The Lincoln Plawg - the blog with footnotes
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
New York Times editorial board at NYU
New York University's own Washington Square News has the story (March 2 - via Romenesko, natch).
It's impressive that six guys from the ed board stepped up to answer questions. As reported by the WSN,one or two of the answers, on the other hand, weren't that impressive at all. (Not a specific criticism of the NYT, this time: my hunch is that the answers were fairly representative of comparable titles.)
Some speakers said that one reason the media do not cover substantive issues in the race is because the candidates themselves don't talk about them.
On the record, it's gobbets of stump-speech; off the record, it's tactics, inside baseball, and so forth.
Adam Cohen says
Issues that matter to core Democratic constituencies are just not the issues that [the candidates] are focusing on for their swing groups.
Editorial page editor Gail Collins explained how TV news limits reporters' abilities to pursue follow-up questions on-camera.
(What grade are we in?)
Defeatist is not exactly the right word: but the sense one gets of the attitude of the Times' top editorial team is not one that inspires confidence of a fresh start having been made with the installation of the new regime.
Clearly, we don't want media vendettas against pols, or those in any other category of newsmaker. But vigorous inquiry and a willingness to be the unpopular guy in the room when persistent questioning is needed - no danger of a wedgie in the changing-rooms afterwards, surely? - don't make a vendetta.
The WSN is also offering a story under the hed Balls and politics don't mix .
Perhaps its next task should be to help the Times ed board to track down theirs.
free website counter