Wednesday, December 07, 2005
You Know, This Would Explain A LOT About The Current NYT
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.
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 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.
More blogs about politics.