Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 9:06 PM
Thu Nov 26
15 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/14/09
Compare these two quotes describing the actual transaction:
Quote from the Times article:
"Univision agreed to pay the Times Company $33.5 million. At the same time, WNYC would buy the 105.9 equipment and license, and the right to the WQXR call letters, from the Times Company for $11.5 million. The transaction requires F.C.C. approval."
Quote from the press release:
"Univision Radio will pay the Times Company $33.5 million to exchange the FCC 105.9 FM broadcast license and transmitting equipment for the Times Company’s license, equipment and stronger signal at 96.3 FM. At the same time, WNYC Radio will purchase the FCC license for 105.9 FM, all related transmitting equipment and WQXR’s call letters and Web site from the Times Company for $11.5 million. Univision Radio will retain the WCAA call letters."
Why not at least link to the press release? Or quote it directly? Or restate it in a way that summarizes actual transaction, like "In a two-stage transaction, Univision will acquire the FCC license, transmitting equipment, call letters, and website in exchange for a $45 payment."
The first time quote gives the impression of accuracy and information, but in fact is just kind of meaningless - I mean, "WNYC would buy the 105.9 equipment"? Per the written NYT article, they currently own that equipment... It makes sense once you read the press release.
It's too bad, because the quotes and "color" in the article are nice, but the description of the transaction is so rough it makes the whole article look bad.
I don't mean to malign the particular reporters in this case - who knows if an editor pulled some sentence that clarified things. Another downside of bylines - if this was the Economist, this criticism could be more general, instead of seeming personal.
So, come on, NYT - provide links to the source material! Acknowledge that financial transaction reporting requires specific actual long term expertise in the field - and health reporting - and science reporting - etc, etc.
Taking off the cranky hat.
07/15/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/13/09
07/13/09
Journalists in dangerous places, reporting so we can at least attempt to become informed (saying not much about how those reports are spun by the networks)...my hat is off to all of you.
An acquaintance of mine is one of the 24 or so who have been detained and held in Iran. Still no resolution for him. Good luck to you sir! I hope your situation is resolved safely.
07/13/09
07/13/09
07/13/09
07/13/09
07/13/09
Psychic?
amirite?
03/30/09
03/30/09
That's a lot to ask of someone like Bob though.
03/30/09
If Q means boner.