It turns out that my analysis of the NY Times‘ cultural coverage (here and here) was more timely than I knew.
In Tuning in Too Late, the NY Times‘ Public Editor’s column today in the “Week in Review” section, Clark Hoyt casts a critical eye on the paper’s recent tendency to
ignore stories broken by other news organizations (particularly conservative ones) and by blogs. The examples he cited were the ACORN and Van Jones controversies.
My own critique (motivated by a concern for journalistic standards, not political ideology) was pegged to what I know best—the absence of coverage on the paper’s arts pages of the Yosi Sergant firestorm (fueled by the conservative news media) and two other important stories—the Cleveland Museum’s desire to deviate from donor stipulations, and the NY State Board of Regents’ proposed final regulations for deaccessioning—extensively covered (here, here, here and here) on CultureGrrl (which some Times’ culture writers do read) but unaccountably missing from “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”
Regarding the Regents’ proposed regulations, for which the comment period closed on Friday, David Palmquist, head of museum chartering for the Regents, informed me:
I am drafting a compilation of all comments for use by State Education Department management, our attorneys and the Regents. The purpose of the public comment period is to inform us as to whether our constituents and the general public are in favor or not in favor of a proposed regulation, and to allow us an opportunity to revisit, discuss, amend, postpone, rescind or go forward with a proposed regulation. Therefore it’s not possible today to predict what will be finally advanced and voted on.
If voted on and approved at the Regents’ next meeting, Oct. 19-20, the new regs would take effect Nov. 12, according to this announcement.
But back to Hoyt. Today he told Times readers:
Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the
paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness
to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and
Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now
assign an editor to monitor opinion media [blogs included?] and brief them frequently on
bubbling controversies.
So they’re pleading ignorance? You mean to tell me that these newshounds didn’t know from the get-go that these “controversies” were “bubbling”? I don’t buy it.
Speaking of bubbling controversies, on Sept. 9, I received an e-mail from Joshua Miller of Fox News, who wanted to talk to me about the Aug. 27 NEA conference call led by the White House’s Kalpen Modi, which was meant to to drum up artists’ support for the Obama Administration’s “United We Serve” initiative.
To read the full text of the e-mail that I sent Josh in reply, click the link below.
Josh—
I did try to call you, but got your voicemail. And I’m swamped with
projects of my own.
As I gather you already know, I’ve posted twice on CultureGrrl
about the arts-related conference calls—here
and here.
I don’t object to trying to encourage Americans to serve their
country, and none of the types of activities mentioned in the calls (or
on the United We Serve websites) seem controversial in and of
themselves. They involve doing good deeds that no one, left-wing or
right-wing, could find objectionable.
But I do object to the federal government in general (and NEA in
particular) trying to herd cats—the artistic community. NEA should
not be involved in an attempt to get its constituents to participate in
the President’s initiatives, no matter how laudable his public-service
objectives may be. The agenda for the arts community should be
generated from within the arts community and should not come from the
White House.
As for Glenn Beck’s concern for “artistic freedom,” I do hope that
extends to endorsing federal support from the NEA for artistic
expression, without political interference regarding the content of
what is expressed.
Best Regards,
Lee Rosenbaum