It’s hard to write-off the fairly obvious flaws in Times’s two articles as a “clash of perspective between scientist and journalist,” but this is probably as good as the public’s going to get as far as explanations go. It should be a mark of shame on the Times that it so obstinately resisted atoning for its mistakes for so long, and that it will not give the general public a clear explanation of what went so wrong in its newsroom.
04:00 PM - July 8, 2010
Shameful Obstinacy at The Sunday Times
Paper finally retracts Amazongate, aggressive-blondes articles
16 women whose digital startups deserve Vox-level plaudits - A look at the media entrepreneurs who aren’t grabbing headlines
Why was ‘Dasani’ shut out of the Pulitzers? - 5 problems with The New York Times’ ambitious, influential series on the life of one homeless Brooklyn girl
The AP downplays its Obamacare scoop - Repeal on deductible caps marks another step in The Great Cost Shift
The enduring pull of mag covers - Why do magazine cover images still hold so much cultural power in this decline-of-print era?
Michael Wolff’s digital media bloopers - The Newser founder trolls (other) digital-news companies
Email blasts from CJR writers and editors
Yet another viral story debunked
Russia’s newest export: abusing the press
“Perhaps most important, we want The Upshot to feel like a collaboration between journalists and readers”
“I also hope this blog can be a small step towards regaining the trust of my readers”
Louis CK is nonplussed at how ladies do it
Who Owns What
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.