criticisms are dead simple. Why are the main issues raised by serious media critics, like systemic bias and corporate influence, never raised by the public editor? The intent of real criticism is to improve the actual role of the newspaper in relation to the public. The NYT doesn't hire people who do real criticism because real accountability to the public isn't the main incentive of the NYT: revenue and power relations are. The illusion of accountability is necessary, which is why they have the public editor in the first place, because otherwise people wouldn't buy their products, be influenced by their messages and see their ads. It is the height of absurdity to believe that someone who gets paid by an organization would be unbiased in its criticism of it or that they would act in the interests of a third party, in this case the public, from whom they receive no direct benefit.