Posted 5:59 PM by steve

I've got to disagree with Michelle Malkin's opinion that the NYT's Public Editor is worthless...

As much as conservatives might like someone other than the current editorial staff of the NYT to be setting editorial policy, specifically whether to cover particular stories, it is not the job of the ombudsman to drive editorial decisions. He is not in the editorial chain of command, he does not participate in editorial meetings, the editors and reporters do not report to him, nor do they have to run their stories by him before they go to press.

What he does do is serve as an in-house critic of what the Times does.... think of him as a blogger, but with the advantage of access and a platform. What he can do is draw attention to what the NYT's editors and reporters do and don't do. He can question them privately, he can question them in print. He can make their days somewhat more difficult and he can draw negative attention to them in his column.

It's not as good as if somebody took control from Keller and placed it in the hands of someone less ideological.... but it's not worthless either.

Now, if he passes up the opportunity to question why the Times has not seen fit to cover the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee's illegal acquisition of Maryland Lieutenant Governor and Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele's credit report... then he is worthless...

I expect him to address the subject in a column... and may actually hold my breath waiting for it.



|