New York Times readers give BBC's Mark Thompson the thumbs down - The Guardian (blog)

Lisa O'Carroll reported yesterday, on a critical New York Times column about former BBC director-general Mark Thompson and the Jimmy Savile affair.

The columnist, Joe Nocera, accused Thompson of "appearing wilfully ignorant" about Savile and, in view of his becoming the paper's chief executive, asked if he was the right man for the job.

This followed a column by the paper's public editor, Margaret Sullivan, in which she used the same phrase: "It's worth considering now whether he is the right person for the job."

So I decided to see how the NY Times readers responded to these two columns. In Nocera's case, there were 106 comments. Leaving aside those who offered no view on the central matter, or were tangential, the overwhelming number - running to more than 80 comments - urged the owner, Arthur Sulzberger, to drop Thompson.

There was high praise for the Times's decision to publish Nocera's piece. This one, from NJK, was typical:

"Articles like this are a statement to the quality of NYTimes. In most countries and most institutions it would be unthinkable for a senior journalist to question so publicly his new boss and the judgment of the controlling shareholder. Bravo Joe Nocera, Bravo New York Times."

Turning to the 69 comments below Sullivan's column, the readers' negative verdicts on Thompson's appointment were very similar to those for Nocera. For example, Alan Chaprack asked:

"How can a newspaper - a NEWSPAPER - with a solid history of investigative reporting not have come up with this story during its vetting of Mr Thompson?"

That, of course, is ridiculous. The Savile affair erupted without anyone in British journalism, let alone American, knowing of the accusations that are now being aimed at the BBC and its senior executives. How could they have vetted that?

Tim Sparke, a London reader of the NY Times, spoke up for the former BBC boss:

"I believe Mr Thompson knew nothing about the allegations concerning Jimmy Savile, he was boss of an organisation employing 26,000 staff, running four national TV stations, seven national radio stations alongside partial involvement in BBC Worldwide, a billion dollar commercial operation.

An investigation into an alleged abuse claim which had been dropped by the UK police and the alleged perpetrator was dead would not have been something which would have got to his intray. Thompson is a good man. He has integrity humility and gravitas. The NYT has made the correct choice in appointing him."

His was a lone voice and I certainly detected a measure of anti-Britishness in several of the comments, along with a degree of ignorance about both Thompson's past career and the whole Savile scandal.

There were also five comments under Nocera's column supportive of Thompson's appointment, with one stating that Thompson should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This very phrase, however, is indicative of the way he is being perceived.

It's going to be a bumpy ride in New York for Thompson… if he ever climbs aboard.