MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Very Bloggerific

There is an exchange that stretches out over the last two weeks of the NYT Sunday Book Review between Richard Posner and NYT Exec Editor Bill Keller. (Posner’s original piece is here and Keller’s response is the second “Letter To The Editor” here.)
Posner suggests that news outlets that lean left or right (and he seems to think that all outlets do) are both lowering standards and leaning further in “their” direction because of increased competition. Keller disagrees.
Posner attempts an intellectual pose and often overreaches. Keller speaks more to the soul of journalism and, in light of some choices his paper has made recently, also oversells a bit, though a die-hard romantic, I would lean towards his argument over Posner’s… though Posner’s should be taken very, very, very seriously even if it makes too many assumptions.
Ironically and tellingly, right next to Keller’s letter in which he writes, “We are unquestionably in the business of satisfying a customer demand, but our customers

Be Sociable, Share!

25 Responses to “Very Bloggerific”

  1. Angelus21 says:

    The NYT is clearly partisan. It is losing its stature. But for the Left it is still number one. One example is their nonexistent coverage of the Air America scandal. This is a paper that had nonstop coverage of Rush Limbaughs court case for weeks at a time. And Bill O’Reillys suit by the disgruntled female employee.

  2. softjeans says:

    Funny, on both the Left and the Right people are saying the NYTimes is losing its stature, but more people I know read it now than ever and argue about it. Maybe what the paper says is important.
    As for nonstop coverage of Rush Limbaugh’s court case for weeks at a time…when was that? Sounds like a persecution complex to me.

  3. jeffmcm says:

    Did Rush Limbaugh already have his court case?

  4. Harley says:

    The left-leaning stuff is a little overheated. The paper, like most, is more fevered in the pursuit of the Next Good Story than anything else, ideology included. The latter explains their Whitewater coverage, which would have fit rather nicely on the front page of the Washington Times. Papers are also subject to the performances of their star reporters. Here, the latter explains their continued defense of Judy Miller, whose falsehoods, btw, have been far more damaging than anything foisted on their readers by Jayson Blair. (This is not a comment on whether or not she should be in jail.)
    As to some of the examples. Stewart gets his press becuz he is very, very good at what he does. An example re a right wing comic who is unjustly ignored by the Times would better serve your point. And the recently retired William Safire, about as dogged a right-winger as you will ever find, had no problem enjoying long term employment at the same paper Rich does today.
    The Times is the preeminent newspaper in the country, therefore the world. The constant claims of leftward bias are the equivalent of a basketball coach working the ref. And in truth, they have had some effect in the last few years. The paper seems a bit timid from time to time, as if fearful they will be proving the bias they are so frequently accused of.

  5. joefitz84 says:

    The only conservative voice the Times has is David Brooks. And he ain’t exactly that conservative. It is ok now. There are other outlets and the Mainstream Media doesn’t control content anymore. Ask Dave Poland. Blogs,cable tv and the net are taking over and it has been quicker than anyone thought.

  6. Joe Leydon says:

    If we’re going to get political here, consider this item, which ran today (Saturday) on The Associated Press:
    “The Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq

  7. Harley says:

    Actually, the Times hired John Tierney to replace Safire — they would have done better with Andrew Sullivan, imo — and specifically becuz he’s a conservative.
    Blogs and cable TV can certainly drive stories. But their is still some limit to their reach. I’m guessing Powerline’s name recognition is still rather low (thank god).
    As for Joe’s point, we left Viet Nam becuz we were about to break the army. The current all-volunteer interation is in even worse shape, and when we leave it will be for the same reason.
    I can’t see us keeping current troop levels for long without a draft. And the GOP may believe in this war, but they don’t believe in political suicide.

  8. Stella's Boy says:

    The Times also has John Tierney, who is conservative, so David Brooks is not the only one.

  9. Eric says:

    You know, the Wall Street Journal’s news division is downright respectable. (It’s unfortunate they share a banner with the WSJ editorial page, which is very much a part of the right-wing echo chamber.)
    And Frank Rich plays the same role at the New York Times that Michael Moore plays in Hollywood: the braying, loud-mouth embarassment who does more harm to the left wing than good. He just can’t seem to understand that the fastest way to lose an argument is by overreaching.

  10. Chester says:

    Sigh. It’s so tiresome to read nitpicking attacks on The New York Times simply for having a liberal slant. What is the great conservative alternative? The Washington Times? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Anything on the Internet?
    It’s similar to my argument several months ago about those who endlessly rail against the liberal influence over Hollywood: If you think you can do it better, then pull together the resources and show us what you’ve got. Until you do, then at least acknowledge that, warts and all, no newspaper on Planet Earth is as indispensible as The New York Times.

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    Very well-said Chester. I couldn’t agree more.

  12. David Poland says:

    Uh, who’s nitpicking the NYT for having a liberal slant? All anyone I see here doing is acknowledging it and in some cases, wishes they hired a little more balance.
    I did see Mr. Leydon starting a whole new political thread, which was really not the point. But it’s a free country… and a free blog.

  13. Stella's Boy says:

    More balance in general, or on the editorial page?

