Wednesday, December 07, 2005


You Know, This Would Explain A LOT About The Current NYT

Judy boinked Pinch?! Whaaaaa?!?! From Editor & Publisher (via FireDogLake), commenting on an upcoming Vanity Fair piece by Seth Mnookin on L'Affaire Miller:

Elsewhere, Mnookin pulls no punches in stating that over the years Miller "had built a reputation for sleeping with her sources," had dated one of Sulzberger's best friends, Steve Ratner, "and had even, for a time, shared a vacation home with Sulzberger," whatever that means. He hits Sulzberger hard with quotes from various unnamed Times people, who say things like, "Post-Howell, Arthur and Judy were both looking at resurrecting their reputations. And Arthur was so oblivious he didn't care about the repercussions."
Wow. Of course, if you're an on-the-make publisher, and you're looking to establish good relations with the party that's either officially in power and/or actually possesses power -- and that party has been, for nearly thirty years, the Republican Party -- it makes political, if not moral, sense to establish, ahem, "good relations" with Judith Miller, a person whose record as GOP zampolit goes back at least two decades, if not longer.

I think that Judy Miller is getting the "slut" treatment when she deserves a lot harder criticisms. The public whipping started with Dowd who, with a wink and a nod, compared Miller to a fictional trull.

Now this is sexual discrimination. A century ago, being publicly called a slut would end in exile to Oklahoma or whatever. But today, being known as a slut probably increases one's starting salary. What else would explain the success of Darryl Kagan, Madonna, or many other media personalities?

What would be a lot more damaging would be if people would actually look at her reporting.

And then there's that fascinating incident with the fake anthrax....

I honestly don't think the NYT needs to prove its loyalty. As I have been posting and will continue to post on the thread I started, the NYT has served whoever is in power faithfully. Getting slapped around on FOX undoubtedly improves their sales because only liberals read anymore.
I think calling Judy Miller a slut has the same effect as calling George W. Bush a moron. The criticism becomes their alibi. It gives them a pass for the crimes they've committed: "Well, what can you expect from somebody like that? They're not qualified enough for their jobs to be held accountable for their performance."
Hear, here, MEC.

I am persuaded that Dowd was attempting to plead The NYT down from felony journamalism to a misdemeanor. Same as they tried to plead Clinton up from adultery to high crimes and misdemeanors, except in reverse.
It's not that Judy's a slut. It's that she uses sex as a means to power -- or to further the goals of her real bosses, who since at least 1988 have resided over at the RNC. (Why else would she be letting Lee Atwater vet -- and veto -- prospective NYT pieces?)
Oh, and a lot of us had noticed BOTH Dowd's AND Miller's tendency to gravitate towards powerful men for the purposes of career enhancement. In fact, DC Media Girl among others was quick to note that when Dowd compared Miller to Becky Sharp, she was obviously suffering from Pot-Kettle-Black Disease, with a tinge of jealousy mixed in.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder