Dear Clark,
I would like to provide you with another real time example of New York Times' censorship of a comment submitted in response to Gail Collins' op-ed, "What Happened in Vegas", of today's date.
But first let's look at what is permissible (purportedly "on-topic and not abusive") as determined by The Times. Comment No. 1, approved by The Times' "moderators", states:
Let's not be so hard on these bozos, Gail! After all, Republican and social conservatives are putting the "FUN" back into "DYSFUNCTIONAL"! We cynical Obama supporters are beside ourselves with glee, and are just waiting to hear that a few of the "C Street" boys are closet Muslims! And I am sure that more than a few wear their wives' pantyhose under their flag-patterned boxers! These guys really know how to party!!!
Are we to understand that The Times deems it in the interest of "robust debate" (your words, see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/clark-hoyt-responds-has-new-york-times.html) to allow persons to label Republicans "bozos" and to allege that they are cross dressers?
My horrifying comment that required censorship:
Gail, thanks for the marvelous column. Those lascivious, duplicitous Republicans!
Now how about an expose concerning the recently revealed "foibles" of certain New York Times op-ed writers? Dowd continues to churn out op-eds demeaning Palin; however, I would love to be provided with all the details vis-a-vis Dowd's "inadvertant lifting of language".
My complaint to The Times' Public Editor concerning Cohen's "What Iran's Jews Say" has also gone unanswered, notwithstanding the commitment made many months ago by The Times' Public Editor's staff: "I am looking into this further, and doing some homework right now. I also have Mr. Hoyt looking into it, and I will report our findings to you as soon as they are ready." http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/clark-hoyt-responds-has-new-york-times.html
Or does what happen at The Times also stay at The Times?
Once again it is clear that The Times is unwilling to brook criticism.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey
As you can well imagine, I await Clark's response with bated breath.
I like your persistence. There is something very American in the idea that a single person can take upon a powerful institution and win.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much, Marina.
ReplyDeleteWinning? There has been correspondence, some embarrassment and annoyance on their part, and, I hope, a slightly higher awareness.
Unfortunately, their op-ed page reads like a gossip column, devoted entirely to Palin's antics.
You've misplaced your trust in the NYT. Don't expect real foreign policy debate from any US news organization.
ReplyDeleteDont really care for politics one way or another. This is just an FYI for someone apparently not very tech savvy (yes were talking about you here). NYT isnt censoring your comments, its removing them because they are considered spam. Remove the links to your blog and your comments will stop being 'censored'. You place a link to your site even when its not relevant to the comment, and spending a few minutes poking around it was easy to see how active youve been. Tut tut, 163 comments on the NYT site alone with links to your blog, and thats not counting the ones 'censored'. If i see it that way then most likely the NYT does too, or at least views it as an excuse to censor your comments under the cover of removing spam.
ReplyDeleteI doubt youll take my advice since that would remove your primary motivation to even take the fight to the NYT, getting traffic to your site, but at least now you know how easy it is to find out your true motivations if some bored insomniac can do it in a few minutes at 2:30am.
Hi, Jeffrey
ReplyDeleteI noticed changes in NYTimes lately. I do not know if it can be attributed to your fight, but it is possible. We do not see abundance of anti-Semitic comments any more. Over weekend, there were very interesting articles: about Michael Jackson and Somalian terrorists in USA. Before, NYTimes would avoid saying something negative about blacks or about Muslims or about "freedom fighters". It is like they, may be, taking off their blinds.
The "bored" angry anonymous is wrong. You had discussion with the editors, and they never mentioned that your signature is a problem.
Anonymous, thank you for your comment, and I am truly sorry that you suffer from boredom and insomnia. Moreover, you are absolutely correct: I am not "tech savvy".
ReplyDeleteBut note that this blog is new: less than two months old. Most of the censorship to which I refer relates to dissenting comments submitted by me without any link, i.e. prior to the time of this blog. This phenomenon is known to The Times; after sending a complaint to The Times' Public Editor more than a year ago, the Public Editor's office asked me and other readers for examples of "rejected" comments. (See: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-1-to-clark-hoyt-public.html) Clark Hoyt very recently informed me that he is still considering a column on this topic.
Also, you probably are aware that many sites soliciting comments request the link to the blog, if any, of the person submitting the comment. The New York Times does not do this; however, it has created "TimesPeople" which enables readers to track the comments of other readers whose opinions interest them.
Most important, I believe that the Internet is about sharing opinions, information and knowledge. (You probably observed that there is no advertising on my blog, and I do not stand to benefit from "traffic".) Fortunately, if you don't enjoy reading my thoughts or the thoughts of others, you can navigate away with a simple click of your mouse.
Why waste time and effort at 2:30 a.m.? You say you are not interested in politics, but pride yourself on being "tech savvy". Surely there are thousands of "tech" sites that can provide you with the self-satisfaction and happiness that you deserve.
Marina, thank you.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct: I have had correspondence with one of The Times' most senior editors about my comments and concerns, and the issue of the link never arose.
I know from my correspondence with The Times that certain "changes" have recently occurred, and I would like to believe, but do not know for certain, that my correspondence had some small effect.