On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:17:14 -0400 "Yoshie Furuhashi"
<critical.montages at gmail.com> writes:
> On 9/30/06, ylle521 at highstream.net <ylle521 at highstream.net> wrote:
> > Chomsky has been warring with the NYT for decades, but he still
> reads
> > it religiously. Carrol seems to be saying the Times, and
> newspapers
> > in general, likely have no (positive?) influence or effect because
> > they don't reach the masses. This is not correct for the reason
> Doug
> > cites: when the NYT speaks, every professional in every media
> organ
> > of any significance at *least* listens. So do those in
> government
> > and business. Being the paper of record does count for
> something.
>
> But where's empirical evidence for the New York Times' influence?
>
> Just to take one major example, in 2004
>
> The New York Times endorsed John F. Kerry for President,
>
>
As Doug has already pointed out that was an editorial. While NY Times editorials do carry some weight, the newspaper's real power is manifested in its ability to dictate what events are worth reporting about, and how are they to be covered. When the NY Times decides that some event is worth covering, its lead is quickly followed up by most of the rest of the US media.Those events that the NY Times deems to be not worth covering, tend not to get covered by most other media outlets in the US. That's real power IMO.