Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #wqxr more → 
Only Two More Years of Ad Despair
New York, 10:11 PM
Fri Dec 11
54 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
| posts about #wqxr more → |
Only Two More Years of Ad Despair |
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