« Another Sign of Desperation | Main | We don't need no education... »

The New York Times Disses RNC Bloggers

The New York Times has a 10 page article in the Sunday Magazine on bloggers, the Republican National Convention, and the Democratic National Convention - and cannot manage to mention a single blog that was accredited to cover the RNC? That should hardly come as a shock, but here's the RNC Bloggers crew that didn't merit a mention:

Wizbang, Redstate, Power Line, Dean's World, Blogs for Bush, Roger L. Simon, Captain's Quarters, Tacitus, RealClearPolitics, OxBlog, Campaign Web Review, The Command Post, Spot On, Hugh Hewitt, Slant Point

That's a pretty respectable lineup of bloggers no matter how you rate them (traffic or links), especially in light of the Rathergate affair.

The article was clearly written the week of the RNC and they couldn't figure out that there were bloggers AT THE CONVENTION? Instead they spent the week interviewing bloggers at The Tank? Good for those at The Tank, but would it have been too much to ask that they had at least stopped by Bloggers Row?

Hat Tip: Allah, Ace


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The New York Times Disses RNC Bloggers:

» Kalblog linked with NYT Magazine

» Editors in Pajamas linked with All is quiet on the www front

» Slant Point linked with A Blog is A Blog is a Blog

Comments (13)

Newspapers (19th Century Te... (Below threshold)

Newspapers (19th Century Technology) VS. Bloggers (21st Century Technology) I'll put my money on the Bloggers.

Don't even bother. Thursday... (Below threshold)

Don't even bother. Thursday night WABC radio had the numbnut who wrote the piece on the air for an interview with the Batchelor host who holds himself as the Christopher Street Queen of "insider dope" and when the two of them were done, guess what?

Kos was considered legit. He's lousy in the article.

Maybe the reporter that did... (Below threshold)
rance:

Maybe the reporter that did the story couldn't get through security to get to MSG.

If they can get a story in ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

If they can get a story in the NYTimes -- ten pages, at that -- I'm thinking "they" could manage to find out the names of bloggers covering the RNC.

I agree, however, that the writer(s) might have had a problem with "security." Not that there was a problem WITH security at the RNC, just that this particular source, perhaps, might have experienced "problems". You know...

You all provided an incredible upgrade of information and level of coverage for the RNC, in comparison with the DNC blogger group, who I stopped reading after Wonkette's intention to cover a certain size issue regarding John Kerry.

They covered the DNC like a disco. A bad disco. Disco on acid. Disco in polyester. Really bad disco.

For what it's worth, I'd assume, and am, that the NYTimes dissing you all (RNC bloggers) shows that they really DID notice you, but are intimidated. Therefore, they diss ya'. You know, it's the snubbery of someone who thinks you're prettier than they are. Or, perhaps, the rage of same.

Count it as a compliment, 'cause I do. You all did fabulous -- very good -- work at and about the RNC, and still are for some about the campaign.

Otherwise (^^), there's no ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Otherwise (^^), there's no credible explanation as to why they would publish such an outlandishly ornate article ("coverage!!") and not even include in equal time the bloggers covering the RNC. It makes no academic sense, other than the omission was an obvious statement, an omission as ghosting loss to the article, meant to deliver the impact that it has: that you were dissed.

Consider the source. The NYTimes is officially CBS' ugly cousin. Or, grandparent. Err, something close to that.

Otherwise (^^), there's no ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Otherwise (^^), there's no credible explanation as to why they would publish such an outlandishly ornate article ("coverage!!") and not even include in equal time the bloggers covering the RNC. It makes no academic sense, other than the omission was an obvious statement, an omission as ghosting loss to the article, meant to deliver the impact that it has: that you were dissed.

Consider the source. The NYTimes is officially CBS' ugly cousin. Or, grandparent. Err, something close to that.

Sheesh, who even reads the ... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Sheesh, who even reads the NY Slimes magazine except Manhattanites and Northeast Libs -- and those in Hollywood who can actually read. I hate those people at the Slimes. They took away my Sunday morning ritual of good coffee, a cigarette and an interesting read.

--S--"Disco in polye... (Below threshold)

--S--
"Disco in polyester. Really bad disco."
LMAO!

<a href="http://www.dailyko... (Below threshold)

Some of the Kos Kiddies didn't like it either. Evidence of the NYT's right-wing bias, apparently.

Maybe the writer(s) had lim... (Below threshold)
floyd:

Maybe the writer(s) had limit time and resources so they:

1) did their homework, i.e. looked at the previous work put out by the chosen bloggers, the bloggers at The Tank and the ones at Blogger's Row.

2) Decided who did the best work and concentrated on talking to them, and

3) it wasn't the chosen ones, so the chosen ones are miffed.

Just a thought.

"Just a thought."B... (Below threshold)
Angus Jung:

"Just a thought."

Barely.

Is anyone surprised by this... (Below threshold)

Is anyone surprised by this from the NYT?

I am going with Angus on this one.

One of the reasons that the... (Below threshold)
kevino:

One of the reasons that the MSM is losing audience is that we, the customers, can see through their attempts to manipulate us. And the reason for this isn't just the increased availability of primary sources of information. The other reason is that MSM journalists are STUPID.

This writing is beneath contempt, and the NYT should be ashamed of itself for printing such a sophomoric piece of trash. Where are the editors of the NYT? Consider:

"The Wonkette is more fun to read than Daily Kos. She's also more fun to hang out with. Before we went off to the fabulous party that Americans for Tax Reform were throwing at the New York Yacht Club on Monday night, we had time for an expensive dinner at a really nice restaurant in SoHo. ... Ana Marie Cox has peachy cream skin and eyes of a very bright blue, strawberry blond hair and a filthy mind; she likes to analyze our nation's leaders in their most private, ah, parts."

The author, Matthew Klam, obviously has an agenda here that goes beyond the usual MSM bias.

The author is obviously horny and his brain has shut down.
The writing is amateurish.
The entire story is too long and filled with crap like the above.
And the editors of what is arguably the most important newspaper in the country all took the day off.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy