NYT reader rep, back from vacay, interviews self, reveals callous smartass

[DeepModem Mom]

THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Q. How Was Your Vacation? A. Pretty Newsy, Thanks
By DANIEL OKRENT

Published: September 12, 2004

(Okrent begins by saying that after 18 months on the job as the Times's reader rep, it's time for an interview, which he will conduct himself, asking "softball questions.")

***

Q. What about the political coverage?

....Take, for instance, the Swift Boat dust-up....Here's what I learned: In a series of ads, a group of Vietnam veterans who served with or near John Kerry in the Mekong Delta charged him with several deceptions about his war service. The ads were financed and produced by a number of people, many of them Texas Republicans, with a connection to President Bush or his associates. One key figure, however, was a political independent who voted for Al Gore in 2000 and has been challenging Senator Kerry's post-service condemnations of certain American practices in Vietnam for three decades.

From what The Times's news coverage told me, official records contradict the central charges leveled in the ads. However, it is not accurate to say, as Senator Kerry has, that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia.

If my summary is wrong, The Times erred. If it's accurate, the paper did a fine job. If my description offends you because you dislike Kerry, or because you think the extent of The Times's Swift Boat coverage lent credence to false charges, this tells me more about you than it does about The Times....

***

Q. What else do you plan on addressing in your last nine months?

....of course, there's that Godzilla hulking outside my window, campaign coverage. Just before Labor Day, I started to get my clipping fingers in shape for the coming ordeal, and by last Thursday I'd already built up an impressive collection of calluses. My colleague Arthur Bovino tells me that while I was away, many readers urged me to write about election coverage sooner rather than later, "while it still might make a difference," as several put it. My take is just the opposite: actor friends tell me that knowing the critics are in the audience will bring out their best performances, whereas the review that finally gets published is often just something to disagree with....

(NOTE: NYT political writers can now assume that their coverage will not be reviewed by their paper's reader rep until, it appears, after the election. Thanks, Mr. Okrent, for your disregard for the readers you supposedly represent -- the real Godzilla in your office is your refusal to address political coverage in the NYT before it becomes completely irrelevant.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/weekinreview/12bott.html?hp


Daniel Okrent e-mail: [e-mail]
(Mr. Bovino, Mr. Okrent's assistant, is usually helpful and responsive, if messages are not rude or abusive.)

[Democat]

1. If the Times spent 1/100th the effort bashing Bush as they did Clinton

Then maybe I would care what they say again.

The New York Times spent eight years spreading every rumor and lie that the right wing started about Clinton, and then they last four years defending Bush from real scandals.

[jpgray]

2. The proof of O'Neill's vote for Gore is...?

"One key figure, however, was a political independent who voted for Al Gore in 2000 and has been challenging Senator Kerry's post-service condemnations of certain American practices in Vietnam for three decades."

His donation record is...?

The NYT can suck me off.

[librechik]

3. drinkin the koolaid (it was vacation, after all)

hw doesn't give a s*t,, why should anybody else?

[DeepModem Mom]

4. I guess that's what I found most astounding -- he doesn't give a s*t --

just a job.