Saturday, February 23, 2008
I am no fan of the current "Public Editor" of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt. He often takes weeks to address real controversies with the paper's coverage so that he can devote himself to trivia instead, often in defense of the paper. Fair is fair, though, and Hoyt gets points for having jumped on the McCain "affair" controversy and come down squarely on the side of, well, principled journalism.
Seems pretty simple to me:
Step 1- Endorse the Republican candidate who they have "dirt" on.
Step 2- Lower the boom.
All of this would make more sense if any Republican cared about the Times' endorsement or if the Times had any actual dirt.
Normally I hate on the Times as much as anyone, but this is pathetic even by their abysmal standards.
Hoyt gets a half-point for pointing out some of the many shortcomings of the original article.
If he had any integrity, Hoyt would have written that there was no justification for publishing the story.
The story was just a rehash of news from 8-20 years ago.
We should be happy the NYT is destroying its brand at this astonishing rate, faster than any newspaper competition ever could.
Another few years like this, and by the time of the next Presidential election it will enjoy the reputation nd the influence of a supermarket tabloid.
Phenomenally Huge http://www.spymac.com/details/?2346662
Mr. Hoyt continues to smear senator McCain on the Keating scandal. The senator was fully cleared, and was kept in the dock because the Democrat senate did not want to have 4 dem senators standing accused alone.
Let me repeat, it is a matter of public record that the charges against McCain were found to be devoid of any substance, and that to bring these charges up is tantamount to a left handed, sneaky, low blow to substantially impugn the senator's character while appearing to apologize.
So let me get this straight - two days after this solacious piece comes out Mr. Hoyt then spends 54 paragraphs rehashing the shitty story then he finishes by saying that they should have gotten their facts right? Aside from the fact that this opinion piece is burried deep into the paper of which about four people have read; he still goes out of his way to give way too much air time to the logic behind the story and the veiled question of McCain's fitness as a President.
I think it was Ray Donovan from the Regan years was quoted as saying after being acquitted of all charges "Now, which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"