KINSLEY ON NYT
 |
James Joyner | Wednesday, May 21, 2003 |
Michael Kinsley makes some fair points as to why much of the criticism of the New York Times’ handling of the Jayson Blair situation is unfair. He makes two basic arguments, one quite sound and the other beside the point.
First, he notes that it is very easy for editors to fall for the duplicity of their writers since, after all, they start with the presumption of trust and because the writer obviously has the advantage in subject matter. He notes, for example, that the people now saying that Blair’s chicanery was obvious didn’t note it at the time, so it couldn’t have been that obvious. A good point.
His second point, with which I agree, is that the NYT is the most prestigious and influential paper in the country and sets the agenda for the rest of the media. My problem with that argument is that it has nothing to do with the Blair situation. Indeed, were the NYT not in that exalted seat, no one would care. Had Blair worked for, say, The Troy Messenger, the story would have had no following.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Health Care Tradeoffs
- DC Statehood Violates Serious Principles
- Caption Contest Winners
- The Political Economy of the U.S. Mortgage Default Crisis
- The Democrats and the Shock Doctrine
- Obama and Europe
- Supreme Court to Decide on Obama Citizenship
- International Implications of the Drop in Oil Prices (Updated)
- Obama’s Bipartisan Cabinet
- More Votes Found - Franken Hurt
Comments are Closed
