New York Times blasted from all sides
This article is about the criticism that the newspaper received regarding multiple journalistic ethical shortcomings (act independently!), including a story the White House called "100% inaccurate" and accusations in an upcoming book that the Times published a front-page story showing Obama "just as the White House had hoped" in exchange for the White House's help brokering a high-profile interview. It brings up the age-old debate about the role of the media in regards to the government: watchdog (critic), lapdog (cheerleader), or, as my Comm 101 professor called it, guard dog.
Another story was about a business/economics writer for the Times who left to work for the Huffington Post, an online, liberal news outlet. The Huffington Post has managed to draw a few high-profile journalists and editors lately, including one from Newsweek. The trend is interesting, given that Newsweek and The New York Times are traditional, print news sources while the Huffington Post is entirely online.
It will be interesting in my group's investigation of the Times' PR to see how a traditional news outlet handles the rise of the Internet and online news, which no doubt takes away from its subscriptions, if not readership. [How] can print news sources expand their subscription numbers and readership given the realities of 21st century technology?
**Here's what Accuracy in the Media had to say about the "inaccurate" article. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) was silent on the issue. I would check back with their blog/site for any updates.
