New NY Times Executive Editor Abramson Admits, Sort of, the Times's Liberal Slant
Jill Abramson, the paper’s new executive editor, talked with the Times’s public editor Arthur Brisbane on Sunday, and touched on the paper’s perceived liberal slant. Abramson didn't quite deny it.
Brisbane: The legendary Times executive editor A. M. Rosenthal once told a colleague he felt the need to steer The Times to the right to compensate for the leftward political leanings of some staff. Will you do that?
Abramson: I sometimes try not only to remind myself but my colleagues that the way we view an issue in New York is not necessarily the way it is viewed in the rest of America. And I am pretty scrupulous about when we apply our investigative firepower to politicians that we not do it in a way that favors one way of thinking or one party over the other. I think the mandate is to keep the paper straight, but I don’t think you have to lean right to do that.
In a September 2009 online Q&A session when she was managing editor, Abramson had denied the Times had a liberal lean. "I'm well aware that various conservative commentators regularly and loudly denounce The Times for being ‘a liberal rag.’ It just isn't so."
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Jill Abramson; a face for
Submitted by Caringwhiteguy on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 12:19pm.
Jill Abramson; a face for radio, a voice for print.
Oh, well, it the executive
Submitted by jessieH on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 12:28pm.
Oh, well, it the executive editor of the NYT says they aren't a rag-mag, I guess that's good enough for me. NOT! I tried that sort of logic on my parents, once. Couldn't sit for days.
Wow. Next thing you know, they'll admit
Submitted by no tingly legs on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 1:19pm.
that the Sun rises every morning or that water is wet.
This is not a shock. A shock
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 1:33pm.
This is not a shock. A shock would be if they fired Krugman.
I sometimes try not only to
Submitted by Lakewood Ed on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 1:40pm.
Could she be any more equivocating and mealy-mouthed?
those times when the Times has slipped into liberal land
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 1:47pm.
"He is the George Washington of Cuba; the Lincoln of the Sierra Maestra" wrote Herbert Matthews editorial writer for the NYT.
Herbert . Matthews wrote a series of articles designed to persuade congress to accept Fidel and to oust Batista, even though Batista was the kind of socialist politician the NYT favors, Batista just wasn't socialist enough for the Times.
Yes, the Times helps tyrants rise to power: http://thenewamerican.com/history/american/1276
These are the people that
Submitted by buddyc on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 3:25pm.
These are the people that should be arested and imprisoned. These are the people destroying our democracy. It is not the Olbermans, Becks, Limbaughs and etc who let you know openingly where they stand on issues.
It is people who look you in the face, like Ms. Abramsom, and lie their ass off. She knows the NY Times is not just left but far left. She knows that liberal politicians are generally given passes when republicans are assaulted for less. She is a lying scumbag and she knows she is lying.
Liberals Assume
Submitted by countmein5050 on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 4:41pm.
if they say something isn't so (or something IS so), then they must be taken at their word...and when that happens all is well with the liberal. It's when they get pressed for hard, cold facts to back up what they claim, or when those cold hard facts make big fat liars of them that liberals morph from loving and tolerant children of the 60s with flowers in their hair, singing Michael Row the Boat, into vicious attack dogs with no ability to logically handle the situation. Liberals morph a lot these days.....
Translation...
Submitted by Plumb Bob on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 5:33pm.
Translation: yes, the Times is slanted left, and no, we're not going to compensate for that. We will hide our bias from the right-wing rubes that form the majority in America, and continue to harp on leftist talking points.
I'm not being facetious. That's pretty much what she said, in glibspeak.
Ok....
Submitted by stage9 on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 8:36pm.
...but what would this admission really prove?
If satan were to admit that he's evil, would that in any way change our impression of him?
We know the MSM is liberal, and we know that both they and satan are under contract....nothing new here.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge