No arguing with the editorial page

December 4, 2002 3:18 PM

Editors of The New York Times killed columns that disagree with the editorial page's position. Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Anderson and sportswriter Harvey Araton both wrote articles that took a different stance about the Augusta National Golf Club's membership rules, than their employer's. Neither of their articles was printed.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood (11 comments total)

It's the New York Times, for crying out loud. This is like providing shocking evidence that the National Enquirer doesn't thoroughly fact-check its stories.

Of course, the first time I read this I thought it said that they had killed columnists, which would be a newsworthy story indeed. :-)
posted by oissubke at 3:23 PM on December 4, 2002

Metatalk.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:25 PM on December 4, 2002

I take it that this is a double post of a thread that has been deleted?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:27 PM on December 4, 2002

Here's what the Times' editors have to say about this. The Daily News article strikes me as a bit sketchy because of its use of anonymous sources as its only information on the Araton column.
posted by transona5 at 3:28 PM on December 4, 2002

errr... What is the metatalk link for?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:28 PM on December 4, 2002

I thought that's what editors are supposed to do???
posted by Stan Chin at 3:31 PM on December 4, 2002

Oh shock of shocks...editors editorializing their editorial pages!!! That has never happened in any other newspaper how newsworthy.
posted by aaronscool at 3:33 PM on December 4, 2002

This article proves what we have all known for years-- the NYT is run by a cabal of communist, Islamic, Anti-Israel America-haters who would like nothing better than to betray our country and turn it over to female Islamic communist overlords from France.
posted by cell divide at 3:37 PM on December 4, 2002

i think, if i may say, that dash slot is suggesting this thread is mostly content-free and that it is merely an attempt at generating discussion. at least, that is how it struck me: of course editors don't allow articles at odds with their own views, steve. this thread struck me as an excuse to discuss political leanings within media (or, as i often see it, "the media's liberal bias").

metafilter threads can explain things like politics in the media. why restrict ourselves? but those threads must support themselves well with interesting content. i don't feel that you've done that, steve. metafilter is not a discussion board; i wish people would please stop trying to turn it into one.
posted by moz at 3:38 PM on December 4, 2002

And in other news, Mother Jones refuses to carry Ann Coulter...
posted by nathan_teske at 3:47 PM on December 4, 2002

I hate to go against the party line here, but I thought this was a good and important link which I would have missed. I'm shocked (seriously, not a la Casablanca) that the Times would do this; whatever you automatic snarkers want to believe, the Times has traditionally allowed its columnists freedom to say whatever they want (they hired Safire, for pete's sake; do you think they expected him to spout the liberal line?), and this represents as disturbing a trend as the blurring of the line between editorial content and advertising (which the Times has so far resisted). Thanks, Steve_at.
posted by languagehat at 3:54 PM on December 4, 2002