11/12/2023 0 Comments Michelle goldberg nytimes today![]() For its part, the Times emphasized to me its commitment to accuracy in the face of digital-first editorial streamlining. Change is hard for any company-but especially for a 165-year-old institution where tradition is so deeply embedded in the D.N.A. If anything, the response to this controversy may simply underscore a sense of unease within the halls of 620 Eighth Avenue as the Times undergoes important and necessary changes. ( Times copy editors may be strict fact-checkers but they don’t operate like magazine researchers, who often, and effectively, inspect every word in a given piece.) It seems unlikely that even the most assiduous copy editor would have queried Goldberg on some of the very fundamental points she made. Others at the Times bristled at the notion that the copy desk would have saved Goldberg’s review, and there’s plenty of validity to that contention. Sulzberger told me through a spokesperson, “not only with broadening the range of voices of the columnists and contributors in our Opinion Pages, but also pushing the department to become faster, more creative, and more digitally ambitious than it has ever been.” “James is doing a terrific job,” Deputy Publisher A.G. Nevertheless, the masthead appears to have Bennet’s back. “It’s very bad optics for James,” a veteran Times kremlinologist suggested. (Bennet was called to testify, but a judge eventually dismissed the case.) While the Blurred Lines review was commissioned prior to Goldberg’s September 6 hiring announcement, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the correction-laden piece wasn’t a good look for either Goldberg or her new boss. Summarizing the affair, and expressing some frustration with the manner in which it was depicted, she wrote: “This whole thing is turning into a round robin of fuckups.”Īmong the various Times sources I spoke with, there was speculation about how the event might reflect on Bennet, who has already endured a number of headaches during his first year and a half in the job-from backlash over the appointment of conservative-opinion columnist Bret Stephens and the publication of a controversial op-ed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince, to a defamation lawsuit filed by Sarah Palin. ![]() In a statement on Twitter, Goldberg confessed that she would “give a kidney and five years of my life” to take back the erroneous assertions. Washington Post media writer Erik Wemple published an exhaustive account of the contretemps on his blog, and various womens’ sites weighed in as well. The bizarre episode quickly became a subject of intense fascination within journalism and media circles. ![]() “Michelle performed some of her own (incompetent) journalism here.” Indeed, before the fracas went public, Goldberg’s piece had been appended with a monster correction. “Not one charge she makes in her review is correct,” Grigoriadis wrote in a blistering, point-by-point rebuttal on her Facebook page. Grigoriadis’s response was fierce: she in turn chastened Goldberg for being the one with an insufficient grasp of the facts. “Occasionally she makes baffling errors that threaten to undermine her entire book.” “When Grigoriadis moves away from individual dramas to broad cultural pronouncements, the book falters,” Goldberg wrote. Goldberg’s accusations were unequivocal and, at times, savage. In her assessment of Vanessa Grigoriadis’s new book, Blurred Lines, an examination of the ever-heated debate surrounding consensual sex on college campuses, writer Michelle Goldberg offered some praise before descending into a forceful critique of Grigoriadis for allegedly not having her facts straight. Last weekend, The New York Times’s normally stately and uncontroversial Sunday Book Review became the unexpected platform for a surprising journalistic skirmish.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |