Hugh Hewitt writes about the pounding that New York Times editor Bill Keller and Los Angeles Times editor Dean Baquet are absorbing in the public discourse (emphasis mine):
If it was a fight, they’d stop it. The pummeling the not-so-dynamic duo are taking may reveal a reason for the reckless “print everything” strategy: In the old days, the newspapers owned the commentary business. They had no competitors, and the weeklies and monthlies could never catch up with even the most egregious misrepresentations. The papers were beyond reach. No matter what they did, no one could effectively criticize them (i.e. mobilize public opinion against them.)
Now the newspapers –even their biggest guns, the editors-in-chief!– cannot withstand even a half news cycle before their preposterous posturings are shredded.
It erodes a “news” organization’s credibility to be so outclassed so often.
All that newspapers can do to retain a claim for market share is publish secrets that no one else would publish. But this niche of a niche disgusts more than it attracts.
The instant availability of expertise is what has doomed “journalists.” They can’t defend the indefensible when trios like Althouse/Bainbridge/Macguire saunter up to the keyboard and destroy their pretensions in a few minutes.
If the two editors didn’t so richly deserve the scorn, I’d feel bad for them.