NYT on NYDN 'Fire Isiah' signs

I always find it amusing to see how the paper of record reacts to the Post and Daily News.

Last week, George Vecsey wrote about the Daily News' sign and said "bless its rabble-rousing heart."

Conjures up images of Michael Keaton at the Sentinel office and Spalding Gray saying, "Henry, you've got a cute paper down there. Sometimes you really pull it off."

Now this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/business/media/24isiah.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin

Tabloid pugnacity ran headlong into journalistic impartiality in New York last week. Impartiality never stood a chance.

All right, the issue at hand wasn’t the Iraq war or universal health care. Still, it was at least mildly jarring to see The Daily News turn a full page of its news section into a sign calling on the hapless New York Knicks to boot their president and coach, Isiah Thomas.

...
Most of American journalism pays at least lip service to the idea that news reporting should not take sides in the matter being covered, even when it comes to the performance of the home team. But New York City’s tabloids, The Daily News and the even more opinionated New York Post, do not always feel bound by that rule.

That may be partly a result of both papers’ having had a number of editors from Britain and other parts of the world where newspapers have fewer pretensions to being impartial.

 

Says the paper that published Judy Miller.

 

and hired Jayson Blair

 

And RETAINED him . . . despite the loud-and-long bleatings of reliable underlings -- solely because of ol' Howell's egomania (and fatal blind spots) . . .

 

My personal belief is that in print, competing newspapers ought to pretend each other doesn't exist, unless there is major news involving the other. It's unseemly and catty to snipe at each other. But I don't have a real problem with what the NYT did, and I think some of the logic on this thread is puzzling. Are you saying that because of Judith Miller and Jayson Blair, the NYT needs to shut up about all things, forever? Come on. There aren't many papers that don't have something like this in their past -- but not all of them come clean about it like the NYT did, so we haven't heard about it.

 

I completely agree with this portion of the statement...

 

Printing a "fire the coach" sign? That's something I expect from the local sportstalk radio station, not a newspaper. Is the Daily News really prepared for life on that side of the fence?

(Upon further review, that was a dumb question. And it's not like the Knicks' relationship with Isola can get much worse, anyway...)

 

I think vigorous rockfights between newspapers are closer to the spirit of the First Amendment than pretending we're all above that stuff is.

 

The Isiah Thomas situation is truly extraordinary to me.

The guy was found to have sexually harassed a top level executive. Who doesn't get fired after something like that? A jury awards that woman $11 million. They vow to appeal. Shortly thereafter, they abandon the appeal and settle in the neighborhood of $11 million.

And to top it off, the Knicks are losing. In fact, to say they're losing doesn't even paint an accurate picture of what has gone on during the Thomas reign.

In some ways, I think the media has let him off easy. I know, I know, the Post and the DN have been all over him. But the Times talks about "taking sides." Is there really a side to take when one group of people is so clearly wrong?

When push comes to shove, I guess I disagree with the sign the DN printed. It's a cheap stunt. But if you're going to break down and deign to mention the competition like the Times did, aren't there bigger things to do that over?

 

The thing is Luggy, Isiah is only half the problem. Dolan is the other half.
You can't really take sides because they both suck.

 

They're both awful, so you throw up your hands?

Where's the holding of feet to the fire by the Times?

 

Everybody has taken both Zeke and Dolan to task -- except maybe Rhoden. And Dolan just doesn't care.