In the Belly of the Self-Proclaimed Best Beast

In explaining to others the complexity of media criticism, it is obvious that one cannot be totally detached for recognizing exactly what goes on inside the beast.

In those outlets which have pride in themselves as well as a tradition, a lot goes into a story and sometimes, it can be difficult pinning down responsibility for an error or out-and-out bias.

A story is researched, written, copy checked, sources reviewed, rewritten, edited, vetted, given to a photo editor, a caption editor, a sub-headline editor, etc.

Here's what I found that set me off on this although it should be read if only to delight in the recalling of that great scandal of the NYT which is the larger picture:

The [New York] Times newsroom, which plays such an important role in Boyd’s story, was a big and highly talented bureaucracy principally made up of reporters, editors, photographers, and technicians skilled in the printing and electronic arts. The network of presiding editors, deputy editors, and assistant editors was complex and filled with people of high ambition and dangerous cunning. Each of the paper’s departments, sections, and so-called “desks” had an editor, sometimes a deputy editor, and a varying number of assistant editors. All these, in turn, were overseen by perhaps a half-dozen assistant managing editors, who were a rank below the managing editor, who reported to the grand editor of all editors, who bore the title of executive editor...

...The struggle for accuracy in its news columns was a nearly sacred mission with the Times. The discovery that [Jason] Blair had been getting away with fraud and foolishness for weeks, months—who could say how long?—was infuriating. The vast network of editors, assistant editors, deputy editors, assistant managing editors—the whole glorious structure for protecting the sanctity of the news columns—had suffered a prolonged breakdown.

In the long-term view, there is indeed something amusing about the uproar that ensued. It brings to mind John Kenneth Galbraith’s definition of a newspaper columnist as a person obliged to find significance three times a week in events of absolutely no consequence...

...Stories about Raines told by those who had worked with him often began by acknowledging his “brilliance” before expounding on his “arrogance.” Boyd, who worked with him in Washington, writes that there he set out to rid the bureau of people he considered “dead wood” and “systematically pressured” several veteran reporters to leave.

His tactics were ugly: he bounced reporters’ stories back repeatedly, needled them to produce more, and challenged their basic understanding of their areas of coverage.