Along those lines, "A Liberal Bias?"

[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10823-2001Aug28.html|A Liberal Bias?] - an OpEd piece in the Washington Post by Robert J. Samuelson about the choice of Howell Raines to move from editorial page editor of the NYT to executive editor.

In many ways, he seems superbly qualified. Raines, 58, has been a Times bureau chief in both London and Washington. In 1992, he won a Pulitzer Prize. But what ought to disqualify him is his job as editorial page editor, where he proclaimed the Times' liberal views. Every editor and reporter holds private views; the difference is that Raines's opinions are now highly public. His page took stands on dozens of local, national and international issues. It was pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-campaign finance "reform." Last year, it endorsed Al Gore. In general, it has been critical of President Bush, especially his tax cut.

Does anyone believe that, in his new job, Raines will instantly purge himself of these and other views? And because they are so public, Raines's positions compromise the Times' ability to act and appear fair-minded. Many critics already believe that the news columns of the Times are animated -- and distorted -- by the same values as its editorials. Making the chief of the editorial page the chief of the news columns will not quiet those suspicions. But asked about possible conflicts, publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. -- who selected Raines -- dismissed them with a short statement: "The brilliant and honorable tenure of Max Frankel as executive editor of the Times (1986-94), following his years as editorial page editor (1977-86), stands as a testament that a great journalist knows the difference between these two roles. Howell is certainly a great journalist." In other words: Get lost.

Even more revealing has been the press coverage. Since Raines's appointment was announced in May, there has been almost no criticism of possible conflicts. (I examined stories in the Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair and in the forthcoming issue of the Columbia Journalism Review.) The silence suggests that the press tolerates conflicts as long as they conform to its dominant -- mainly liberal -- beliefs. Suppose, hypothetically, that the Wall Street Journal had named Robert Bartley, its fiercely conservative editorial page editor, to run its news columns. Questions surely would have arisen (and properly so) about his suitability -- about whether he might use the news columns to promote conservative views. Similar questions apply no less to the liberal Raines.

[...]

I have no ideal whether Raines will be able to be objective in his new position or not. But I would think the NYT would be more concerned about the appearance of impartiality than they seem to be.

(And I'm sure as many illustrations of the "conservative press" can be found...)

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #7,092 by Another Scott 8/29/01 12:50:06 PM Reply	Along those lines, "A Liberal Bias?" [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10823-2001Aug28.html\|A Liberal Bias?] - an OpEd piece in the Washington Post by Robert J. Samuelson about the choice of Howell Raines to move from editorial page editor of the NYT to executive editor. In many ways, he seems superbly qualified. Raines, 58, has been a Times bureau chief in both London and Washington. In 1992, he won a Pulitzer Prize. But what ought to disqualify him is his job as editorial page editor, where he proclaimed the Times' liberal views. Every editor and reporter holds private views; the difference is that Raines's opinions are now highly public. His page took stands on dozens of local, national and international issues. It was pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-campaign finance "reform." Last year, it endorsed Al Gore. In general, it has been critical of President Bush, especially his tax cut. Does anyone believe that, in his new job, Raines will instantly purge himself of these and other views? And because they are so public, Raines's positions compromise the Times' ability to act and appear fair-minded. Many critics already believe that the news columns of the Times are animated -- and distorted -- by the same values as its editorials. Making the chief of the editorial page the chief of the news columns will not quiet those suspicions. But asked about possible conflicts, publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. -- who selected Raines -- dismissed them with a short statement: "The brilliant and honorable tenure of Max Frankel as executive editor of the Times (1986-94), following his years as editorial page editor (1977-86), stands as a testament that a great journalist knows the difference between these two roles. Howell is certainly a great journalist." In other words: Get lost. Even more revealing has been the press coverage. Since Raines's appointment was announced in May, there has been almost no criticism of possible conflicts. (I examined stories in the Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair and in the forthcoming issue of the Columbia Journalism Review.) The silence suggests that the press tolerates conflicts as long as they conform to its dominant -- mainly liberal -- beliefs. Suppose, hypothetically, that the Wall Street Journal had named Robert Bartley, its fiercely conservative editorial page editor, to run its news columns. Questions surely would have arisen (and properly so) about his suitability -- about whether he might use the news columns to promote conservative views. Similar questions apply no less to the liberal Raines. [...] I have no ideal whether Raines will be able to be objective in his new position or not. But I would think the NYT would be more concerned about the appearance of impartiality than they seem to be. (And I'm sure as many illustrations of the "conservative press" can be found...) Cheers, Scott.
Post #7,130 by wharris2 8/29/01 5:15:00 PM Reply	On second thought The Washington Post is not exactly known for conservatism. Two strikes against Raines. But then we all know the press and media are liberal and biased. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #7,133 by Another Scott 8/29/01 5:45:56 PM Reply	The WP is more conservative than you'd imagine They have liberal and conservative OpEd writers. Don't take the paper's editorial slant as being demonstrated by a Samuelson OpEd piece. Their editorials (not OpEds) generally have a left of center slant, but many regard the Post as a conservative paper. Of course, it depends on what your definitions of conservative and liberal are. It's certainly not Mother Jones. :-) Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!