January 23, 2007
Barclays and slavery: the Times muddies the issue
Atlantic Yards Report
The NY Times reacts to criticism that "a clarification or correction is in order."
Here's what the Times ran:
Several demonstrators protested outside the museum, accusing Barclays of participating in the state's attempt to use eminent domain to condemn property for the project. They also said Barclays profited from the slave trade yet is aligned with Ratner, who is marketing his team to African-American fans. A company spokesman said Barclays had not been involved in slavery.
Here's an editor's explanation:
Because we accurately conveyed what each group said and because we made no further claims ourselves, we see no reason for a clarification or correction. Thanks again.
NoLandGrab: The Times is clearly no longer interested in "journalism of verification."
Is it enough to run a quote from both sides (i.e. "we've looked, and can find no evidence of weapons of mass distruction" or "we must stop the madman from using weapons of mass distruction")? Remember, it was just this kind of journalism that led The NY Times to drive news coverage and public opinion down the road toward Iraq.
Posted by lumi at January 23, 2007 6:42 AM