Washington Post Ombudsman Also Acknowledges His Newspaper's Liberal Bias

Almost a month ago, Arthur Brisbane, the departing public editor of The New York Times published his final column (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/success-and-risk-as-the-times-transforms.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=public%20editor&st=Search) in which he stated:

"When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

"Progressivism," i.e. left leaning bias, "bleeds through the fabric of The Times"? Who would have ever imagined?

Now, Patrick Pexton, the ombudsman of The Washington Post is also acknowledging his newspaper's inclinations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-is-it-news-or-is-it-politics/2012/09/28/fac19242-097c-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html?hpid=z3):

"One aspect of The Post that particularly irks conservatives is the columnists who appear in print and online in news positions (as opposed to those on the editorial and op-ed pages and the online Opinions section). With the exception of Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, who cover politics in a nonpartisan way, the news columnists almost to a person write from left of center.

. . . .


Is it any wonder that if you’re a conservative looking for unbiased news — and they do; they don’t want only Sean Hannity’s interpretation of the news — that you might feel unwelcome, or dissed or slighted, by the printed Post or the online version? And might you distrust the news when it’s wrapped in so much liberal commentary?

. . . .


The Post should first be about news without slant. If The Post wants to wrap its news in commentary, fine, but shouldn’t some of those voices then be conservative?"

Me? I also value balance, and first and foremost seek news from newspapers. Yes, The Washington Post is not balanced, but in its defense, it also provides the views of Kathleen Parker, Jennifer Rubin, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Gerson and Marc Thiessen.

The New York Times, on the other hand, has been transmogrified into the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration, and my guess is that it will pay the "ultimate price," i.e. Chapter 11, for politicization at the expense of reporting the news. Maybe George Soros will buy out the company for pennies on the dollar.

By the way, in his above-referenced opinion piece, Patrick Pexton also refers to the "progressive perspective" of various WaPo writers, whose opinions regularly appear on The Post's front page.

Sorry, but what is this talk about "political progressivism"? If most or all conservatives are referred to as "neocons," why is it that liberals or those from the radical left must be referred to as "progressives"? (Despite that fact that I am pro-choice, advocate immediate withdrawal of US ground forces from Afghanistan, and favor gay marriage and gun control involving assault rifles, I am also routinely labeled a neo-con by angry readers of this blog. Yes, I know, I am critical of the One.)

Today, is it forbidden to use the word "liberal"?

It was less than a year ago that Nobelist Paul Krugman of The New York Times wrote (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html):

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

"Liberal," "progressive," "nihilistic" or "revolutionary"? You decide.

Paul Krugman, "The Comeback Skid": Political Progressivism "Bleeds Through the Fabric of The Times"

Arthur Brisbane, the public editor of The New York Times, is departing, and this past weekend he published his final column (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/success-and-risk-as-the-times-transforms.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=public%20editor&st=Search) in which he stated:

"When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

"Political progressivism," i.e. bias, "bleeds through the fabric of The Times"? Who would have ever imagined?

Today, in his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Comeback Skid" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/opinion/krugman-the-comeback-skid.html), Paul Krugman again takes aim at Paul Ryan ("Mr. Ryan, as people finally seem to be realizing, is at heart a fiscal fraud"), but most of his rancor is reserved for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:

"Also, while much of his [Christie's] program involves spending cuts, he has effectively raised taxes on low-income workers and homeowners by slashing tax credits. But he vetoed a temporary surcharge on millionaires while refusing to raise the state’s gasoline tax, which is the third-lowest in America and far below tax rates in neighboring states. Only some people, it seems, are expected to make sacrifices."

So Christie refused to raise New Jersey's gasoline tax. Are we to understand that the price of gasoline has no impact upon commerce in the Garden State and that only millionaires drive cars?

Krugman continues:

"Strikingly, New Jersey’s 9.8 percent unemployment rate is now significantly higher than the unemployment rate in long-suffering Michigan, which has had a true comeback thanks to the G.O.P.-opposed auto bailout."

Although Michigan's current unemployment rate of 9 percent is better than a year ago, Krugman doesn't tell you that in July 2012, Michigan's unemployment rate rose for the third consecutive month after nine months of improvement (see: http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2012/08/michigans_unemployment_rate_up_for_third.html).

In fact, economic recovery throughout the US has hit the skids, yet there is no reference in Krugman's opinion piece to Obama's responsibility for this disaster.

Recall how Obama stated exactly one year ago in August 2011 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/21/us-usa-obama-economy-idUSTRE77K14Z20110821):

"I expect to be judged a year from now on whether or not things have continued to get better."

Krugman, however, prefers to ignore the president's pledge, overlooks the absence of an Obama plan to remedy America's unsustainable fiscal deficits, and instead accuses Paul Ryan of "fiscal fraud." Sure, it is possible to intelligently challenge Ryan's proposals (see, for example, Peter Orszag's reasoned response, which is made without name-calling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-paul-ryans-budget/2012/08/23/757b3718-eba0-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html), but where is Obama's alternative solution?

Which takes us back to Arthur Brisbane's parting remarks. Indeed, "political progressivism," i.e. bias, sadly "bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

Did Roger Cohen's "The Goldstone Chronicles" Violate the Policy on Ethics in Journalism of The New York Times?

