So the Times should become a glorified blog, one that's printed out and sold for $1.25? An analogue blog (anablogue?)? No thanks.

@flossy: Or, uh, "analog." My spellcheck was set to pretentious, but my point stands.

I agree with you, but isn't there an area between "Screw it, we're out of the closet liberals now" and trying to maintain the veil of objectivity? I find that the place the Times arrives at after having it's self-deliberations and hand-wringing over the changes is a good moderate one. I don't want them to be The Huffington Post anymore than I want them to be a wire service. And I don't think they are. I think in their deliberations, they find a good middle ground, and their brand image has been one that has been, so far, protected the most in the bloody transition. I think their middle ground is perfect.

more than liberal/conservative -- for the record, i find the times to be annoyingly neocon -- is the rich/poor divide

social policy, housing policy, education policy -- when was the last time the times gave serious daily coverage to those huge topic areas that affect the lives of millions of people

... waiting

@if_i_only_had_a_heart: They do, but just like in most newspapers, those stories don't sell newspapers, don't drive traffic to their site, so those stories are buried in the newspaper, and actually provide some of the biggest pieces of fat that could be (and are) cut to improve margins. To be fair, you don't see Gawker giving those topics much serious attention either (I know, I know, that's not the "Point" of gawker).

That's not to say that the NYT doesn't have a rich history of neocon infiltration. They are notoriously right-leaning for old, respected newspapers (which are quickly becoming very old, and not-so-respected)

I'll go back and read the rest of this in a minute, but the first couple of paragraphs don't make for a very good start: Dealbook is a column. The example you start with is an opinion/analysis piece, not a news story.

And as I suspected, the rest isn't really any better. Stanley was writing a review.

As for what might seem to some people like vagaries by Keller et al -- it really comes down to this: very few news reporters are ideological creatures. As a group, they are more curious than anything else, and the idea is to highlight their curiosity -- the stuff they find out. In doing so, they may interject their opinions from time to time, but that is interesting only when their opinions derive from the facts at hand that are germane to the story at hand.

I agree that reporters should be allowed to interject their own well-informed thinking into their stories more often, but "well-informed thinking" shouldn't be simply a defense of some ideology. That should be left to the bloggers.

I realize that this idea is hard for ideologues of either the left or the right to understand because ideologues tend to think everybody else is an ideologue, too (hence the constant complaints of "bias" by both the right and left, often referring to the same story.) But most readers aren't ideologues, and that is who newspapers should be serving. Serving ideologues -- who seem numerous only because of their volume -- would result in certain death.

Add new section: Page 7.

@johnnypotatoes: Read Hoyt and the comments made by Keller and Abramson: those news analysis columns by reporters are NOT supposed to be opinion pieces. They're intended to represent "a point of view"-a different thing, in Times ideology.

Nick, I'm not just blowing smoke when I say that you bring a very tasty and engaging viewpoint to bear on the NYT.

In some ways, you seem quite familiar with its culture.

But in other ways, you're either choosing to ignore what you already know, or you need to get a better sense of the NYT in and of itself.

In the entire Tri-State, the locked wards at Bellvue are the only place that smells more strongly of craziness than does the NYT.

Even well before the recent round of lay-offs, when you walked into the NYT the odor of "fear pheromones" was so strong that it made your eyes water.

I don't know why people continue to insist that the NYT is staffed by knowable types such as "neocons" or bien pensant middle-of-the-road liberals.

The NYT is the nuttiest work environment on the planet. It is staffed by people in constant thrall of unspeakable dread.

These are addled people barely capable of remembering their own names. Forming the intent required for having an opinion or "political bias" is beyond them.

And yet given the NYT's pungent craziness, which is apparent to anyone who's as much as shared a coat rack or locker room with anyone who works there, you come up with breezy, rational prescriptions like this:

"Bill Keller needs simply to come to terms with the nature of modern newspapers. He and his colleagues will feel so much lighter if they do."

Simply?

"Had Sylvia Plath simply taken a brisk twenty-minute walk every day and eaten more fresh fruits and vegetables, she would never have written 'The Bell Jar' or shoved her head in an oven."

@LoveHandles: there's nothing wrong with saying we're not gonna do the hard stuff; hence the tabs and gawker.

but i do think it's not only the one honorable position that's left to the times but it would also be profitable: done with all the tools of journalism to make it interesting and real plus analysis ... that is significantly missing from the market

and with a point of view

i think talkingpointsmemo.com does a fine job and i do believe in 10 years it will be the new wave of real journalism in a smart voice with real depth

we may now return to our regularly scheduled programming

would anyone let paris hilton adopt a child?

@Hamud Ibn Hamud: maybe cary tennis could help

@johnnypotatoes: there did used to be a newsroom ideology: get the bad guys. raise the downtrodden. free the people. drink to celebrate

gone. all gone.