Need more reassurance than Tim Geithner declaring the economy is “getting stronger, faster,” as he did just this morning on MSNBC? Would it help to know that spam emailers are feeling bullish? To know that while an actual job offer may continue to elude you, “job offer spam” is on the rise?
Per The Wall Street Journal’s Digits blog (quoting Symantec Corp.’s monthly “State of Spam & Phishing report” for April 2010):
While the United States consumer sentiment remained unchanged in March 2010, top ten subject lines containing economic keywords show that spammers have an optimistic view of the economy with job offer spam among their top spam subject lines.
Come on consumers! Doesn’t it hearten you even a little to consider that, per Symantec, spammers are now “looking to hook [you] up with ‘Finance Manager’ positions” rather than just asking if you are “looking to sell your house fast”?
And while you may have to wait a bit longer for that email “looking to hook [you] up with ‘Journalism’ positions,” there was a hint of hang-in-there optimism in this email offer that several CJR folks received yesterday from one D.L. Crumbley:
Attention Journalist,
As newspapers fold or retrench and journalists’ ranks are diminished, a Certified Investigative Reporter & Journalist credential (CIRJ) may be what you need.The CIRJ credential should demonstrate that a reporter has shown knowledge, commitment, and a forensic approach to journalism…
…and this can all be yours with the purchase of a $325 study guide and the successful completion of (and $195 payment for) the “certification” examination!
From: Richard Rosichan, 2060 Alton Road, Miami Beach, FL 33140-4563. 305-674-9148
Hello
I have been a regular reader of the New York Times since the mid 1950s, and a daily subscriber to its print edition for about 15 years now. I have also been an occasional reader of the CJR, and had a letter printed in it several years ago in response to a piece you ran about the Miami Herald.
What I would love to see would be for the CJR to do an investigative piece about the Times' unwavering, near-worshipful support of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. I've been around for a long time (obviously!) and read an awful lot of different newspapers around the US and abroad, and I have never seen a newspaper which so totally excludes any direct criticism of any one individual as thr Times; policy re. Mr. Bloomberg. I refer not only to their editorial coverage, but also to their columnists, and to their reporting.
While I have seen reporting dealing with problems involving his administration, there is never any realistic reporting on his direct responsibility for any problems involving the city, or about actions he has taken as mayor that reflect directly on him in a negative way, There was coverage of outrageous police abuse, particularly with regard to the 2004 Republican convention, but one would be hard pressed to deduce from the Times coverage that he had anything whatsoever to do with it, or regretted it in any way. There was brief mention of a meeting he had with the editorial board and NYT company officials regarding the third term issue, but nothing about what happened during the meeting. Perhaps the closest the Times ever came to reportage reflecting negatiely on him directly was with regard to his abrupt dismissal of a city employee who was found to have a solitaire game on his city computer screen. Compare this with occasional puff pieces, such as the recent one about his weekly private plane jaunts to Bermuda and the mansion he built there.
Editorial policy? Never any direct criticism - never. Nor are any such letters to the editor permitted. After the Times "enthusiastically" endorsed his third term bid, I watched carefully for a letter criticizing the endorsement. Not one appeared (including mine). There was a very short letter containing mild criticism of the third term but without mentioning the endorsement. It was at the bottom of the first letter column.
I have written repeatedly to Clark Hoyt, their public editor, about this. I have never received a reply. My post to his blog was not run. I've written by US mail to columnist Bob Herbert on this issue, because Herbert has frequently criticized NYC police misconduct, though without mention of the mayor. No response. The only response I did get was from columnist Clyde Haberman, who writes about city matters, and wrote what might be construed as very mild criticicism. His response was a vigorous defense of the paper's "objectivity" in dealing with Mr. Bloomberg.
Why am I so concerned about this when I live in Miami Beach, Florida? For one thing, I read the Times simply because it's the best and most comprehensive paper in fhe country - to say that it leaves the Miami Herald in the dust would be an understatement. For another thing, I'm a former NYC resident, albeit back in the 60s, and a frequent visitor. How di I personally feel about Mr. Bloomberg? I admit that in some respects he has been a competent mayor and has dealt constructively with a number of problems. But I also find him to be egomaniacal, narcissistic and with somewhat of a messiah complex. I think the ramming through of the third term against the expressed wishes of the voters was an outrage against the democratic process. I am appalled both by his $102 million campaign and by his characterization of it as a form of philanthropy. His meanspiritedness was manifested both by his peremptory firing of a $27,000/year city employee over the computer screen matter,
#1 Posted by Richard Rosichan, CJR on Mon 3 May 2010 at 12:37 AM