[I wrote this letter to the Public Editor of the Times but their email server claims the mail address published on the guy’s web page is invalid. Welcome to the 21st Century, right?]
I’m writing not because of any partisan concern regarding today’s article Public Broadcasting Chief Is Named, Raising Concerns but because it tipifies a failing in the Times (and other major newspapers as well, to be sure): inserting a nearly new, though related, topic at the end of an article and not delivering the main dish of it. Specifically:
In the floor debate, some Republicans continued to call for a trimmed-down public broadcasting budget. Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, Republican of Florida, said “Americans should be shocked” by how profitable the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is through its marketing of popular programs.
That’s a pretty significant assertion and one I haven’t noticed any coverage of in other Times articles. Even if it has been, it’s almost 90 degrees from the major point of the article. As a reader I expected to see the Next Page link where the reporter would add responses and elaboration of such a serious charge.
But no, the article ends in the next sentence with a cute mention of a Big Bird prop.
BillSaysThis 