Imagine reading an article that began like this: "The New York Times has been rocked by reports that its coverage of the 2008 election has been sorely compromised by an alleged homosexual relationship between executive editor Bill Keller and liberal columnist Paul Krugman.
"Waves of anxiety have swept through Times staffers who have been concerned about Krugman routinely showing up by Keller's side. Convinced that the relationship had become romantic, some senior staff at the paper have been trying to keep the two apart. These staffers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they warned Keller not to keep his office door closed especially when Krugman was inside.
"Concerns that Krugman's strong support for the Democrats have shaped New York Times coverage of the upcoming election underscore a paradox. The newspaper is widely suspected of tailoring its news coverage to support its political ideology--'all the news that fits'--even though the Times likes to portray itself as objective: 'all the news that's fit to print.'
"Both Keller and Krugman have denied the allegations although such denials are to be expected in such situations. Now some staffers are worried that Keller's coverage of the election may be influenced by his feelings for Krugman. 'We're worried that Krugman is threatening to break it off,' one reporter noted, 'if Keller doesn't give favorable treatment to his candidate and stick it to the Republicans.'"
Incredible? Absurd? Actually, this fictitious article is very, very similar to the actual article that the New York Times ran on John McCain. The key phrases in my made-up account are directly lifted from the Times' actual account. In that story, the newspaper alleged that McCain was having an affair with a 40-year-old lobbyist, naming her as Vicki Iseman. The Times also suggested that McCain gave special treatment to Iseman's clients.
What evidence that the newspaper produce for these explosive allegations? None, and this is after months of investigation by a whole team of reporters. It cited unnamed McCain staffers who said they had become concerned about appearances of impropriety. (None alleged any actual impropriety.) It cited two former McCain staffers who were by their own admission disenchanted with McCain, although even they refused to give their names.
Stung by criticism that followed this irresponsible piece, Keller told the public editor of The Times, "If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we'd have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members. But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career."
I can testify from personal experience that this sort of weasel-behavior is entirely in keeping with the way the New York Times does business. Note that in the episode that follows I am giving actual names and not citing any anonymous sources.
Several years ago one of the paper's leading reporters Fox Butterfield did an article on The Dartmouth Review, which I edited as an undergraduate in the early 1980s. Seeking to discredit me, Butterfield quoted me as having written in the paper, "The question is not whether women should be educated at Dartmouth. The question is whether women should be educated at all."
A witty line, perhaps, only I didn't write it. The line was actually written by another student, Keeney Jones. When I called Butterfield to point this out, the man insisted, "No, you wrote it." So I demanded, "Where did I write it?" Butterfield pointed out that I had written an article about the Dartmouth Review in another magazine where I had quoted the line. I protested, "But I was merely citing controversial lines that had appeared in the student paper. How can you say I wrote that line when I made it very clear that Jones wrote it?"
To this Butterfield responded, "But by quoting it you have made it your line." I was dumbstruck. The best I could say to him was, "And I guess that since you have now quoted the line yourself, it has now become your line." The important point here is that we are dealing not with some dimwit but with a Pulitzer-prize winning reporter for America's leading newspaper. Yet apparently such dishonesty is the way they operate at the Times.
Some critics have been calling for Keller to be fired but I suspect that a much wider fumigation is required to clean house over there. The Times has long become a liberal rag and as incidents like these pile up, more and more people will recognize that the New York Times is no longer the great newspaper it once was.
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
Sex Scandal at the New York Times
Posted Feb 24th 2008 7:18PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Scandal, John McCain, New York Times, Sex
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Federal Panel Says Bailouts Worked, Problems Remain
- Dodd Falls Below 40 Percent Mark in Match-Ups Against GOP Contenders
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Public Rates the Economy Over Health Reform as Top Issue by More than 2-to-1
- Obama Gets Support on Afghanistan, but Not Health Care Reform
- College Senior Embarks on a Dream: Peace-Building in Rwanda
- Obama Approval Rating Slips in Another Poll, as Does Support for Health Reform
Reader Comments ( Page 19 of 19)
271. No sure how things got so off-track. I guess that is not unusual.
To paraphrase Clif, it is beneath you to use a minor detail to denigrate a concept.
The IDDD numbering scheme confusion. When the direct dialing plan was developed, the world was divided into regions with each region being assigned a single digit number. For North America, the digit is "1". Each region was allowed to a further breakdown to suit the nations within that region.
