What do you think?
Rate this book
Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America
The New York Times was once considered the gold standard in American journalism and the most trusted news organization in America. Today, it is generally understood to be a vehicle for politically correct ideologies, tattered liberal pieties, and a repeated victim of journalistic scandal and institutional embarrassment.
In Gray Lady Down, the hard-hitting follow up to Coloring the News, William McGowan asks who is responsible for squandering the finest legacy in American journalism. Combining original reporting, critical assessment and analysis, McGowan exposes the Times’ obsessions with diversity, “soft” pop cultural news, and countercultural Vietnam-era attitudinizing, and reveals how these trends have set America’s most important news icon at odds with its journalistic mission—and with the values and perspectives of much of mainstream America.
Gray Lady Down considers the consequences—for the Times, for the media, and, most important, for American society and its political processes at this fraught moment in our nation’s history. In this highly volatile media environment, the fate of the Times may portend the future of the fourth estate.
In Gray Lady Down, the hard-hitting follow up to Coloring the News, William McGowan asks who is responsible for squandering the finest legacy in American journalism. Combining original reporting, critical assessment and analysis, McGowan exposes the Times’ obsessions with diversity, “soft” pop cultural news, and countercultural Vietnam-era attitudinizing, and reveals how these trends have set America’s most important news icon at odds with its journalistic mission—and with the values and perspectives of much of mainstream America.
Gray Lady Down considers the consequences—for the Times, for the media, and, most important, for American society and its political processes at this fraught moment in our nation’s history. In this highly volatile media environment, the fate of the Times may portend the future of the fourth estate.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 2008
5 people are currently reading
96 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 22, 2011
My undergraduate degree is in broadcast journalism, so I have a personal interest in the way news is reported. It was disheartening to read this chronicle of the Times' slide into liberal cheerleading. I have a better understanding now of how people could be drawn into this worldview, when they are ingesting a steady diet of bias. In a variety of topics (race, immigration, culture, gays, war on terror, war), McGowan carefully details how the Times has promoted a specific agenda by what they have reported, how they have reported it, and what they have NOT reported.
November 17, 2011
There is a reasonable case to be made that the New York Times has been doing sloppy journalism, probably because its current publisher is a man of mediocre talents who would never have gotten the job if his last name wasn't Sulzberger. And I don't think anyone would argue that the paper leans left.
That said, William McGowan is anything but reasonable. He comes off as a strident and vicious critic obsessed with beating back the imminent threats of Islamism, Communism, and 60's counterculture. (I mean, really. The SIXTIES?) In McGowan's world, the NYT's corruption is self-evident; it doesn't cover the stories he thinks it should cover, and it quotes people who -- horrors! -- have different viewpoints than he does.
Unlike James O'Shea, who told the story of the Tribune through extensive interviews and his own eyewitness account of events, McGowan tries to make his case by quoting the paper a lot. He seems to have had little contact with anyone working at the paper, and no inside information on its processes and policies. He also has no interest in discussing how changes in the newspaper market have affected the Times and the stories it publishes -- after all, if the paper is publishing fluffy stories in a desperate bid for circulation, that kind of takes away from the whole Evil Left Wing Agenda thing.
Again, there's a argument to be made here. With proper research and good sources, the Jayson Blair story alone should be enough to get a reader to ask, "What the hell is going on at the New York Times?" But McGowan's journalism doesn't seem to be any more rigorous than that of the journalists he inveighs against.
That said, William McGowan is anything but reasonable. He comes off as a strident and vicious critic obsessed with beating back the imminent threats of Islamism, Communism, and 60's counterculture. (I mean, really. The SIXTIES?) In McGowan's world, the NYT's corruption is self-evident; it doesn't cover the stories he thinks it should cover, and it quotes people who -- horrors! -- have different viewpoints than he does.
Unlike James O'Shea, who told the story of the Tribune through extensive interviews and his own eyewitness account of events, McGowan tries to make his case by quoting the paper a lot. He seems to have had little contact with anyone working at the paper, and no inside information on its processes and policies. He also has no interest in discussing how changes in the newspaper market have affected the Times and the stories it publishes -- after all, if the paper is publishing fluffy stories in a desperate bid for circulation, that kind of takes away from the whole Evil Left Wing Agenda thing.
Again, there's a argument to be made here. With proper research and good sources, the Jayson Blair story alone should be enough to get a reader to ask, "What the hell is going on at the New York Times?" But McGowan's journalism doesn't seem to be any more rigorous than that of the journalists he inveighs against.
September 24, 2012
This is an excellent history of the New York Times in recent years as well as a sad commentary on the decline of "the paper of record" since Arthur Sulzberger Jr's takeover, a period that includes the Jason Blair scandal. It examines the mindset that allowed that to take place and that perpetuates skewed coverage of politicians and issues, and how it went from reporting the news to being news itself.
August 30, 2012
This, of course, comes as no surprise: The New York Times - at least in relatively recent times (i.e. the last 25-30 years) - is patently bias and liberal with an outright admission to such a charge. What was most interesting, to me, was how well documented this "bias" is and how clearly one can see the obviously negative results of such a stance. You really should read it!
August 20, 2011
Well written, easy to read. tells the story of the general decline in the quality of our news and newspapers.
June 3, 2011
Ahahahaha. McGowan spells out how the slogan changed from All the News That's Fit to Print" to "All the News That Fits."
He is bemoaning the metamorphosis of the dog-ass NY Times, not screaming about it like some nut.
My copy is in demand at my newspaper office.
He is bemoaning the metamorphosis of the dog-ass NY Times, not screaming about it like some nut.
My copy is in demand at my newspaper office.
June 4, 2013
Don't waste your time; unless you find the taste of sour grapes palatable. Excuse me, Mr. McGowan. I suppose the NYT is the only paper in the world to represent the interests of its readers?
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews