[ Home ] [ About us ] [ Alphabetical archive ] [ Archeology ] [ Author submission screen ] [ Book reviews ] [ Canoeing ] [ correspondents ] [ date archive ] [ East Midlands ] [ Economics ] [ Education ] [ Environment ] [ Feminisim ] [ Fresh ] [ Geology ] [ Health ] [ hit counts ] [ House swaps ] [ Jokes ] [ iLinks ] [ Love ] [ Media ] [ Obituaries ] [ Paleontology ] [ Past thoughts ] [ Politics ] [ Poetry ] [ Quotes ] [ Religion ] [ Sex ] [ Site Awards ] [ Smartertimes past ] [ Spain ] [ Trade Unions ]

You have reached iGreens.org.uk.  In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards.  Click here to follow us.  

Corrupted

An editorial in today's New York Times reports that when Thomas Winship took over as editor of the Boston Globe, it "was a cautious, provincial newspaper, stiffly written, its front page corrupted by ads."

Corrupted by ads? If the New York Times thinks that advertisements "corrupt" the front pages of newspapers, the Times might do well to stop worrying about what was going on at the Globe 37 years ago. The Times editorialists might take a look instead at today's New York Times front page, which features a paid advertisement from the British Tourist Authority.

Smartertimes.com does not think that advertisements "corrupt" newspaper pages, or Web pages, for that matter. But the editorials traditionally represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and its publisher. So it is interesting to see that the Times views advertisers not as the warmly welcomed customers who pay the bills but rather as a source of corruption.

Reasonable Cost: 

The lead editorial in today's (March 15 2002) New York Times declares that "Americans should be outraged" at a Senate vote that rejected new, more strict fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles. The Times cites a National Academy of Sciences report that purports to show, the Times says, "that stiffer fuel efficiency standards could be attained at a reasonable cost and without overly jeopardizing auto safety." Well, if these costs are so "reasonable," why doesn't the New York Times Company undertake to convert its own fleet of gas-guzzling delivery trucks and staff cars to super-low-emissions vehicles? The Times declares that the Senate vote "was more about ideology than economics." Well, if economics are not the issue, what is stopping the Times from deploying on a fleet-wide basis the low-emissions vehicle technology that is already on the market? And if the Times is so concerned about the "energy crisis" and so squarely against "Detroit's automakers" -- that is the phrase used in the Times editorial -- why doesn't the newspaper again put its money where its mouth is and start turning down the ads for sport utility vehicles? And when will Detroit get smart and stop spending millions of dollars supporting a newspaper whose editorials and news articles are so consistently opposed to the commercial interests of the auto industry? Too bad those ads don't have more of a corrupting influence on the Times.

[ Home ] [ Up ]

You have reached iGreens.org.uk.  In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards.  Click here to follow us.  

Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk  with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: September 20, 2006