TVSpy LostRemote AgencySpy PRNewser FishbowlNY FishbowlDC SocialTimes AllFacebook GalleyCat UnBeige MediaJobsDaily

Examining the NYT’s “Examination”

analysts_5-14.jpgRemember the 7,500-word New York Times “examination” of military television analysts and their involvement with the Pentagon? The Huffington Post’s Rachel Sklar spends 3,000 words examining the NYT’s examination.

Her findings — “They proved their case against the Pentagon, hands down. But they did not prove their case against the generals and other military men whom they name-dropped in that story. Which means they did not necessarily prove their case against the networks.”

• The Pentagon case was proven by, “forcing the Pentagon to (finally) release the 8,000 pages of transcript.”

• The case against the military men themselves was not, because, “he painted with way too broad a brush.”

• The network argument was not proven either, Sklar writes, because, even though the, “networks fumbled this ball by not addressing the story head on,” the story made, “sweeping statements about network culpability.”

That’s the crux of the argument — check the full piece for far more detail.

Related: Media Matters breaks down the 4,500 appearances by the military analyst’s named.

Mediabistro Course

Content Marketing 101

Content Maketing 101Almost 60% of businesses use some form of content marketing. Starting December 8, get hands-on content marketing training in our online boot camp! Through an interactive series of webcasts, content and marketing experts will teach you  the best practices for creating, distributing, and measuring the success of your brand's content. Register now!