Guiliani, Values Voters and the NYTimes

[ccpup]

I wrote to the Public Editor today about the piss poor job they did of reporting on Giuliani's speech at the Values Voters Summit and this is the response I just got:

"Thank you for writing. If you have some specific examples of errors made in the article you mentioned, please send them to me. If they are indeed errors, we will publish correction(s). Again, thanks for writing.

Sincerely,
Micah Cohen
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times"

Here's his email: [e-mail]

Anyone wanna join me? :-)

[ccpup]

1. My reply

I wrote:

"I appreciate your response.

As to the Front Page article the NY Times ran, what angered me and left me feeling lied to was spinning Mr. Giuliani's appearance there as a success worthy of "praise". The headline on the Front Page -- "Religious Right Divides Its Vote At Meeting, 2 Are Close Giuliani is Praised" -- was an absolute lesson in ineffective spinning for an obvious NY Times favorite. Judging by that headline, the fact that Giuliani anchored the first sentence and his speech and his speech alone was available on-line would indicate that he did well. The facts in other publications and blogs indicate differently.

In addition, the article as it originally ran (I see it's been amended now and have no idea where it's being run in your print edition which sucks for those who read and believed the first Sunday Front Page piece you ran) shamefully neglects the fact that he won a microscopic 107 votes out of 6,000 -- by contrast, Undecided received three times what Giuliani did -- and the "praise" was based on an interview with one person. Oh, and the standing ovation he received? Didn't happen. The LA Times claims a few stood, TIME Magazine's blog Swampland claims he received a tepid response and someone I know who actually attended his speech said barely anyone clapped and they just wanted him out of there. Hardly the success the NY Times attempted to spin it as.

Truth is, your paper once again neglected the job it's supposed to do: report the facts and leave the Editorializing to the Editorial Page. Someone glancing at the initial Headline would have understandably thought 'Oh, I guess he's doing well with Conservatives now' while the truth is far, far different. Those with busy lives trust papers like yours to educate them honestly -- even through a quick glance at a headline -- and would feel as disappointed as I to learn differently.

I, again, appreciate your response.

--xxxxxxxxx--

P.S. Factually, your updated article appears to match what other publications reported initially back when you were still spinning. And I have no idea how one could correct an initial "spin". I guess the point is one can't. Which gives reporters and papers with hidden agendas A L-O-T of leeway to misinform. That's my beef."

let me know what y'all think.