Frequently, when I'm on one of my soapboxes, you'll hear me rail against the New York Times, and how I think it ranks up there with the Enquirer in terms of journalistic integrity. People think this is because it has an editorial slant to the Left. This is not true. I regularly read the Washington Post, the Atlantic Monthly and the New Republic, all of which have a decidedly left editorial slant. My issues with the NY Times stem from issues like the Jason Blair scandal, and all the dozens of other 'oops' moments they've had in the past 15 years. Here's another one. Even a broken clock 'SHOULD' be right twice a day... The Times published an article claiming that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts authored a controversial unsigned memo on libel. As it turns out, he didn't. In printing a retraction, the NY Times, yet again, refused to apologize or offer any of the correlating evidence their editors used to confirm the author's story.
I've said it before, there are really two independent variables in journalism: editorial leaning and actual accuracy. I DO think it's possible for a publication to be partisan and maintain their journalistic integrity. Both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are highly respectable in terms of the accuracy of their content (although both are fairly biased, one to the left, one to the right).
So, the next time you hear me moaning about the NY Times, it's not because it endorses Democratic positions. It's because I never know whether they're making a story up as they go or not.
Bookmarks