January 25, 2010
What "not a target" means in the New York Times, and why self-serving statements (like that issued by FCR re Ridge Hill) should be checked
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder takes The New York Times to task (again!), this time for the failings of its coverage of the recent Yonkers indictments and Forest City's possible role.
Well, I sent my post critiquing the New York Times's coverage of the Ridge Hill indictments (in which developer Forest City Ratner was cited but not indicted) and got the following response back from Senior Editor/Standards Greg Brock:
I had two editors go over your note and I agree with them that no correction or Editors' Note is warranted on any of these points. You might want to consider writing a Letter to the Editor about your thoughts on our journalistic efforts and how we could have improved this article. But there were no errors here and no violation of any ethics/standards policy that would merit an Editor's Note.
First, consider the implicit sneer (and not the first one) in Brock's invitation to me to write a letter with my "thoughts" on the Times. The newspaper has never printed a letter from me and has very little space for letters.
And my analysis does not consist of random "thoughts;" rather, it's backed up by clear evidence. We just read the evidence differently.
Posted by eric at January 25, 2010 8:36 AM