NY Times is late for April Fools Day?

I am guessing they got tired of me spamming them with applications to work for their Blogs?

What should be avoided in all of them is any hint of racist, sexist or religious bias,or any suggestion of nasty, snide, sarcastic, or condescending tone — “snark.” If something could easily fit in a satirical Web site for young adults, it probably shouldn’t go into the news pages of nytimes.com. Our ethics code promises that in all dealings with readers, “civility applies.”

A quote from my application cover page:

“It has always been my dream to work alongside the great snark writers of our time. Judy Miller, Bill Kristol, Joe Klein, David Broder, Gordon Smith, and a long list of the many leaders in snark that grace the pages of the NY Times on a regular basis. Sadly, they are all so good at what they do that their snark is seriously misunderstood by the unwashed masses, who honestly think they should be taking those writers seriously.

I know the NY Times are a little shy when it comes to admitting this fact, but it is truly award winning high brow snark, indeed. The void I would hope to fill is in providing the everyman's snark so the little people can begin to understand that the Op Eds or articles printed in jest in the NY Times, and clearly misunderstood by the readers, should never be used to justify wars or for making any serious policy decisions at all. It is, after all, only printed in one of the many infotainment sections.”

I guess I may need to update my resume since they seem to have found Billy Kristol’s particular brand of warmongering snark to be just a tad too high brow and sent him off to find work for a new right wing snark tank? (h/t Mock, Paper, Scissors)

0
No votes yet

Comments

... "SUCKS."

Moderating reader comments on blogs involves the same Times ethical and
journalistic standards that apply to articles. Our moderators’ guidelines say they
should not edit unacceptable blog comments to make them acceptable; if the
comments contain vulgarity, obscenity, offensive personal attacks, say that
somebody “sucks,”
or are incoherent, moderators are advised just to chuck them
out.

The New York Times usually seems like a good "two rule system" case study. By two rule system I mean, one rule for you and one for me (owner/editor of NYT), or do what I say, not what I do. Remember that memorable moment in "Young Frankenstein", they've arrived at the castle and the strange greeter says "walk this way" and they do, and there's a whole line of people walking the same silly style of walk as the greeter has. The walk the Times is walking is like a wierd corporate strip show version of 42nd Street Burlesque, the latest article of coverage to be dropped is the Boston Globe. There are people donating to keep the show going you know as if it were a charity, and the management say the survival the newspaper is as important an issue to them as Darfur. Quite so. But that's what they say. What they do is strip off another piece and expect sympathy for the state there in. Do you think they should apply for Federal tax payer dollars under the TARP program? I think they are "Troubled." They think they are an "Asset." If we could get together that could work. Will Obama put them into bankruptcy, fire the management, stand by the contracts with the print unions and journalists. Will they be nationalized? Well,in this country you know we believe our businesses are best left in private hands. The public doesn't have a right to know, you know,  just express itself and its beliefs through petition/prayer and assembly, and owning automobiles which is part of the right of assembly. How can you assemble if you can't get there?  Which brings us back to the two rule system. In a breaking development this morning the New York Times admitted it has been part of the sales force of Federated Department Stores for most of the past century to date. "It seemed like a good fit" their statement read in part.

... they would have cleaned house for their failures in the free market of ideas. Lies and manipulations of public discourse and doing nothing to fix these problems render them useless to the readers. In a business free market they would have cleaned house in order to regain any sense of journalistic integrity in the hopes selling papers.

Apparently they have no more business sense than common sense.

In the UK the paper could have been used to wrap fish and chips. Then you'd know what was on the inside. Here they use that cheap "soft" paper and crappy ink. You can't wrap anything in it. Have you tried blogging on the  US for the Overseas market?

But I do read foreign papers (on the net) and foreign Blogs. They give you a more honest reporting of what is going on here in the USA then most of our local sources do.