In his first column as New York Times public editor, Arthur Brisbane says the faster pace of news coverage means the paper needs to respond to its many critics–and fans–more quickly and correct mistakes as quickly as it churns out news.

The New York Times is eating some ACORN crow today. After being slow to cover the ACORN debacle back in September the paper proceeded to report on a number of occasions that James O’Keefe had appeared at the ACORN offices dressed as a pimp, which was apparently not the case. Today the correction.

Did the New York Times just discover the Internet? The answer is obviously no — even a cursory glance at their excellent website is proof they are head and shoulders above all other mainstream publications when it comes to the Internet. But still. Something about the Zachary Kouwe plagiarism debacle suggests otherwise.

The New York Times has published their other Gov. David Paterson ‘bombshell’ article today. So what does this one say. Well it’s not scandalous, but it’s not great. Paterson is remote, unreliable, and is “increasingly reliant on people whom he feels comfortable with but who lack deep experience in government” also he may not actually work that hard.

It looks like the long-rumored, much-chattered about New York Times ‘bombshell’ story about Gov. David Paterson may end not with a bang but a whimper. The fact the damaging rumors even began in the first place is all Twitter’s fault. Or so say some disgruntled media folks.

Clark Hoyt‘s column in Sunday’s Times is devoted to the controversy surrounding Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau chief, whose son recently enlisted in the Israeli military. Hoyt decided that although Bronner “has done nothing wrong,” he should be reassigned due to the appearance of bias; executive editor Bill Keller responded gracefully, but wrote “we will not be taking your advice.”

That’s the question poised in Clark Hoyt‘s public editor column in the New York Times this Sunday, as Game Change tops the paper’s nonfiction best-sellers list. The “racy” stories of “dysfunctional” relationships are captivaating, but led Hoyt to a question of journalistic ethics: “How do you deal with a talker of a book reported in a way that the paper’s own standards do not permit?”

Last week, we told you about Harvard Business School professor and New York Times freelancer Prof. Mary Tripsas, busted in an ethical pickle for accepting a free trip. This Sunday, public editor Clark Hoyt took on the issue: “She will no longer be writing for The Times.” But are these rules right?

Lately, the New York Times has had a small bit of trouble getting its contributing writers to follow the rules. There have been writers plugging friends, helping themselves and going on press junkets, all in direct violation of the ethics rules. Again this weekend, Times watchdog blog NYTPicker caught a writer in an ethical pickle for taking a free trip. What’s the deal?

New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt was not messing around this weekend, as he used his Sunday column to highlight and explain in detail the ethical shortcomings of two recent Times articles. Doing his job with gusto, Hoyt took to task Charles DeLaFuente, a copy editor who used a column space to complain about his own JetBlue airline mishap, and Suzy Buckley, the freelance travel writer caught plugging her long-term boyfriend’s Miami restaurant. Public editors mean business!

Has the time finally come? Earlier last month managing editor Bill Keller in one of his “chats” revealed that the Times may be considering cutting some of its web content as a cost-cutting measure. Are those (necessary) cut coming in the next few weeks?

Michael Bloomberg’s close re-election caught everyone, including the MSM, by surprise. Now NYT readers are beating down public editor Clark Hoyt’s door wanting to know how come the results were such a surprise?! One of the answers appears to be that the Times couldn’t afford to do their own polling.

The NYT is currently trying to figure out how to best layoff 100 people. Perhaps the paper should consider draining some of its online excess in order to prop up the more important part of its print. Executive editor Bill Keller says “they will look at the 70 blogs on the paper’s Web site to see if any are not justifying themselves.” They won’t have to look far.

Clark Hoyt, the New York Times ombudsman thinks the paper should stop running scared from Glenn Beck. Hoyt took the Times to task this weekend over their coverage (or lack thereof) of the ACORN and the Van Jones debacle. Apparently the problem is no one at the paper watches Fox News.

In her column today, Maureen Dowd writes about cowardly Internet bullies — all those bloggers out there who say the meanest stuff, and are seldom called to task for it. “On the Internet,” she writes, “it’s often less about being constructive and more about being cowardly.” Granted, Dowd puts her name on everything she writes. But the whole ‘cowardly not constructive thing’ — not so much.

According to New York Times Stlye columnist Guy Trebay, this summer’s look is pretty much the same as last summer’s, except for one addition: The people have spoken and pot bellies are in.

Or are they? Cintra Wilson stirred up a storm by saying otherwise; Glamour followed up with a spread of a naked plus-sized model. Fat, it seems, is phat.

Mystery solved! The reason Alessandra Stanley remains at the New York Times despite a record of errors that threatens to eclipse her writing skills is that she is, the words of executive editor Bill Keller “a brilliant critic.” Keller also discloses who is responsible for the NYT‘s favoritism towards certain writers.

Alessandra Stanley just can’t catch a break. First Katie Couric hung her out to dry last week on the Evening News for her error riddled Walter Cronkite piece, which ran on the homepage of the NYT.com shortly after his death. And now, two weeks later, not only is the New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt having a go at her — and her editors — the paper is re-assigning a single copy editor to Stanley to check all her facts.

It’s hard not to conclude there are two editorial standards at the New York Times: one for Maureen Dowd and one for everyone else. This past May, Dowd “accidentally” lifted a passage from TPM’s Josh Marshall and received a two line editor’s note. Not so for Times Mag writer Charles Siebert! Is there a double standard at work?