Public Fool #1

New York Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, proves once again why instead of being # 1 among “readers representatives” or ombudsmen he’s Public Fool #1. Indeed, anyone taking him seriously must enjoy being fooled by his mealy-mouthed defense of the NYT’s “War Torn” series.

Hoyt says no harm intended but can’t get away from admitting the use of “squishy numbers.”

Hoyt says, “the questionable statistics muddy the message. A handful of killings caused by the stresses of war would be too many and cause for action.“ Yet, but a statistically insignificant number of cases are found after 8-months of research, faulty at that, and no causal evidence is presented, except for assertions by defense attornies seeking lesser sentence or generalizations from PTSD “industry” psychologists.

What actions are called for by a statistical improbability, an outlier, very rare exceptions? What actions are called for by the probability that the NYT’s and its minions will consistently defend the indefensible and attack the reasonable?

To start with, Patterico presents the bottom-line on Hoyt: “Newspapers should figure out how to give these ombudsmen real independence, or scrap the whole concept. Phony representation of readers’ views is worse than no representation at all.” Hoyt should go.

Phony representation of concern for veterans is worse than no concern at all. The NYT’s agenda of misrepresentation is transparent, no matter how Hoyt seeks to obscure it.

I won’t waste your time or mine with links to my or others prior columns on this. Hoyt’s absurdity stands alone as self-condemning of and as shoddy journalism.

I wasn't going to, but AGAIN John Hinderaker at Powerline devastatingly dissects Hoyt et. al. for work so shoddy that tort lawyers would delight in the case if the NYT's were a manufacturing company.