RADAR Alert: Stopping the Culture of Contempt at the NYT

	posted by Matt on 09:17 PM April 19th, 2005
	Arthur Sulzberger Jr., owner and publisher of the New York Times, is one of the most influential persons in the international media. In 1992 Mr. Sulzberger announced his plan to revamp the newspaper�s editorial focus so it would no longer reflect a �predominantly white, straight male vision of events.� Soon, we were reading articles and columns by Anna Quindlen, Natalie Angier, and later Maureen Dowd that were demeaning, derogatory, and hostile to men. That hostility was reflected in one-sided articles about domestic violence that consistently ignored male victims. Click "Read more..." for more.

	Stopping the Culture of Contempt at the NYT When some began to worry about the paper�s growing anti-male tone, Sulzberger gave this arrogant response: �If white men were not complaining, it would be an indication we weren�t succeeding and making the inroads that we are.� Now, that Culture of Contempt has spawned an article that contained this spiteful stereotype of persons who commit DV: �It�s every man and in every class of society.� Despite the outpouring of e-mails, letters, and telephone calls that complained about the article, the NYT did not respond -- further proof of its Culture of Contempt. IT�S TIME TO TURN UP THE VOLUME. On Tuesday, RADAR asked people to telephone the Times at 212-556-7652. On Wednesday, we are asking people to send their complaint to the editors and reporters at the NYT. We are requesting the NYT do these two things: 1. Retract Lizette Alvarez�s biased and inflammatory article 2. Assure objective and balanced reporting of future DV articles Here are the e-mail addresses. Note: In case your listing of e-mail addresses gets cut off, all NYT e-mail addresses end with the letters �nytimes.com� after the �@�: Top Executives: Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Publisher publisher-at-nytimes.com Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager president-at-nytimes.com Top Editors: executive-editor-at-nytimes.com managing-editor-at-nytimes.com Editorial Page: editorial-at-nytimes.com Public Editor: public-at-nytimes.com Newsroom: news-tips-at-nytimes.com the-arts-at-nytimes.com bizday-at-nytimes.com foreign-at-nytimes.com metro-at-nytimes.com national-at-nytimes.com sports-at-nytimes.com washington-at-nytimes.com And if you really want to make an impact, you can obtain an automated listing of many editors and reporters by sending a request to staff-at-nytimes.com. Select the editors and reporters that are most involved in reporting domestic violence, and send them your complaint. Remember RADAR�s protest of the New York Times on Saturday, April 30 at the White House Correspondents Dinner at the Washington Hilton, 1919 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009. 4:00 � 8:00pm. More information about the protest will be posted on the RADAR website. Remember, it only takes one person to shape the course of history. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Date of RADAR Release: April 19, 2005 Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) is a coalition of men and women working to assure media balance and accuracy in coverage of the domestic violence issue. More information can be found at: http://www.mediaradar.org/.

<  Sacks, Feminist DV Leader Spar in SF Chronicle | Recent Deadly Paris Fire Started by Woman During Domestic Dispute  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I e-mailed all of them (Score:1) by Indiana Jones on 11:15 PM April 19th, 2005 EST (#1) I e-mailed all of them, and got 3 other firends to do so. If they don't change, i am going to start spamming their e-mails, and trust me, it will become unbearable.

Re:I e-mailed all of them (Score:1) by canaryguy ([email protected]) on 08:16 AM April 20th, 2005 EST (#2) If they don't change, i am going to start spamming their e-mails, and trust me, it will become unbearable. I've got another idea for cranking up the heat... Does anybody have a fact/protest sheet about the NYT's misandry that could be slipped into their paper? I figure it would be very easy to slip a protest flyer into the NYT at the newspaper rack or display of out of town newspapers.

Re:I e-mailed all of them (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 10:51 AM April 20th, 2005 EST (#4) That's a good idea. I've often considered doing that with the L.A. Times. I've emailed and called NYT too about this. We're doing our part here in L.A. Marc

Re:I e-mailed all of them (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 05:09 PM April 20th, 2005 EST (#6) I called them yesterday and left two messages. I'll email them today. -phantasmagoria

NYT and Amnesty International Collude .... (Score:2) by Clancy ([email protected]) on 10:45 AM April 20th, 2005 EST (#3) in Gender Propaganda Piece - by Carey Roberts From Men's News Daily   More people are piling on. (Men's News Daily takes a few seconds to load, at least for me, so have patience. Lot's of adverts)

