Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Novak catches the NYT
On March 24, former Congressman Bob Livingston was sent an e-mail by a New York Times editorial page staffer suggesting he write an op-ed essay. Would Livingston, who in 1998 gave up certain elevation to be House speaker because of a sexual affair, write about how Majority Leader Tom DeLay should now act under fire? In a subsequent conversation, it was made clear the Times wanted the prominent Republican to say DeLay should step aside for the good of the party.
Livingston in effect declined by responding that if he wrote anything for the Times, it would be pro-DeLay. But this remarkable case of that august newspaper fishing for an op-ed piece makes it appear part of a calculated campaign to bring down the single most powerful Republican in Congress. The Democratic establishment and left-wing activists have targeted DeLay as the way to end a decade of Republican control of the House.
Of course this is part of a calculated campaign to bring down DeLay. How could it be otherwise? If the Times were simply looking for op-ed fodder, they would have happily taken Livingston's piece in support of DeLay. If the Times merely wanted to opine that DeLay should resign, it can do so in its unsigned editorials or find a Democrat to do it. Neither of those, however, advance the Times' objective, which is to drive DeLay from office. Can there be another explanation?
I'm no fan of Tom DeLay. He has needlessly become a distraction and a liability for many Republicans. I also have no problem with the Democrats going after him -- he lives by the sword, and if it turns out that he must die by the sword, so be it. Fifteen years ago the Republicans took down Jim Wright, the Democratic Speaker of the House, and payback has been in the offing ever since.
However, shouldn't The New York Times be at least a little worried about its credibility? Nicholas Kristof is. In today's issue, he twists his hanky over America's declining respect for the press, particularly when compared to other institutions. Kristof thinks that this can be reversed with "[m]ore openness, more willingness to run corrections, more ombudsmen, more acknowledgement of our failings - those are the kinds of steps that are already under way and that should be accelerated." He also thinks that the media needs to "diversify" not just the ethnicity of its newsrooms, but also by expertise:
I think we're nuts not to regulate handguns more strictly, but I also think that gun owners have a point when they complain that gun issues often seem to be covered by people who don't know a 12-gauge from an AR-15.
It appears that Kristof missed a biggie: Don't get caught participating in a partisan political campaign.
CWCID: Power Line.
4 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Tue Apr 12, 08:58:00 AM:
Any comment on Fox News, Washington Times, etc. participating in partisan politics.
You've been going after the NYT for ages now without pausing to mention the fact that politics in journalism is as rampant as corruption in DeLay's office.
I don't read it myself, but I know that the NYT is guilty of more than simply going after Repubs. Judy Miller and the gang were earlier guilty of giving Bush a pass on the War in Iraq. So I guess these attacks from you are in the wake of the NYT moving back to the left.
The NYT has serious credibility problems, but so does the rest of the Mainstream Media.
It's interesting that the focus of your post is on the NYT instead of on DeLay's crimes and Republican support for those activities. I hear that you don't like DeLay and that you think he's a "distraction". Well, he's also a criminal who threatens the judiciary. And this criminal got the backing of George W. Bush yesterday.
Yet it's the NYT with the credibility problem? Come on, Hawk.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Apr 12, 09:15:00 AM:
As I've said before, I read the New York Times, so that's what I pick on. I have virtually never linked to either Fox News or the Washington Times because I don't ingest them (although I sometimes watch Fox, known in our house as "the Republicans," when I can't take MSNBC anymore).
Let's stop throwing around the word "criminal" every time a politician plays some hardball. By the lights of partisans, we haven't had a president since at least Eisenhower who wasn't a "criminal" in some regard. OK. Maybe Jimmy Carter. Just sayin' that it's a stupid label. You can't fart in public now without committing a crime. We have criminalized all sorts of stuff that should not be criminalized, and then we hurl around the accusation like it means something.
DeLay plays hardball. So do lots of politicians. The Dems have one coming since Wright (and Clinton). DeLay is unattractive to a lot of people, so he is setting himself up to be the payback. That's all that's going on.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Apr 12, 09:57:00 AM:
Was Bill Clinton a criminal by this standard? Or was he just some guy who got his Executive Member moistened by a colleague?
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Apr 12, 03:33:00 PM:
Clinton committed perjury. There is no doubt. That makes him a criminal at least to the standard applied by the people who threw those charges at Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Tom DeLay. Whether Clinton's case (or any of the others) should lead to impeachment is an entirely different matter.
