Lack of ACORN Coverage Made N.Y. Times Look Partisan, Ombudsman Says

In his Sunday column examining the paper's recent coverage, Public Editor Clark Hoyt said the New York Times was so slow in covering the ACORN story that roiled the Internet a few weeks ago that it risked looking "partisan."

"For days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from ACORN, The Times stood still," Hoyt wrote. "Its slow reflexes -- closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser -- suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself."

Times staffers have said they were not immediately aware of the story and did not find it "compelling news." One editor said it was important to keep it in perspective with health care, two wars and a recession. The reporter who wrote the paper's primary story on ACORN said he omitted some of the juicier details because he felt that he did not have enough evidence to support them. Managing Editor Jill Abramson said she had assigned an editor to monitor bubbling controversies in the opinion media.

Tuning In Too Late [New York Times]