see, this is what I'm talking about.

[sisyphusshrugged]

I'm sorta torn about shorter Danny Okrent: it could be

The only possible reason for failing to warm to Jodi Wilgoren is misanthropy

or

One becomes a credible authority on matters of fact not by acquiring experience and knowledge in your field or by being correct but by having your thoughts appear in the Times

which, I guess, explains a fair amount about Mr. Okrent's credentials.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

My candidate for the "shorter Danny Okrent" -- Please, stop pestering me!

Miss Authoritiva

[marykaykare.livejournal.com]

You know, Atrios snarked about this column too, and I'm not really sure why. What I took from it was that reporters need to be aware the impartiality doesn't mean quotes from both sides and reporters should stop doing that. That they're working from a flawed and warped definition of impartiality. Which is something the press really really needs to hear.

MKK

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

Well, true dat, but Mr. Okrent apparently has a problem with squeezing in little apologias for people at the Times he feels are being picked on, and given his "if both sides are pissed we're doing something right" attitude, he seems to feel that objecting to Times reporters' stories is a sign of blatant bias and unfairness.

Since the right has had little to complain of from the Times lately, he seems to have decided that the left are just big meanies.

[marykaykare.livejournal.com]

Well, given that I don't regularly read his column, all that was apparent to me was him saying things I think the press really needs to listen to. I read his examples merely as examples rather than apologias for anyone or anything. Shrug. I still think he's right in his point.

MKK

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

Even on its face I had problems with it - his point about Jodi Wilgoren interviewing Kerry's nonexistent friends was ridiculous, and his conclusion that the appropriate response to unbalanced coverage is to give Times reporters their heads to print unsupported personal opinion as fact because their gut reactions are expert gut reactions confuses me deeply.

He's supporting an argument about not being bound to ideas of balance that require them to cast doubt on both sides when only one is in doubt (good).

He's using that argument to say that Times reporters should be able to present their prejudices and preferences to their readers in the guise of News because they're Times reporters is horrifying.

Okrent

[(Anonymous)]

Okrent was at Harvard's Shorenstein Center for a "brown bag lunch" recorded by CSPAN. I got to ask him about his naming a reader and calling him a coward. On purpose, I did not mention the reader's name, whom I had called for his side of the story before the Harvard event. Okrent did at least a couple of times.

Speaking to him afterwards, I pointed this out and got what I thought was a completely disingenuous response, "I did?!" My bullshit detector went off like a fire alarm. This guy knew exactly what he was doing and was happy to trash a reader on TV to feed his own ego.

Okrent is an asshole with complete contempt for his own and NYTimes readers. He's leaving in May. Good riddance.

Tomorrow I see Seth Mnookin at the same venue. Maybe Alex Jones, dean of the Shorenstein, will let me ask a question, something he hasn't done since Okrent came.