NYT isn't crying Uncle

Some bloggers seem to think that the New York Times is finally admitting its liberal bias, but I read through its internal audit report, and I don't see it. Saying you're going to cover more religion and rural issues is hardly admitting you've been biased against people of belief or fly-over country. They could just report more bad stuff, you know. Perhaps some were encouraged by the phrase they were going to listen to "unorthodox views and contrarian opinions." If that's their view of conservatism, then I won't hold my breath for a more balanced cover of the news.

And taking surveys, creating blogs, and answering readers' e-mail? All that admits to is they've been kind of set in their ways with big heads. That's not necessarily being biased or slanted. And checking their sources and using fewer anonymous sources? Gracious, how in the world did they get to the top without checking their sources. For instance, take this in depth review of policy:

"As just one example among multitudes, a sprightly feature described the lengths that
assistants to celebrities go to keep their bosses happy and satisfy their every whim. Its reliance on an unnamed source left readers wondering whether the source had worked with the star in question and knew the star’s petty preferences or was simply passing along second-hand gossip, or even whether the source was seeking to present the star unflatteringly for self-serving reasons.

The point is not that particular individuals failed, but that the newsroom as a whole often fails to honor the paper’s stated policy in the course of reporting and editing. Too often we do not trouble to challenge our sources to speak for attribution even when a request to do so can be easily accommodated. In the chain from reporter to reader, too few editors realize that it is their job to challenge evident violations of our policy."

Of course, perhaps this silly story didn't need to be run at all. Leave that one for People Magazine.