Some interesting tidbits on the NY Times scandal at Seth Mnookin's Raw Copy. First is NY Times reporter Tim Egan - "Hopefully, we’ll go back to valuing what we have: people who care about the drift of this country, and are given the time and respect to tell it right.”
So what the Times has is ... a bunch of people who care about the (apparently rightward) drift of the country. It seems that in his opinon, this is, if not the only common trait they share, at least the most important. I'm sure that in 'telling it right' they all make sure to eliminate their common bias.
The second item is from Todd Purdum, where he says in part, "But Rick Bragg’s method is not typical. It’s aberrant and repellent. Some of our colleagues have known this for years. Now the world knows it, and we’re all the poorer.”
So Bragg's methods were known 'for years', with no repurcussions. As if this isn't bad enough, Purdum seems to be at least as upset that the truth has gotten out, and as a consequence "we're all the poorer". I always thought that reporters were supposed to believe in exposing truth. I have to wonder who the 'we' that he refers to are. Are 'we' the NY Times, because of the loss of respect, deference, and influence? Are 'we' reporters in general for much the same reason? Or are 'we' Americans, poorer for losing an untrue illusion regarding the NY Times' standards and 'balance'?