Posted by Curt on 13 April, 2013 at 1:45 pm. 2 comments already!


Jenn Taylor @ Twitchy:

New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan gave the publication a Twitter-pat on the back for its coverage of Kermit Gosnell’s mass murder trial. Media blackout? Pfft!

Sullivan called the paper of record’s coverage “not insubstantial.” Can we get a fact check from Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers?

It’s less than insubstantial: 1 story on trial (1st day) on A-17. RT @Sulliview: I’ve reviewed Times#gosnell coverage. Not insubstantial…—
Kirsten Powers (@kirstenpowers10) April 13, 2013

@Sulliview The statistic I’ve been hearing is that you’ve only had one story on the trial since it started. Is that not true?—
(Stephanie) Slade (@sladesr) April 12, 2013

Sullivan admits the Times published one piece on the trial. One. But come on, you guys, the paper already covered this stuff before the trial began.

@sladesr That is true. But there was substantial coverage, including a major 2011 takeout and other shorter pieces since.—
Margaret Sullivan (@Sulliview) April 12, 2013

And more coverage is on the way … she thinks.

.@tenuto Also, based on what @SamSifton tells me, I think you can expect to see at least one more substantial #gosnell piece in @nytimes.—
Margaret Sullivan (@Sulliview) April 12, 2013

@sladesr I think you will see more.—
Margaret Sullivan (@Sulliview) April 12, 2013

Powers wonders if possibly sending a Times reporter to Philadelphia to cover the trial would make Sullivan’s tweets more believable.

Hi @Sulliview –curious, wouldn’t it be more believable that @NYT covered #gosnell trial if they had actually sent a reporter to cover it?—
Kirsten Powers (@kirstenpowers10) April 13, 2013

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x