NYT does the Dan Froomkin story — although their focus is on the issue of when/whether newspapers and other media should let traffic/popularity determine what stays and what goes.
A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mail
All opinions on this blog are those of the author(s) and not their employer(s) unelss otherwise specified.
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.Reader Map
Recent Comments
- Jamie on Not the Lifetime Achievement Award I Was Hoping For
- Jon Weinberg on Not the Lifetime Achievement Award I Was Hoping For
- Michael on On Robot & AI Personhood
- Robert Kuntz on On Robot & AI Personhood
- David A Buslinger on Why the Air Force Is Not Unconstitutional
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 2,823 other subscribers
Which, of course, is a derivative issue to the real story, and hardly worth mentioning in the same space.
Thanks for reducing the issue about what happened to Dan to “should popularity force editors’ hands in content decisions”, NYT. Like it is about Paris Hilton coverage or something. Popularity.
Because we surely wouldn’t want the hard-working NYT editors to have their decisions dictated to them, they are clearly so good at making these decisions by themselves.
Of course, we should not expect to ever see the term “accountability journalism” in the NYT, because that would just make a (further) mockery of the organization.
I wonder why NYT is so darn unpopular that it loses money? Good riddance, NYT, and don’t let the door…