I think Clark Hoyt has been the worst of the Public Editors the Times has employed thus far, which is probably why his contract was extended. More, to the point though, is that the Public Editor position hasn't seemed to have had any effect whatsoever on the arrogant culture of the Times. It really does make one ask, what is the point?
Tags
[custom-twitter-feeds headertext="Hoystory On Twitter"]
I think Clark Hoyt has been the worst of the Public Editors the Times has employed thus far, which is probably why his contract was extended. More, to the point though, is that the Public Editor position hasn't seemed to have had any effect whatsoever on the arrogant culture of the Times. It really does make one ask, what is the point?