Clark Hoyt Says His Column 'Was Not a Message' For Times Columnists to 'Tone it Down'
On June 22, the Times public editor Clark Hoyt had a few words for the Times’ Maureen Dowd for several primary-season columns that disparaged Hillary Clinton. "Even [Ms. Dowd], I think, by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season."
So two days ago, current Op-Ed columnist (and former editorial page editor) Gail Collins wrote into Mr. Hoyt’s reader's response column to respond: "When the public editor laces into an opinion page columnist for making fun of a controversial political figure, it sounds like a suggestion that all of us tone things down. I hope I’m hearing wrong."
So was he telling them to tone it down?
"No," he said to Media Mob. "It was a comment on a single aspect of a columnist’s work from a columnist I greatly admire. It was not a message for other columnists to tone it down. If I had meant to say that I would have said it directly."
Then what was the point of Mr. Hoyt’s column in the first place: to express frustration over Ms. Dowd’s specific opinions about Mrs. Clinton? Or for the public editor to muse about the role of a columnist more generally?
"I was dealing with a set of columns and the language in them," he said. "I think it is the public editor’s role to comment on Op-Ed columns when there is either an issue of fact, which there wasn’t in this case, or an issue of tone, which I think there was in this case. It’s not about the opinions expressed. The language in this line of columns was over the top, it was repetitive and it was relentless."
Maureen Dowd is an embarrassment.
Bah humbug. Well ok, maybe just a tad overthetop. But deservingly so imo during portions of that relentless campaign by the Clinton camp to denigrate BO. And what of Kristol? Would Mr. Hoyt speak to the rank, blind and non sensical partisanship of that cretin. I'd rather that the NYT spend more time crtiquing factual content of their articles than any stylistic shortcomings of their columnists.
Koblin, don't play dumb.
Hoyt criticize the "gender-laden" content in Dowd's columns, and the fact that it was repetitive.
For instance, painting Hillary Clinton as a man, and Al Gore, Obama, etc., as a woman. Do you think that's a good journalistic approach?
Well, if the shoe fits ...
Maureen Dowd - simply out of ideas so she continually bashed Clinton. And still is doing so. I'd fire her and get someone who could come up with something new to write about. Reading her columns have become a real bore because she simply cannot think of anything new to write about. There are plenty of good writers who would love to write for the NYT, pick a new one.
I canceled my subscription to NY Times telling them I will not contribute one of my hard working dollars to pay that horrible women a salary.
I'm grateful for Maureen Dowd's column; the rest of the NY Times is mostly trash. You know who was out of ideas? The Hillary supporters who kept blaming the press - rather than their candidate - for her loss. Dowd skewers anyone who, by way of his or her actions, leaves room for it. And Hillary, without question, provided lots of material. Those who think they have call to criticize Dowd's 'journalistic approach' should educate themselves on the difference between reporting and writing op-eds.
when a writer continually bangs the same drum they become uninteresting and predictable...I have no interest in her opinions about Senator Clinton or any other aspect of the campaign..I know what snide slanted opinions are coming before she opens her mouth or hits a keyboard..as someone who writes..cutely bashing people is the EASY thing to do and shows a lack of creative new fresh ideas..she had a personal ax to grind and it finally bored anyone who was intelligent enough to want more from a cloumn to death..
MD has simply become a screed machine, which can be entertianing but in her case, is not. She should write far fewer columns so she can save up her occasional good ideas. Perhaps every other month - that sounds right.
Maureen Dowd is entitled to her opinion. She is not a reporter she is a columinst.
Her feelings regarding the Clintons were learned over time and anyone who suffered through the shendagians of the Clinton Presidency hung their heads in shame on more than one occasion her included.
The fact that she also remembered Hillary Clinton enabled her to write and critize her based on Hillary's own actions regarding her very poor campaign hirings, her inability to keep her mouth closed and her poor handling of campaign funds. While many not like the fact that Ms. Dowd utilited these facts, it dosen't change them.
She has likewise hammered Senator Obama and the candidate that depends on Denpends, John McCain.
I enjoy reading her each Wednesday and Sunday as apparently millions do or she would not still enjoy her position with the NYT. I actually find her a breath of fresh air there since so many of their "reporters" are so busy kissing the Depends candidate that she at least gives the appearance that the NYT is not a bought and sold advertisment for the thugs at the GOP.
The Hillary supporters are the ones who sound like fingernails on a black board. I mean come on! LOL Talk about an inability to accept facts! She lost and it was NO ONES fault but her own. SHE kept screwing up and the media reported it. That gives them the right to call sexism? I don't think so and apparently millions who voted for Obama (meaning aginst Hillary) agreed.
Maureen Dowd richly deserved the woodshed treatment she got from Hoyt over her "gender-heavy" columns trashing Hillary Clinton for supposedly acting like a guy and scaring the candidate she calls Obambi. I just wish Hoyt had mentioned her references to Edwards as the "Breck Girl."There is little of socially redeeming merit in Dowd's schtick, and I find her caroon=like depictions of people as grossly biased as Coulter's on the far right. Both are sick jokes.
As someone who cannot stand George Bush and thinks he has been an utter disaster for our country, I at first really enjoyed Maureen's Dowd's columns about him. You go, girl, I thought. But after a while, after one column followed another, basically saying the same thing over and over, I wondered if she could write about anything (or anyone) else. Therefore it didn't surprise me at all when she switched her attention to Hillary and was absolutely relentless in her attacks on the woman; it's almost like she has some kind of obsessive-compulsive need to set her sights on someone and then ground them into the dust. It's too bad because it really diminishes her effectiveness. Right now, I am a much bigger fan of Gail Collins, who is not only funny but better politically (and mentally) balanced than Ms. Dowd.