The Shimmer: Missing Data at the New York Times Jay Rosen

[hang a left]

Jay Rosen: The Shimmer: Missing Data at the <a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=9&k=new%20york" illegal code"window.status='New York'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">New York</a> Times Jay Rosen
1 hour, 5 minutes ago



"The news comes in code, and mostly the silences speak." Last week, that's how I described what happens when the New York Times reports about Judith Miller and her time in jail. This is still the case, and people in journalism are noticing how weird it is. "I find the Times' conduct at this point inexplicable," said Michael Isikoff of Newsweek magazine on CNN's Reliable Sources. (I was on the show with him; so was Glenn Reynolds. The transcript.)

ADVERTISEMENT

The host, Howard Kurtz, pointed out that when Isikoff's poorly sourced story on the desecration of the Koran ran in Newsweek, (see PressThink on it) the editors "did an investigation and set the record straight." Has the New York Times "come close to doing that here?" he asked.

No, it hasn't. And no one knows why. The official story seems to be: "Wait for the official story." Until then, normal operations are suspended. We're told that Miller is talking to the paper's reporters, and a major article is on the way. We're also told it's been delayed. There is no date for it. The editors will barely talk about it. Meanwhile the story keeps heating up. As ABC's The Note observed today (Oct. 10):


If you aren't spending 90% of your waking time thinking about this, talking about this, and doodling on your jeans about this, then you aren't a member of the Gang of 500, and you probably never will be.


snip>http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051012/cm_huffpost/008706;_ylt=A9FJqZESXExDs2wBCgb9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

[aquart]

1. "Gang of 500"???

[DLnyc]

2. Hmmm. Could that be because the NYT was planting stories for some one

during the Iraq buildup? I guess that, if that were the case (which seems like the most obvious explanation), then 'setting the record straight' wouldn't feel to attractive to some at the Times.

The Times gets a lot of credibility for printing hard-hitting editorials and some exposes. But a certain percentage of their stories (and their editorials), IMHO, read like obvious plants. For whom, it's not completely clear. But that they are plants is, to my way of thinking, quite obvious.