Who does [New York Time's public editor Byron] Calame think he’s fooling? Imagine the following scenario: three African-American college students are charged with a crime for which almost no evidence exists. One has an air-tight, public, unimpeachable alibi. Their accuser is a white woman with a criminal record and major psychological problems. They are prosecuted by a race-baiting district attorney who violates myriad procedures while seizing upon the case amidst an election campaign in a racially divided county.
Does anyone believe that the Times would have covered the story outlined above with articles that bent over backwards to give the district attorney the benefit of the doubt, played down questions about his motivations, and regularly concluded with “shout-outs” regarding the accuser’s willingness to hang tough—coupled with sports columnists who compared the accused students to gangsters and drug dealers?
It is time to simply give up on the NYT. The problem with these editorials is that they assume that people are idiots. You cannot read the article and come to the conclusion that the NYT did unless you are looking at the world from their perspective. From their prerspective the world is full of fools. For the faithful Vanity Fair type reader, the analysis will make perfect sense. For the rest of the world, it is just the rationalization of poor reporting filled with inherent bias. The question asked by KC johnston that is in your post is the right question, but we all know what the answer is. Save the red handed capture of a plagarist, there will never be an admission of wrong. Vote with your feet I say- don't buy the NYT.
