Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn Inside Look at How NYT's Ownership Meddled with Coverage to Push Their Pet Projects
http://admin.alternet.org/media/inside-look-how-nyts-ownership-meddled-coverage-push-their-pet-projects?page=0%2C0&akid=10941.187861.56E69D&rd=1&src=newsletter897375&t=13An Inside Look at How NYT's Ownership Meddled with Coverage to Push Their Pet Projects
Hard evidence from one of America's leading media properties of owner interference and obedience by editors.
September 15, 2013 |
A study by Daniel Chomsky, a political scientist at Temple University (and nephew of linguist and political scholar Noam Chomsky), sheds some light on how ownership can interfere in media coverage to pursue their own interests, wealth and social status. Chomsky looked at memos written by Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who served as the publisher of the New York Times between 1935 and 1961, to the paper's managing editor, Turner Catledge. Focusing on a six-year period starting in 1956, Chomsky examined hundreds of blue notesmemos Sulzberger sent to Catledge mostly on blue paperto see how they impacted news decisions. The file Chomsky studied contained 415 of these blue notes, at a rate of about 60 a year. Although the notes are not the only way Sulzberger communicated to Times staff, they provide tangible evidence of editorial intervention. Catledge would frequently internalize Sulzbergers complaints, and then relay them to reporters as coming from a reader.
Chomsky categorizes 38% (156) of Sulzbergers memos as containing some sort of suggestion. He finds that while many of these suggestions received no written response from Catledge, they often resulted in changes in the paper. For example, in December of 1956, Sulzberger asked for coverage of shocking Egyptian treatment of French and British soldiers. This sentiment was then reflected in the news coverage of the paper. Chomsky estimates that of 136 suggestions meant to directly appear in news stories, at least 108, 79%, ended up being directly addressed in the paper.
Catledge described his views on the impact of a media outlets publisher in his 1971 memoir. In the newspaper business you dont loosely snub your publishers pet projects, he wrote. Catledge seemed extraordinarily deferential to the owners requests, writes Chomsky. Of the 107 cases in which a record of a response exists in the file, the editor undertook serious efforts to satisfy the publisher in 105 of them.
On a handful of occasions, editors at the Times resisted a request from Sulzberger. The publisher asked his editors to run a story on a friend who was organizing a charity event and received resistance from Catledge, the news department, and Sunday editor Lester Markel. Yet the story went on to run anyway, exactly on the date Sulzberger had requested. In another instance, Sulzberger was successful in getting a profile, two news stories, and a picture of Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, whom a friend of histhe ambassador to Taiwanwas pleading for positive coverage of.
Sulzberger never suggested a single story dealing with ordinary workers. Unions entered Sulzbergers consciousness and his blue notes only as threats to society, notes Chomsky.
Hard evidence from one of America's leading media properties of owner interference and obedience by editors.
September 15, 2013 |
A study by Daniel Chomsky, a political scientist at Temple University (and nephew of linguist and political scholar Noam Chomsky), sheds some light on how ownership can interfere in media coverage to pursue their own interests, wealth and social status. Chomsky looked at memos written by Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who served as the publisher of the New York Times between 1935 and 1961, to the paper's managing editor, Turner Catledge. Focusing on a six-year period starting in 1956, Chomsky examined hundreds of blue notesmemos Sulzberger sent to Catledge mostly on blue paperto see how they impacted news decisions. The file Chomsky studied contained 415 of these blue notes, at a rate of about 60 a year. Although the notes are not the only way Sulzberger communicated to Times staff, they provide tangible evidence of editorial intervention. Catledge would frequently internalize Sulzbergers complaints, and then relay them to reporters as coming from a reader.
Chomsky categorizes 38% (156) of Sulzbergers memos as containing some sort of suggestion. He finds that while many of these suggestions received no written response from Catledge, they often resulted in changes in the paper. For example, in December of 1956, Sulzberger asked for coverage of shocking Egyptian treatment of French and British soldiers. This sentiment was then reflected in the news coverage of the paper. Chomsky estimates that of 136 suggestions meant to directly appear in news stories, at least 108, 79%, ended up being directly addressed in the paper.
Catledge described his views on the impact of a media outlets publisher in his 1971 memoir. In the newspaper business you dont loosely snub your publishers pet projects, he wrote. Catledge seemed extraordinarily deferential to the owners requests, writes Chomsky. Of the 107 cases in which a record of a response exists in the file, the editor undertook serious efforts to satisfy the publisher in 105 of them.
On a handful of occasions, editors at the Times resisted a request from Sulzberger. The publisher asked his editors to run a story on a friend who was organizing a charity event and received resistance from Catledge, the news department, and Sunday editor Lester Markel. Yet the story went on to run anyway, exactly on the date Sulzberger had requested. In another instance, Sulzberger was successful in getting a profile, two news stories, and a picture of Madame Chiang Kai-Shek, whom a friend of histhe ambassador to Taiwanwas pleading for positive coverage of.
Sulzberger never suggested a single story dealing with ordinary workers. Unions entered Sulzbergers consciousness and his blue notes only as threats to society, notes Chomsky.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 512 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
An Inside Look at How NYT's Ownership Meddled with Coverage to Push Their Pet Projects (Original Post)
Jackpine Radical
Sep 2013
OP
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)1. No kicks?
I'm hurt.