Wednesday, December 24, 2008
In which I (slightly) defend the New York Times
So, the publisher of the New York Times has some sort of cozy and possibly hot relationship with Caroline Kennedy, and the Times is deleting comments on the subject that go up on its web site. I confess that even I find it hard to get worked up over this one. Indeed, if I controlled a major newspaper and Caroline Kennedy were my main squeeze, I would no doubt order my minions to do the same. Among other reasons, my main squeeze would think I were an incredible wuss if did not give that order, which is reason enough for me, most other men, and, no doubt, "Pinch" Sulzberger.
Now, with all of that said, Gawker's post puts a recent Times editorial on Caroline Kennedy in a slightly different light. This paragraph, in particular, is a least slightly disingenuous:
As someone who has guarded her privacy, is she ready for the heat and the criticisms that are about to bear down on her? How would Ms. Kennedy fare in dealing more publicly with the crowds and the media scrum?
Apparently Kennedy has had a little help in "guarding her privacy." It does seem to me that if the editorial board wants to go out of its way to make a point about Kennedy's relationship with the "media scrum" it ought to mention her "ties" to the publisher of the Times, or something like that, just so we get the point. Better yet, avoid the subject altogether, which would be fine with me. Either way, the editors -- not Pinch -- were a bit too cute for their own good.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
5 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Wed Dec 24, 10:58:00 AM:
Finally, proof that the NYT is indeed in bed with Democrats.
Heh. I just had a great parallel image. Imagine if, say, Rupert Murdoch were banging, oh, Anne Coulter and deleting references to such even as his papers lended her political support. The resulting inferno of lefty righteous indignation would be impressive.
*sniff* That, friends, is the smell of hypocrisy.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Dec 24, 11:05:00 AM:
I really don't see Ann going along with that scenario, DF, but your point is well-taken.
By 
, at
Wed Dec 24, 11:38:00 AM:
They misspelled media scum.
JLW III
By Simon Kenton, at
Thu Dec 25, 12:04:00 AM:
They print this stuff about McCain when there's no warrant for it. About Palin, as rumors. About Spitzer, when confessed. About Edwards, when scooped and forced into it. And now you claim it's manly for Sulzberger to protect his inamorata by not printing about the two of them? Sulzberger and Kennedy are geese, and should be subjected to the bypassed electorate taking a gander.
By , at
Thu Dec 25, 04:15:00 AM:
my main squeeze would think I were an incredible wuss
Too late. He's had all his life to not be an incredible wuss, and Poke - uh, Punk... whatever - has consistently elected the Road to Wussitude. Plus, he's an oxygen thief. And a waste of sperm. Only a Kennedy would be so stupid, or more likely falling down paralytic drunk, to have any romantic involvement with him.