OPEN LETTER TO MR. ANDREW ROSENTHAL, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, AND MR. ARTHUR BRISBANE, PUBLIC EDITOR, OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

Re: Request for Correction

Dear Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Brisbane,

In Roger Cohen's op-ed "The Goldstone Chronicles" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), published online by The New York Times on April 7, 2011, he writes:

"Israel is celebrating what it calls a vindication. It is preparing to welcome Goldstone. It is demanding nullification of the report, even though Goldstone is only one of its four authors. Meanwhile the facts remain: the 1,400 plus Palestinian dead [italics added], the 13 Israelis killed, the devastation, the Hamas rockets — and the need for credible investigation of what all evidence suggests were large-scale, indiscriminate, unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, as well as Hamas’ crimes against civilians."

Where did this so-called "fact" regarding Palestinian dead come from?

According to the Israeli army, the total number of Palestinians who died was 1,166, consising of 709 "Hamas terror operatives", 162 men killed during the operation who "have not been yet attributed to any organization", and 295 civilians (see: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=137286).

There is a large difference between "1,400 plus Palestinian dead" and 1,166, particularly given that Hamas now agrees (see Richard Goldstone's recent Washington Post op-ed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html), that the number of dead Palestinian militants determined by the Israeli army was correct, i.e. the preponderance of Palestinian fatalities consisted of militants.

Cohen purposefully ignores any mention in his op-ed that the Palestinian dead included combatants.

Cohen obviously decided to disregard the Israeli army figures and to cite Palestinian figures, notwithstanding allegations that the Palestinian figures were inflated (see: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3660423,00.html), and notwithstanding past instances where Palestinian figures were shown to be fabricated, e.g., casualty figures for the purported 2002 Jenin "massacre", which was subsequently proven to have been a hoax (see: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2002/05/03/the_jenin_massacre_hoax?page=full&comments=true).

Of course, "The Goldstone Chronicles" is an opinion piece, and Cohen is entitled to choose to believe the Palestinian figures; however, this this does not give Cohen the right to describe the Palestinian figures as a "fact", particularly given that he was not in Gaza during the war.

Questions:

• Does a New York Times op-ed writer have an obligation to state that the number of dead cited by him includes combatants?

• Does a New York Times op-ed writer have an obligation to state the source of his "fact", i.e. the number of Palestinian fatalities, particularly when this so-called "fact" is in dispute?

• Does a New York Times op-ed writer have an obligation to state that a "fact" being cited by him is in dispute?

According to "The New York Times Company Policy on Ethics in Journalism" (http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html):

"17. As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction. We publish corrections in a prominent and consistent location or broadcast time slot."

I think it is abundantly clear that The New York Times, pursuant to its own set of journalistic ethical standards, is required to publish an immediate correction concerning Roger Cohen's purported "fact".

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

Arthur Brisbane's "Standards That Everyone Can See": What About Censorship, Anti-Semitism and Journalistic Ethics at The New York Times?

Arthur Brisbane, the new Public Editor of The New York Times, has published an opinion piece entitled "Standards That Everyone Can See" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/opinion/03pubed.html) in which he takes the position that The Times should make its rules of the road easy for readers to navigate:

"The Times has a good set of policies. It should double down on its commitment to high standards by organizing them into a reader-friendly format and then trust its audience — which is now a paying audience both online and in print — to readily access these important principles and rules."

But what good are policies that are not enforced?

I submitted an online comment to Mr. Brisbane's piece, and - wonders will never cease - it was posted (no. 38):

"The Times should make its rules of the road easy for readers to navigate"? My belief is that the "rules of the road" are understood by your readership; however, their interpretation and implementation by your newspaper leave much to be desired.

Examples:

1. Notwithstanding your newspaper's written declaration that "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive," my online comments are regularly rejected by your so-called "moderators" when the said comments intelligently refute or are at odds, in a non-abusive manner, with the content of a given op-ed or editorial [see, most recently: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/03/roger-cohens-arabs-will-be-free.html].

2. Notwithstanding your newspaper's written declaration that "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive," there have been many instances where vile anti-Semitic comments have been tolerated by your so-called "moderators" [see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-no-2-to-clark-hoyt-public.html]. I brought this phenomenon to the attention of one of your senior editors, and after he investigated my allegations, many of these racist comments were retroactively deleted. However, soon thereafter, additional anti-Semitic comments were posted.

3. Notwithstanding your newspaper's written declaration that "Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive," there was an instance where your so-called "moderators" permitted a call for extreme physical violence against a high ranking former Republican government official. Only after I contacted one of your senior editors was this comment removed. [The comment, no. 8, posted by The New York Times in response to Maureen Dowd's April 29, 2009 op-ed, "Vice's Secret Vices", stated: "I think writing about Dick Cheney is at bottom passe Maureen. If you can't get the balls to put a material bullet between his eyes,,go away."]

4. In the not too distant past, I submitted to the prior Public Editor a complaint, inquiring whether a certain columnist had adhered to your newspaper's ethical guidelines, and I received the following response: "I am looking into this further, and doing some homework on the case right now. I also have Mr. Hoyt looking into it, and I will report our findings to you as soon as they are ready." Needless to say, I never heard back from the office of the Public Editor. [see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-roger-cohens-what-irans-jews-say-in_17.html]

In a nutshell, The New York Times has become highly politicized, and it is not your readership that needs to be reminded concerning the "rules of the road", which are no longer being enforced.

What good are internal policies and standards that are ignored by a news organization? My guess is that Mr. Brisbane has yet to discover to what depths The New York Times has descended.