zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. freshh+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-11 06:22:01
Do you actually believe the editor didn't read it? That is a pretty blatant and obvious lie to control the fallout.
replies(1): >>bagels+j
2. bagels+j[view] [source] 2020-06-11 06:25:45
>>freshh+(OP)
I actually don't believe it, but I have no evidence to support that belief. But it doesn't matter, because that actually makes it more reprehensible.
replies(1): >>kjafta+m2
◧◩
3. kjafta+m2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-11 06:52:16
>>bagels+j
They published a story about the publication of the article and the events leading up to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-o...

The editor in question also resigned.

Not saying it justifies the original publication, but I appreciate the way it was handled.

replies(1): >>DagAgr+8L
◧◩◪
4. DagAgr+8L[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-11 13:32:33
>>kjafta+m2
It was handled that way only after first handling it incredlby, horrendously badly. They were dragged kicking and screaming by their entire staff into handling it correctly only after a week of absolutely bungling it.
replies(1): >>jkestn+3S
◧◩◪◨
5. jkestn+3S[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-11 14:14:28
>>DagAgr+8L
I subscribe to the Times for that staff. I skip over the clickbait of the Stephenses and Brookses and read Blow and Bouie.
[go to top]