It’s unseemly and makes The Times, which is viewed as journalism’s top dog, look like a bully. It’s clear, as well, that some readers expect The Times to apply the same laser-like focus to itself, which doesn’t seem to happen much.
Jack Shafer has a problem with that.
What would Brisbane prefer? That the Times view the Murdoch papers’ conduct, the Gannett pay packages, and the frat-boy shenanigans at Tribune from the perspective of a guidance counselor? That the Times pussyfoot while composing its stories? Give me the bully treatment any day—even though I don’t think any of the pieces cited by Brisbane comes remotely close to bullying.
The Times executive editor’s wife is promoting Shafer’s piece. Emma Keller tweets:
Prob shdn’t RT this but what the hey. RT @Slate: RT @jackshafer: How stupid is the Times’ @thepubliceditor? http://slate.me/hTOHqC