Clark Hoyt New York Times Public Editor: disingenuous, shill, hack

A couple weeks ago, Julia Preston of the New York Times offered "As Immigration Plan Folded, Grass Roots Roared". It included a picture of someone that - while he might be a great person - would be characterized by many New Yorkers as a toothless yokel. Their intent was clear: only hicks oppose the Senate illegal immigration amnesty. Compare, for instance, the photo at the last link with the one here:

Now, the new NYT Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, shows that he's even worse than his predecessors with the extraordinarily disingenuous "The Ugly Part Wasn't His Face". Rather than considering - or correctly characterizing - complaints made about the NYT's propaganda, he defends it. And, he does it in a sleazy, passive-aggressive way by accusing those who complained about the NYT story of stereotyping the photo subject.

However, the fact that he's a hack and a shill is revealed by his own comments. First, he relies on the protestations of innocence from NYT employees rather than, for instance, discussing the matter with John & Ken, the two Los Angeles talk show hosts who encouraged their listeners to send in their own photos (they aren't mentioned by name in the article). I guess if an NYT employee says it it must be true. Then, there's this:

[I asked why the NYT would] choose to run a picture of a man missing a tooth when they had to know it could contribute to stereotypes about the kinds of people opposing the immigration bill.

What stereotypes? Outside of Manhattan, the Westside of Los Angeles, and the Beltway, are there large numbers of people who believe in or try to promulgate such stereotypes? By admitting that some hold such a view, isn't Hoyt more or less admitting guilt?

More on the "perhaps" side of things, Grassfire.org is described as a "conservative citizens' coalition". What other organizations (besides Conservatives of Kern County) have similiar initials? Is Hoyt speaking in code?

Then, there's this ludicrous statement:

He came to the attention of The Times because Julia Preston, a reporter whose beat is immigration, believed that his side of the story wasn't being reflected enough in Times coverage of the bill.

Even if the NYT ran a hundred non-biased immigration articles, it wouldn't begin to make amends for all the pieces by Nina Bernstein, Samuel Freedman, David Brooks and all the rest. Certainly, anyone who's familiar with the NYT's coverage of this issue realizes just how disingenuous his statement is.

UPDATE: From this:

Clark Hoyt has now pubished three columns about the Times' behavior, and in each instance, has given the Times a perfect bill of reportial health... Hoyt is the perfect stooge for the Times. He is, to steal from Lenin, a Useful Mediocrity...

Immigration2007a · Fri, 06/22/2007 - 14:51 · · Importance: 9