Comments on: You know the Times has egg on its face…

By: Mitch

Mitch — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:18:30 +0000

Funny, I don't remember the Times printing anything about this well-attested incident of improper relations with a lobbyist. Eyewitnesses are on record, too, unlike the anonymous and vague sources the Times cites. Forget about Pinch getting canned. The family still controls the paper, and by all appearances they consider the share price to be a noble sacrifice for the greater good.

By: B-Daddy

B-Daddy — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:26:43 +0000

I am also amazed at the reaction of NYT editor Bill Keller on the reaction to the story. Basically, he is saying that those nitwitted readers of his missed the real story. Seems like a bad business practice to insult your customers.

By: Greg Toombs

Greg Toombs — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:05:45 +0000

Dave S “How many editors and fact-checkers saw that and didn’t notice it?”

Due to it’s institutionally inherent ideological inbreeding (four!) the NY Times has replaced those positions with a gallery of navel-gazing lint-pickers.

Of course, I’m just basing that on what I read in the last 8 years of the Times.

By: Corky Boyd

Corky Boyd — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:59:20 +0000

Actually, Pinch’s days are probably numbered. There has been an undercurrent for the past three years that Pinch had a limited amount of time to prove himself. This because of the Jason Blair fiasco , horrible finacial results and the general opinion of his ineptness.

The next in line is Michael Golden (a family member), who was sent to Europe to gain publisher experience at the Times owned International Herald Tribune. He recently gave up that position at the end of 2007 to spend full time in New York.

Just my guess, but I think the Times board will announce Golden’s promotion at or slightly before the April shareholders’ meeting. The change will probably take place after the Presidential elections to give Pinch the opportunity to lead the paper during that critical period (read: to try to swing the election).

Pinch no doubt made the decision to run the story. As in any story of this import, the Publisher makes the call. Keller put the word out he opposed running the story because it was so poorly sourced, but relented. He wisely didn’t point fingers at his boss, but he let be known where he stood. There are a lot of editors looking for work today and he didn’t want to add his name to the list.

The whole paper is in a state of rot, and it starts at the top.

By: Dave S.

Dave S. — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:50:21 +0000

Is this the same NYT that recently ran a story about Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which informed us that Johnson was fighting Southern Republican Congressmen for passage?

Their bias is so ingrained and organic that they don’t even notice it. How many editors and fact-checkers saw that and didn’t notice it?

By: david foster

david foster — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:36:19 +0000

Steven…I know about the two-class stock in the NYT, and agree it’s unlikely Sulzberger will get cannd. However, I’m pretty sure that an executive’s fiduciary responsibility is to all shareholders, and wouldn’t be surprised if someone raises the issue in a shareholder lawsuit. It would be a very interesting case. Obviously, a newspaper or other media company should have wide discretion in its editorial posture, but I’d think there must be *some* line at which the focus of the enterprise on on inculcating a particular political view becomes so strong that the business judgment rule is no longer protective.

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:16:49 +0000

Regrettably, the Times left itself and our profession open to such allegations of bias

Translation: the NYT broke cover, and may blow ours too. Bad tradecraft.

Is it true the NYT’s board of directors has renamed itself the Central Committee?

By: abe shorey

abe shorey — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:47:19 +0000

Re the stock, it has had a nice pop in the last 4 weeks as news came that 2 activist hedge funds were agitating for change. Of course this same route was tried by a Morgan Stanley Fund, they bought @ 34 sold at 18. The new crew look to be long in the low teens, currently nicely in the money. Let’s see where they sell, as SDB points out the voting is family controlled.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:47:11 +0000

My first reaction to the story was, “Huh, maybe McCain isn’t that old after all.” Seriously, if this had happened to Bush, I’d suspect the story was a Karl Rove plant.

By: Steven Den Beste

Steven Den Beste — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:31:55 +0000

David, the NYT is publicly traded, but its stock rules are strange. Effectively, the Sulzberger family owns the majority of voting shares, even though it’s a minority ownership share. So the only way Pinch is going to get canned is if his own family does it.

It was interesting that Bill Keller’s response to the uproar was essentially the same as Rather’s response in 2004: “Why are you spending all your time scrutinizing our evidence when you should be accepting what we say at face value and getting angry at the Republican we’re trying to smear? Don’t you know who we are? You can’t doubt us!”