Daniel Okrent

When, in his most recent column, Daniel Okrent says,

"Most readers would already have learned about Bonds's explosive meeting with the press from broadcast or Internet news sources, or even from the guy in the next seat on the subway.",

he is right on top of my main point in some of my notes in the A Trip through Editorial Space posts. If the NYTimes is going to rely on its columnists and op-eders to bring to its pages news, even if one may credibly believe that this news is already widely known, then it has ceased to be a news gathering organization and become simply a reporting one. The question becomes, do I want to know the news or do I want Maureen Dowd's take on the news. At times I do want Ms. Dowd's take on an issue, but I consistently find her opinion more valuable when I know as many facts about the case as she does. So you are forcing me to get my news elsewhere. Which I do. I always check 3 or 4 news sources (including blogs) before turning to the Times. I used to turn to the Times first.

Far be it from me to say this is right or wrong, but these guys have powerful, far-reaching news organizations whose stories are often the staple of other papers in the country, so we out here are getting yesterday's news when we get it at all. And the papers wonder why they aren't making any money.

Speaking of which, I am going to do something I never thought I'd do. I would like to say that the San Francisco Examiner (a free paper) appears to be becoming a rather good Local/State paper which is what the Chronicle does (among other things) for s**t. Kudos.

And when the NYTimes is reporting on issues on the op-ed page others feel perfectly justified in following suit. Remember when there was a difference between a Paper and a Newspaper? I do.