NYTimes: Haven't Quite Figured Out This Online Conversation Thing
from the extra-attention dept
There's been some controversy in the past over the question of whether or not GM understands new media. While some have said they don't, it seems increasingly clear that they understand it quite well -- better than many in the old media, in fact. The latest example of this concerns a spat with the New York Times and its columnist Tom Friedman. Friedman apparently wrote a piece blasting GM. We'd link to it here, but, of course, the NY Times is working hard to keep their best columnists out of the discussion. In fact, they apparently want them so far out of the discussion that they won't let those disparaged by those columnists respond in kind via the traditional "letters to the editor." GM apparently wrote a 490 word response to the Friedman piece, and submitted it to the NY Times, who rejected it as being "too long" (note that the original article was a clean 800 words). GM actually had to go through a series of negotiations, where they agreed to shorten their response to 200 words (well shorter than other letters the NY Times has published). Finally, the NY Times demanded they take out the word "rubbish" in describing Friedman's arguments. So, what does GM do in response? They post the entire story to their own blog, which is probably going to get a lot more traffic and attention than the NY Times' "letters to the editor" would have gotten. It's not clear what world the NY Times thinks it's living in these days, but trying to limit a response to an attack column in a world where anyone can post online seems somewhat pointless -- and, as in this case, pretty much guaranteed to have the opposite effect.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The NYdT - Dinosaur Times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The NYdT - Dinosaur Times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY Times is out of touch?
Where is Timothy Mc Veigh when ya really need him eh?
The Gray Lady (and entire NE) has been out of touch with reality for 35 years and continues it's downward spiral into oblivion. The sooner the better.
As always NYT liberals are to busy TELLING you what to think instead of actually reporting anything of substance or truth which will let YOU decide without coersion.
Truth is the NYT's mortal enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NY Times is out of touch?
Right, where is Mc Veigh, would expect nothing less from a person that believes the NYT is a liberal newspaper after cheerleading for Bush for 5 years with slight exceptions such as Frank Rich who would have no problem with criticism. I guess you really bought into the bullshit of Fox's Slogan. They yell in your face and edit surreptitiuosly, you decide. Funny how they anger you now that that are on your side What a tool. Why is it that guys like you always have killing as punchlines in jokes. Guess that's why you guys don't get laid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the above comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the above comments
LOL.
Thanks for making that point quite clear for everyone.
Reach arounds (patting or not) are the realm of the liberal democrats and their band of gay lobbyists...
Buh Bye loser :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the above comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the above comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I had my way, I would have sued NYU
They omitted several parts of the letter, and their editors have prbly been bought off by Toyota or somebody. Why else would they go out of their way to inconvenience GM. Friedman always gets flak, he is used to it.
I wonder who the third party in this is
Kanhar Munshi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riiiight
To heck with the lot of them. There should be no room for ego in journalism, online or offline. We are reporters, citizen bloggers or professionals, we report the news, not make it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who reads.....
Dick Cheney in '08
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more reason
I have to give them credit for sticking to their own liberal biased guns, if I can actually use the word liberal and gun in the same sentence.
I wonder how far the NY Times will sink before they realize their own little world is really their own little world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more reason
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
since when...
1. When did liberal become a 4 letter word? Almost every reply on this article used liberal as though it was a horrible thing. I guess I call myself libertarian more than anything else so it's very amusing to liberals and conservatives frame arguements as though the other side isn't need. Liberals are the Ying conservatives yang. You need a foxnews to balance out the ny times, both play an important part in getting the right story, somewhere in the middle.
2. It is amusing to listen to commentors belittle the NY times, liberal or not probably the most widely read publication on the planet (way more than most blogs I would assert, on a daily basis).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: since when...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: since when...
As far as Foxnews balancing out the NYT, I'd have to throw a flag on that one. Sure Foxnews has a conservative slant, but the news organizations with a liberal slant more than make up for Foxnews (and talk radio). CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and the NYT all have a liberal slant (and I'm sure there are a host of others). Ever notice how conservatives are willing to admit that Foxnews has a conservative slant, while liberals would never admit that ABC has a liberal slant?
As for "liberal" being a four letter word, they have no one to blame but themselves. I don't remember when there were more people spewing sewage out of their mouths than the self proclaimed enlightened "liberals" we have today. For people claiming to be enlightened, I'm always amazed at their intolerance of people with different ideas than their own. (I always thought the conservatives were known for being a tad intolerant. Not any more.) Granted there have always been crackpots on both sides, but lately the liberal crackpots are presented as normal. (Don't believe me? When was the last time Janeane "our country was founded on a sham" Garofalo was presented as an ultra-left crackpot? She is often presented as the "liberal" viewpoint. What ever happened to the normal liberals who declared war on poverty?)
Then there is the journalist. Freedom-of-speech-loving, keeping-the-government (and business)-honest journalists. Journalists were once depended upon to tell the truth - all of it not just their side of it. Journalists had integrity. News was News and not entertainment. Getting it right was more important than ratings. Barbara Walters, Michael Moore, Authur Sulzberger (of NYT fame), Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Ted Rall, George Soros, Paul Begala, and I could go on. OK, Mr. Soros isn't a journalist, but he's got a bunch of 'em in his pocket. Mr. Moore is often treated as one. How can stories such as the one above even begin to pretend to be journalism? Want to express your liberal opinion? Fine, just don't pretend your agenda qualifies as journalism.
And yes, I know the conservatives have their share of crackpots. They just don't seem to dominate the so-called mainstream media like the liberals do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: since when...
Bill O'Reilly. Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter. Hannity. Scarborough. Novak. Tucker Carlson. Michael Savage. Dennis Miller. Judith Miller. etc. etc.
Yeah, they're nowhere to be found. Both sides have their loopies. Funny, that last one worked for the NY Times, and used the paper to basically recite WH talking points for a few years. Hard to see how that gets the NYT accused of being "liberal" but what do I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: since when...
You're right - the people you named do have a conservative bent, but they're out numbered - Catie Couric, Matt Lauer - any host of any morning or evening news on CBS, NBC, or ABC. Or how about Neal Shapiro president of NBC news, David Westin President of ABC News. Foxnews has their conservative hosts but by my count that's three major networks to one. I'll give CNN credit - their hosted news programs tend toward opposing co-hosts, so we'll call that one a tie. However, the majority of the news coming out of CNN still has a liberal slant.
I can't tell you the last time I saw Dennis Miller and I wouldn't put him at the same level as a Ted Koppel. And yes, conservatives dominate talk radio. Talk radio isn't exactly the same as a major network news show, is it? (For the record: in my book Michael Savage is one of those sewage spewing idiiots. But it's still talk radio.) Not sure how Air America is doing, but I'll give liberals credit for trying to break into that market. Not sure how AA is doing in the ratings game - how many news outlets can liberals support?
I haven't read the NYT for years. I got tired of their liberal bias and the editors for the NYT have an liberal bias. I may say the ABC Evening News has a liberal slant, but that's a far cry from the NYT's type of journalism. I honestly don't know much about Judith Miller but I wouldn't call her the conservative rock at the NYT and even if she was you couldn't compare her to Katie Couric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: since when...
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, the NYTs reall should have let GM input that article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't very shocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dick Cheney in '08
If all the democrats in the US died tomorrow, Dick Cheney might have a shot at '08 if he takes a hunting trip with Bush and has another 'accident'.
Not because he'd have the advantage of coming into the election as the sitting President either...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something that seems to have been
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the NY Times article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responses to articles in newspapsers that disparag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Times is liberal?! Ummm.... no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]