1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can cutbacks not be mentioned in NYT analysis of Cronkite debacle?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Simon_Cowbell, Aug 2, 2009.

  1. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    Sure, there are people who are better writers than reporters, and yes, everyone makes mistakes.

    But, this case is almost not about the actual mistakes, or "details."

    It is a case of taking/accepting liberties that shouldn't be taken, and of an attitude of carelessness in the worst sense.

    Like, I'll just write anything, don't check it, don't ask someone else to check it, gets lots of things wrong...and then...just keep right on doing it, again and again...on major profiles, on one of the biggest, best-known and most prestigious media stages in the world.

    To a degree, I do agree that the desk people let her down, too.

    But then, what copy editor goes into a story -- particularly one done by a "much-admired" writer, at a paper of this level -- thinking, "I need to check and back up, literally, every single little basic fact? You know, because we trust her even though we really shouldn't."...?

    It's a trust issue in someone's basic capabilities, and even, journalism ethics -- one that should not exist -- not to that extent -- at this level of the business.

    That beautiful writing/artistic license, in fact, is probably much of what is causing the trouble.
     
  2. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I've read enough of Stanley's stuff to think she's just not worth it to the Times. Her copy is more "attitude" than insight. Like Blair, she'll end up dragging down others with her. Imagine if the Times discovered someone screwing up like this in government and hearing supervisors explain well, they're brilliant. I really doubt the paper wouldn't question that judgement.
    I like Lisa DeMoraes much better.
     
  3. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    I'm with Dan. Stanley is not a particularly good critic in my judgment. She reeks of self-love and a sense of superiority towards her topic and the people she writes about - none of it justified in the least.
    In a Google universe, getting basic facts wrong is more than carelessness, or even laziness, it's arrogance. I'm above doing something that would take me five seconds.
     
  4. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    All these points are well and good, but . . .

    . . . she's friends with Mo Dowd. End of argument.
     
  5. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

  6. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Were I publisher of the Times (God forbid) Dowd would be among the first four people I fired. She is the epitome of uselessness.
    Keller would be first.
     
  7. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    They tally each person's errors. Wow. This woman must feel like an idiot.
     
  8. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    You'd think she'd at least offer the resignation, out of respect to the paper and her colleagues - maybe land a gig with the Huffington Post or Vanity Fair.
    I appreciate a newspaper standing behind their employee, but at some point you'd think they'd reassign Stanley to the NYT magazine or some other post.
     
  9. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    nah. she's an artiste, not a mucker and grinder. self-awareness and self-examination are not strong points for the chosen. ::) ::) ::)
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page