Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What she does have in terms of power is getting to say whatever she wants, about anyone at the Times, without fear of being fired. Do you really think a corporation would allow serious injury to come to its reputation especially when its reputation is critical to its business? Do you think if the public editor starting leveling serious critique at the NYT in the vein of FAIR, Media Lens or Chomsky they would retain…
The position is generally given to a veteran journalist...Sullivan was formerly the editor of the Buffalo News. So to answer your question, she, and others before her, aren't likely to launch bombs at the NYT because like most members of a group, you have enough experience to know that controversies are more complicated underneath the surface. So no, they're not going to hire someone who is either actively bent on di…
The intent of real criticism is to improve the actual role of the newspaper in relation to the public. The NYT doesn't hire people who do real criticism because real accountability to the public isn't the main incentive of the NYT: revenue and power relations are. The illusion of accountability is necessary, which is why they have the public editor in the first place, because otherwise people wouldn't buy their products, be influenced by their messages and see their ads.
It is the height of absurdity to believe that someone who gets paid by an organization would be unbiased in its criticism of it or that they would act in the interests of a third party, in this case the public, from whom they receive no direct benefit.