Comments on: The Old Gray Lady Stoops…to Conquer?

By: joel

joel — Mon, 12 May 2008 00:35:41 +0000

Not surprising really. Slow news weekend, reporter up against a deadline, and an editor who sees a story on the hottest movie of the summer and thinks “well, at least our click-through rate will be high.”

Whatever.

By: Alison Flynn

Alison Flynn — Sun, 11 May 2008 23:16:27 +0000

Guys, as a New Yorker, I can vouch for the fact that the NY Times has been headed toward being a rag for at least a decade, probably more.

In the 1940’s this was a top notch paper. It’s been going steadily downhill, particularly since the 1980’s. Unfortunately it still has the reputation as being this top paper that commands respect. Bullshit – it’s been a rag for several years now, in all departments – news, arts, etc.

To make a long story short, this comes as no surprise to me. Like I said, the NY Times has been considered a rag by many intelligent New Yorkers for at least a decade.

By: christian

christian — Sun, 11 May 2008 23:07:07 +0000

As for the NY Times, they lost me in 2003 when Judith Miller was drumming up war with the help of her pal, Scooter Libby.

By: Alexander Coleman

Alexander Coleman — Sun, 11 May 2008 22:07:19 +0000

The last five or six years have not been very good for The New York Times. For scraping the bottom of the barrel, this latest bit is hard to beat, though.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:47:42 +0000

Well Craig, that’s why I’ve been coming, but now that you’ve disowned crack investigative journalism, I’ll have to go somewhere more respectable. Like AICN.

By: k

Sun, 11 May 2008 20:56:59 +0000

Jeez.

I’ve been looking at the NYT differently since they ran that crazy “article” on John McCain having an affair years and years and years ago.

I mean, I know this is entertainment news, but really. It’s the NEW YORK TIMES. Where is your integrity, NYT?

By: Craig Kennedy

Craig Kennedy — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:33:31 +0000

Well, I doubt people turn to LiC for crack investigative journalism…at least I hope not.

By: sartre

sartre — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:24:27 +0000

Craig, I think you’re very careful to qualify the limitations of any sources you draw upon for your own commentaries and speculations.

By: Craig Kennedy

Craig Kennedy — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:18:48 +0000

That’s the shocking thing to me, that this is a well respected paper. I don’t claim to provide better, but no one is expecting me to.

By: sartre

sartre — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:06:55 +0000

“A non-story has been elevated to the level of actual news and the journalistic standards of a great newspaper have been lowered to the level of Internet chatter.”

This constitutes shoddy reportage whether in print or online. Manufacturing any story from flimsy and unreliable sources represents low journalistic standards. But readers at least are more skeptical about online speculations as opposed to reporting found in a paper of record.

Cieply didn’t happen to change his name from Stephen Glass.