What the hell, already. (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 12:56 PM April 20th, 2005 EST (#5) What is it in this country? (and some others) Why is it that in order to be pro-one-group, you automaticaly have to be anti-the-other-group. So great, if Sulzburger wants to attract a broader readership, that's fine. But in order to attract "non-white", "non-male" readers WHY in God's name do these publications think that the way to do that is to be ANTI-WHITE and ANTI-MALE? HELLO, Mr Sulzburger. I am for EQUAL treatment of ALL people. I hope I speak for most other minorities when I say; 'Yes, I DO want to read about and see other Americans (including American-Indians) represented in more media outlets, but I don't think beating up on a given group just to make me feel better about mine is the way to do it.' Why is it in the Western world that the only way you can be pro-minority is to be anti-white? And just as important, why is it that in order to be pro-female you HAVE to be anti-male?? I am personaly pro-Indian (logicaly) but I certainly am not anti-white or anti-ANY other group. I am pro-female (wanting equal rights AND RESPONSIBILITY for women) But I am not anti-male. It has never made sence to me, this mentality. Where is the logic? I just don't get it. These people, like Sulzburger must think that all minorities and women must be bigots "too". I find THAT to be the most offencive thing about it. If I am a minority person (and I am) I must automaticaly hate whites. So in essence they are actually calling us bigots.   Thundercloud.   "Hoka hey!"

Re:What the hell, already. (Score:2) by Roy on 06:08 PM April 20th, 2005 EST (#7) Thundercloud, there is no logic in feminism, as you know. I'm still pondering your "feminists are racist" theory, and your post supports this idea. Native Americans have kinda been included within the feminist's grand inclusive banner of "oppressed" classes that they exploit for political capital. But "your" people seem to get very little juice from the prosecutors of patriarchy at N.O.W. AND (my point) native peoples are automatically assumed to be of a single political persuasion, the immense diversity of the tribal histories is ignored, and your ethnic and personal identity is appropriated (stolen yet again!) by feminists who have no actual goal other than adding numbers and categories to their Victim Roster. You might, for your own amusement, write directly to Kim Gandy, N.O.W.'s president. She would be shocked to learn that you sir cannot be pigeonholed into any of her convenient categories of oppressors or victims. Last time I checked, feminists were not big on the idea of "humans of either gender who think critically and have finely-tuned B.S. meters..." "It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."

I wrote and got a RESPONSE back... (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 02:45 PM April 21st, 2005 EST (#8) I wrote to them saying they are antimale, yada, yada, this is what I got back in email: In Mr. Okrent's column of March 28th, " The Privileges of Opinion, the Obligations of Fact," he explained his position on columnist corrections. See also post numbers 22 and 23 on Mr. Okrent's web journal. http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopini ons/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html ?offset=22&fid=.f555e99/22 Mr. Okrent has said that the positions taken by the columnists at The Times are not within his purview nor should they be; the opinion columns are governed by different rules than the news pages. In fact, the guidelines are very, very broad -- the Times doesn't allow obscenity, nor does it countenance libelous material. But opinion writers are, in fact, allowed to express their opinions. Thank you for your message. Sincerely, Arthur Bovino Office of the Public Editor The New York Times ******** I then wrote back: "In this case, why don't you hire a raging misgoynist to counter Maureen Dowd?" Yeah right. Equal opportunity for WOMEN ONLY. SAME OLD STORY.

Off by a factor of 1000 (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 10:51 PM April 21st, 2005 EST (#9) You ignorant twats. You just don't know how to use a search engine! By your reckoning there have been almost 10,000 NYT articles on pig blender helicopters. If you actually read the instructions for using the search, you will find that "violence against women" appears only 331 times in the last 8 years. That's rougly once a week. Not the 10 TIMES A DAY your ridiculous article implies. Get a clue.

Re:Off by a factor of 1000 (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 08:05 AM April 22nd, 2005 EST (#10) Oh dear! This anonymous posting should have been made under another item about the NYT - seems like there are a lot of ignorant twats out there. Maybe this person should read the instructions for posting responses, since they clearly go to so much trouble when it suits them. Anyhoo, they do have a point. If you just type "violence against women" (without the quotes) into the NYT search engine it looks for any of those words. You have to type it in inside quotes for it to be searched for as a complete phrase. I did this and got 343 hits since 1996. Being probably a great deal smarter then the anonymous poster I also tried the phrase "violence against men". Anyone care to guess how many hits I got for that? I got 4 hits. Let's see. Men are overwhelmingly the majority victims of violence in this and every other society, but a major news publication has such a skewed view of reality that it mentions "violence against women" nearly 100 times more than "violence against men". This is not only lousy reporting, it's an insult to Truth, Objectivity and Fairness. But maybe I'm just out of touch in thinking that anyone should give a damn about those anymore.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]