  14. David Poland says:

    I don’t think you can hire balance in general. There are a million little decisions.
    I have to say, I was surprised – neither pleasantly or unpleasantly – to see the Halbfinger piece on billboards that seemed pretty conservative to me.
    The mark of greatness, to me, is to allow for real challenges to a position and to discuss them, even if you can’t expect to change the mind of the other side. Argue issues. Add new shades of perspective.
    I can’t say I am a fan of the WSJ editorial page. But I would like to see more real conflict between the voices in NYT Op-Ed. It is all too predictable most of the time.

  15. Stella's Boy says:

    It certainly is predictable most of the time. I hardly ever bother reading Bob Herbert, Frank Rich and a few others because I can read the headline and figure out the rest on my own.

  16. Sanchez says:

    The liberal media doesn’t know what to do now that they have competition for viewers and money and ads. It is fun watching them fall over themselves. We had a major broadcast network try to pass off fake documents to slander a candidate in a presidential election. It blows your mind.

  17. Stella's Boy says:

    Not as fun as watching the Bush News, I mean Fox News Channel.

  18. jeffmcm says:

    Everybody thinks the other side has too much power over the media.
    I think things were better when the ‘equal time’ regulations were still in place.

  19. Harley says:

    What exactly does ‘hire a little more balance’ mean? Balance is first, subjective. Right wing news sources certainly don’t bother with it, which is part of their strength and the party’s strength in general. There is no such animal as a Judy Miller (NYT) or Sue Schmidt (WaPo) at the New York Post or the Washington Times. They simply wouldn’t conceive of it. The Times makes a studied effort to balance their op-ed page. I’m not sure what else they can do, except perhaps inject some rightward thinking into the writing of their news stories or, I suppose, the editorials. But why in the world should they do that?
    Second, in a contest between right and wrong, enforced neutrality (balance) is de facto support for the wrong. I’m not suggesting it’s always that easy. But there are times when faux balance is just, you know, faux.

  20. PandaBear says:

    Liberals are just upset with Fox because they actually show a conservative and right view. The mainstream outlets don’t. It is shocking that there are two sides. Ask CNN how just playing the Liberal card is working out for them right now. And I don’t think MSNBC/whatever they call it now even gets more than 6 viewers. Audiences appreciate both sides.

  21. Angelus21 says:

    You rarely see any kind of back and forth in the newspapers. They have their agenda and stick to it. There is no good dialogue between writers and columnists and editors over any issue. Thats why blogs are becoming bigger.

  22. Lota says:

    I hate the appearance of objectivity becasue in any major daily in the US, it is just that, an appearance. Audiences may appreciate both sides, but they don’t get it.
    It would be nice if newspapers did have both a range of ultra-conservative to ultra-left or ultraliberal and made clear who was who, but they don’t, especially in Televised news digests which are the worst for information. Some papers used to have a pretty good balance , but it was clear during the 1992 election that this had changed. I am not talking about columnist or op ed pieces–I am talking about how AP, UPI and Reuters stories are reported and edited, and placement in the paper. If a sory is placed on page 1 it is important. If it is on page 5, 6 lines of copy it is “unimportant”.
    Whoever owns the paper calls the shots, and unfortunately, Editors and reporters have much less say in things than they used to–newspapers are much less about hard news these days. That actually is the tragedy–not the slant but the actual content is lacking since a paper chooses what to pick up from newswire services and they also can kill or choose not to run a complete story.
    as far as troops go. Men and women, including my relatives are being forced into third tours of duty in violation of discharge agreements so there doesn’t have to be a draft. All the armchair warriors who voted for Bush haven’t enlisted. Cowards prefer to send others. The targets for enlistment are so short 250M has been approved to spend on Burnett’s adverts, as if that will help. If there is a presence in Iraq it won’t be 100,000. Already a pullout of troops, Marines and army is sched for 2006 [off the record but it has been decided]. They have to–the war in unpopular with Servicemen and women who are tired of all the money disappearing into weapons contractors and it doesn’t ever seen to produce proper armaments.
    If they stay past 2006 there will be a draft if the US wants to stay. If they don’t draft they have to pull out entirely–there already is enough soldier disobedience as it is–no one want to get into an unarmed hummer and I don’t blame them and this is what they are asked to do on a daily basis.

  23. AgentArc says:

    Nice discussion all-around. From what I have seen, The Left isn’t discouraged from the success of Fox. They’re disheartened to find Fox claiming itself to be ‘Fair & Balanced’ (something no agency can truly become) and then watching CNN & MSNBC trip over themselves to emulate Fox in every facet.
    It’s true, people do enjoy viewing both sides, so CNN & MSNBC trying to play it both ways has proven to be disastrous. Naturally, Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Franken, Stewart, & Olbermann are all leading in their respective markets by talent and unhindered message. David also more than likely is correct that a hardline towards any direction is fatal to the full meaning of a news agency, but that these outlets are still written by people with real emotions.
    As of now, Olbermann’s professional ‘slant’ is likely the best we have for nightly news. Will Americans accept four more years of Iraq? Hell, they’re getting restless just thinking about four more months…

  24. Harley says:

    I’ve haven’t any complaints re Fox. In fact they offer fairly good evidence that knowing who you are and sticking to it is fairly good advice for a cable news channel. The desperate efforts by CNN and MSNBC to be all things to all people have been much less successful. MSNBC has done everything humanly possible in the last two years to present ‘both sides’ and all they’ve done is appear more editorially confused than they were already.

  25. joefitz84 says:

    The mainstream nets have had a monopoly on content for decades now. Now they’re running scared with some competition. It has been fun to watch.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon