Newspaper War?
I've noticed recently that the Washington Post has been spending a lot of space, both in articles and editorials on the Plame affair. However, while some of it has been aimed at the White House and potential charges for Rove and Libby, more has been aimed elsewhere.
Over the last 2 days there have been at least 3 editorials and 2 stories about the NY Times coverage of the affair, and Judith Miller. Specifically the Post has been rabid about the Times and their seeming lack of control over what Miller reported on, and who she worked for at the paper.
For as long as I can remember, the NY Times has billed itself as "America's Paper of Record", but I don't wonder if the Post is trying to wrest that title from them, by pointing out the flaws in the the Times over the last couple of years.
It's not just the Miller thing recently, but the Times own public editor (whom I've written of before) blasting the papers columnists for not doing thorough corrections when they are shown to be completely wrong. The Post has picked up on both of those items, and tossed a few "Jason Blair" references in, seemingly to paint the picture of a newpaper with no controls in place.
I will say this about what seems to me to be a possible feud between them. The Post has been much more balanced than the Times in covering Plamegate. While some folks at the Times are calling for heads, the Post is calling for calm waiting for the Special Prosecutor to finish; the Times did have one such editorial, 4 months ago.
I guess a real question is, does it really matter? With more people getting their news from TV, the internet, and other sources, can any paper really call itself "America's Paper of Record" anymore?
Over the last 2 days there have been at least 3 editorials and 2 stories about the NY Times coverage of the affair, and Judith Miller. Specifically the Post has been rabid about the Times and their seeming lack of control over what Miller reported on, and who she worked for at the paper.
For as long as I can remember, the NY Times has billed itself as "America's Paper of Record", but I don't wonder if the Post is trying to wrest that title from them, by pointing out the flaws in the the Times over the last couple of years.
It's not just the Miller thing recently, but the Times own public editor (whom I've written of before) blasting the papers columnists for not doing thorough corrections when they are shown to be completely wrong. The Post has picked up on both of those items, and tossed a few "Jason Blair" references in, seemingly to paint the picture of a newpaper with no controls in place.
I will say this about what seems to me to be a possible feud between them. The Post has been much more balanced than the Times in covering Plamegate. While some folks at the Times are calling for heads, the Post is calling for calm waiting for the Special Prosecutor to finish; the Times did have one such editorial, 4 months ago.
I guess a real question is, does it really matter? With more people getting their news from TV, the internet, and other sources, can any paper really call itself "America's Paper of Record" anymore?
posted by Crazy Politico at 2:11 PM
0Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home