The New York Times calls its bias "insuffient tuned-in-ness"

The New York Times published the nuttiest thing I ever read today. The Public Opinion Editor, Clark Hoyt, tried to explain why the New York Times was so slow in reporting the Van Jones and ACORN stories.

In a nutshell he chalks it up to “insufficient tuned-in-ness” (how’s that for an ugly use of the English language) to conservative opinion sources. Meanwhile as he describes the turn of events that led to the Times insufficient tuned-in-ness, he ends up giving example after example of the paper’s bias towards conservatives.

Hoyt tells us that the Times has solved the problem of “insufficient tuned-in-ness” by appointing an unnamed editor to “monitor opinion media” (i.e. Fox News, talk radio and the conservative blogosphere)

This is such a joke. Does the Times actually think that will bring them up to speed? Basically they are going to pay some editor to sit and watch Glenn Beck, listen to Rush and read Michelle Malkin and think that they will be up to speed with conservative “opinion media”. Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!

The conservative blogosphere alone moves at the speed of light. I am already embarrassingly late posting on this topic; surely The New York Times with its vast resources can shoot for better.

The New York Times problem has always been its bias. It can make excuses all over the place, but we all know it is the bias. Hoyt himself make that clear when he said this [emphasis added]:

But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.

How polemical can these sources be when the were correct about both stories? That is where the problem lies New York Times. Luckily Michelle Malkin offers a helping hand to the new Tuned-in-ness Editor.

Personally I have no problem with the New York Times' bias. What bothers me the most is their utter dishonesty about it. I have far more respect for the Daily Kos, Huffington Post and leftwing bloggers because they are upfront about their slant. They do not pretend to be anything else but left of center. The New York Times would go a long way in improving their credibility if they would simply come out of their make believe closet once and for all.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: Michelle Malkin