The Times' new public editor, Daniel Okrent, writes to introduce himself to readers in today's Op-Ed section. "An Advocate for Times Readers," Okrent finds it important to tell us these things about himself:
–Lives on the Upper West Side
–Has hated the Yankees since age 6
–Registered Democrat, but is more "right" than most (e.g., gays are okay, so is abortion choice, and Cardinal O'Connor "was a great man")
–Was lazy during college newspaper days
–Rats in Penn Station preferable to Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore
–Never goes the movies; does go to concerts
–Has journalistic experience; writtten a few books
–Is reachable by email (public@nytimes.com) and voicemail (212 556 7652)
Enjoy Okrent's columns every other week, when he will try to, as he puts it, publicly evaluate, criticize and otherwise commenti on the Times' integrity. Okrent fails to give a shout out to the little guy for giving him this 18 month gig, but we all know better.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
The more candid title for the new opinion writer might have been Representative of the Office of Damage Control.
What is supposed to happen in the free market, is if the reader finds out you are printing fiction, he/she stops buying the paper and you go under.
I bet 90% of this guy's job is fielding calls from a bunch of conservatives who want to influence the Times' overall coverage . . .
The Times just needs to get rid of Frank Rich or at least move his politically charged pieces from the arts page to the opinions page.
Too many items listed in 'Corrections'. Could those errors be caught earlier?
Too many discruntle responses to the Book reviewers by the authors.
What's with Maureen Dowd? Her recent column in which she calls our coalition partners "poodles and lackeys" makes Howard Dean's meltdown on national televison look tame. She has become an embarassment to your once great newspaper. Has she been tested for rabies lately?
Why is it that columnists like Dowd, Krugman, and Rich seem incapable of cooking up an opinion piece without seasoning it with liberal doses of venom? Their columns are more often shrill screeds rather than thoughtful analysis. Bush may have succeeded in changing the tone of discourse in Washington, but if so, it's only because all the acid throwers are huddling in the editorial offices of the NYT.