The Public Editor: Tuning in Too Late

By stressing the politics, the article irritated more readers. “A suspicious person might see an attempt to deflect criticism of Acorn by highlighting how those pesky conservatives are at it again,” said Albert Smith of Chatham, N.J. Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala - via Jay Rosen, Real Clear Politics, Google News (U.S.)
Tags Help
Subjects: Media
Member Tags: am update, nation
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Sep 26, 2009 - 10:14 PM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Sep 27, 2009 - 9:11 AM PDT
Patricia Blochowiak
2.9
by Patricia Blochowiak - Oct. 2, 2009

This story opinion claims to add perspective, but ignores the fact that the Right had been attacking ACORN for years before they perpetrated this sting.

See Full Review » (18 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.6
by Kaizar Campwala - Sep. 27, 2009
See Full Review » (10 answers)
Jim Lang
4.2
by Jim Lang - Sep. 27, 2009

An apologetic, but not overly apologetic, piece by the Times' public editor.

The mainstream media in general blew it on the ACORN video story but I have some sympathy -- I place little credence in what I hear from the biased left or the biased right. I generally don't listen to or read such sources and if I do by chance pick something up, I automatically question the context.

One persistent complaint about Acorn is that it fails to manage its staff. Lewis’s statement was removed from Acorn’s Web site after a video was posted with an Acorn ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Carley Broder
4.4
by Carley Broder - Sep. 27, 2009

“If you know you are a target, it requires extra vigilance,” Rosenstiel said. “Even the suspicion of a bias is a problem all by itself.” Could apply to The Times or to the subject of the story it seemed reluctant to cover.

See Full Review » (4 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.6

Good
from 4 reviews (52% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
3.0
Fairness
1.0
Information
4.0
Insight
3.5
Style
4.3
Accuracy
3.0
Balance
1.0
Context
3.3
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
3.7
Originality
3.3
Relevance
3.7
Transparency
5.0
Responsibility
3.7
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
3.2
Credibility
4.3
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

  • A welcome message for the NYT’s new “opinion media monitor”

    (Blog Post) "Insufficient tuned-in-ness."
    Posted by Kaizar Campwala