« Once again, the poodle follows his master | Main | Slate Should Be Embarrassed »

May 08, 2005

Comments

it's difficult to address the subject at all without sounding defensive. No doubt, I have not been completely successful. However, this is a topic I have written about before and will likely write about again.

Michael Kinsley has his own solutions to the decline of the newspaper industry.

While on the subject, see Okrent here discussing the NY Times' credibility:

SOMETIME in the next few days The Times's staff will be presented a statement titled "Preserving Our Readers' Trust." Prepared by a committee of reporters and editors led by assistant managing editor Allan M. Siegal, the document will offer recommendations addressing such subjects as sourcing, bias, the division between news and opinion, and communication with readers. Staff members will be invited to comment, and then executive editor Bill Keller will determine which recommendations to adopt, adapt or dismiss.

I think Frank Rich's column today on the star f**kers in the WH Press Corpse and their fawning over the Bush WH about sums up the response.

Let Adam Cohen come on any blog, post a diary, and respond to comments. The lack of accountability is in the Corporate Press. Not the blog world.

Rich's column is here. Thanks, Mimikatz.

Group blog, true, but this essay speaks for me, too.

Thanks, MB! I didn't want to presume.

Perhaps Joe Conason (via Dave Neiwert) should have the final word.

Remind me again why the Times needs two of these...

Brooks today: "Democrats have been hectoring the president in the manner of an overripe Fourth of July orator ... Over the past few weeks, the president has called their bluff."

Tierney, April 30: "Democrats have good reason to be aghast at President Bush's new proposal for Social Security. Someone has finally called their bluff."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad