New York Times Ombudsman: Paper's Eager Enlistment Into the Print Division of Obama's Cover-Up Machinery Does No Favors to Its Credibility

At MRC. I juiced the headline. I learned that from the media.

Let me knock this woman, Margaret Sullivan, for something:

Many on the right – as noted last week in my blog posts about Benghazi – do not think they can get a fair shake from The Times. This coverage won’t do anything to dispel that belief.

Is it only the right that's interested in government oversight and accuracy in reporting?

If so, what an inadvertent concession from Ms. Sullivan.

The media is determined to ghettoize, marginalize, Otherize, exoticize -- call it what you will -- the right.

We must push back against this at every turn. When Margaret Sullivan suggests the Times' biased, inaccurate, "intellectually incurious" coverage should only be a concern to conservatives, we must challenge her.

Either she should be forced to concede that the Times does a disservice to every reader by stuffing them full of falsehoods and spin, or that the Times readers do not want accurate reporting about the world they live in, and conservatives alone are now interested in such things.

One or the other-- but we must not let them suggest we are "exotic" or strange for demanding the New York Times live up to is (increasingly laughable) mission statement.

posted by Ace at 05:23 PM

| Access Comments