The Declining Fortunes of The New York Times

In his New York Times op-ed of today's date entitled "Hollywood’s Brilliant Coda to America’s Dark Year", Frank Rich, inter alia, bewails the declining fortunes of his employer:

"Meanwhile, at the company where I work, as at many others, the latest round of layoffs will be completed by Christmas. Even for the survivors it feels a little like serial deaths in the family. And who believes we’re near the end of this story?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/opinion/13rich.html

The New York Times may or may not be "near the end of this story", but given that we are fast approaching the end of 2009, perhaps it is befitting that Rich and the rest of The Times' staff reflect on how it reached this quandary. Indeed, not all U.S. news organizations are faced with such bleak prospects. Is it possible that The Times has grown out of touch with its readership? Were there instances in 2009 where The Times forgot its basic journalistic standards? Did many of The Times' op-ed writers and members of its editorial board identify so strongly with the president's election campaign that they subsequently lost their independence and objectivity?

During much of 2009, The Times tolerated the most vile expressions of anti-Semitism posted in online comments. The Public Editor's office ignored my complaints, until a very senior editor, who asked to remain anonymous, verified my accusations and acted to put an end to this phenomenon.

During much of 2009, The Times provided Roger Cohen with a platform to promote the preposterous proposition that "Iran is not totalitarian" (in keeping with then prevalent Obama administration sentiment) and provided Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett with space for two op-eds demanding "rapprochement" with Iran. Apart from one fleeting sentence, these op-eds never made mention of persecution against Iran's Baha'is and entirely ignored oppression directed against Sunni Muslims, Christians and Kurds. Personally, I will never forgive or forget Cohen's attempt to whitewash Iran's treatment of its tiny Jewish community. Did The Times permit contrary opinion to that of Cohen and the Leveretts? No.

During 2009, The Times provided Qaddafi with an op-ed, which, on its face, appeared to promote conciliation between Arabs and Jews. However, The Times failed to observe that the prior day Qaddafi had recommended a conciliatory dialogue between Obama and bin Laden and to move Jews, who did not accept his one-state solution, to Hawaii, Alaska or an island in the Pacific, where "they could live peacefully in an isolated setting." My comment in response to this op-ed, which noted the foregoing, was censored by The Times.

During 2009, The Times provided Obama with space for an op-ed promoting his health care plan, soon after The Times editorial board lauded his foreign policy following a derisive editorial in the Washington Post. The Times defended Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, while the rest of the nation snickered, and rallied behind his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Is this a new variety of liberalism, blind subservience or a lack of objectivity? Bottom line: the misfortunes of The New York Times stem not only from a declining economy and reduced demand for its print edition, but also from alienation of its readership. Perhaps The Times has grown too opinionated to listen. It is an important news gathering organization, and it would be a pity if it were to fail.