As for this nation being founded on Christian principles, I'll go with the FL chick, examine the documents. I have asked and will ask again for examples of the purely Christian principles that were used to found this nation.
alan at 10:55AM on Feb 27th 2008
272. 266. K at 12:48PM on Feb 26th 2008
The quotes you selected have absolutewly nothing to do with Gassett's contention that the government was founded on Christian principles. You have avoided answering him by quoting certain individuals opinions on Christianty that do not address the issue he raised.
Marlinj Brown at 6:51PM on Feb 26th 2008
____________________________________________
Marlin, he didn't raise any issue. He was commenting on someone else's comment. He quoted it before he posted his quotes. You only see and read what you want, don't you?
Beyond that, I wasn't trying to counter any 'point.' I was just proving that many of the revered founding fathers hated your religion. Now that THAT part of your argument has been stomped into the ground, you are backing away from 'the founding fathers were christian' and trying to play the 'the country was founded on judeo-christian principles.' I have news for you: the laws of our country were based on previous laws from all different regions, religions, and races. Most notably, Hammurabi's Code, which is the oldest written system of laws. Hammurabi is depicted in 2 government buildings as inspiration for our current laws. Hmmm... can you name a government building that has Jesus? Moses? No? Thought so.
Here's why (to take a page from William Hays' book):
"The Code of Hammurabi was one of several sets of laws in the Ancient Near East. Most of these codes come from similar cultures and racial groups in a relatively small geographical area, and they have passages which resemble each other. The earlier code of Ur-Nammu, of the Ur-III dynasty (21st century BC), the Hittite code of laws (ca. 1300 BC),
***and Mosaic Law (traditionally ca. 1400 BC under Moses)***,
all contain statutes that bear at least passing resemblance to those in the Code of Hammurabi and other codices from the same geographic area."
(PS: Hammurabi's Code came about 1000 years BEFORE the ten commandments.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
"The written law was founded first--to the best of anyone's knowledge--in the Code of Hammurabi, the sixth ruler of the First Dynasty of Babylon, who ruled from 1792-1750 B.C.. Hammurabi's code was lengthy and detailed, though not comprehensive. While an actual copy of the Code itself did not appear in modern times until an excavation in 1902, the existence of such a code was known before then
***and is considered by scholars to be the precursor in important respects to Jewish or Hebrew law.***
Indeed, the Ten Commandments echo some of the rules that appear in Hammurabi's Code."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911.html
You lose. Try a copy of our home game: an 8th grade history book.
K at 10:58AM on Feb 27th 2008
273. #271
"To paraphrase Clif, it is beneath you to use a minor detail to denigrate a concept.
The IDDD numbering scheme confusion"
Wow !
That must explain why position(80) on the MASTER.BCR file record was soooooo important!
Alan, let me explain nine(9) years in Wireline followed by fifteen(15) in Celluar, I know all about dialed digits, etc. It's just that I could not resist. When someone like Clif hangs one over the plate it is just too hard to not to swing at it.
M2D5 at 11:15AM on Feb 27th 2008
274. "265. m2d5, the only opening you have left there is the utter lack of a sense of humor. Maybe if I said reagan was good at winning wars with countries with one zip code instead? or countries with an annual GDP that wouldn't buy a 4 bedroom home in San Clemente? Or countries that moonlight as inventory crews at walmart? "
No Clif , it is just that your postings are often quite predictable and sometimes, repetitive. There was one posting earlier today that I started reading. After a paragraph or so I stopped and started to scroll down abit, after a couple of more paragraphs I stopped and returned to the beginning and re-read the first two again. I stopped, and said to myself "It's gotta be Clif".
Soooo I scrolled ALL the way to the end of that post and yup it was you know who. Clif you have to
get out of that political rut. At least when you lecture on non-religious and non-political things your posts can be enjoyable.
M2D5 at 11:56AM on Feb 27th 2008
275. m2d5 (#273) - It is still beneath you. If this were a "Yo Mama" contest or if I were trying to learn how to mislead people, I could appreciate the the vitriol and misinformation from both sides. I guess that I will have to dig through the muck to gain the information I will then have to check for accuracy and completeness.
alan at 1:21PM on Feb 27th 2008
276. #275
"I could appreciate the the vitriol and misinformation from both sides."
Alan, I do not see how you could classify this as vitriol. I merely pointed out to Clif that he appears follow a regular pattern on most of his posts. I have not resorted to name calling or personal attacks. Unlike some on these posts. The absence of abusive and foul language is not an accident ,evanthough often there seems to be ajustification to do so. Personal attacks on individual's character,integrety, family ancestry, social relationships are avoided. If I choose to I could attack him personally, and believe me, I would do so in such a manner that would not require Cap Locks, foul language , etc. This courtesy is extended as long as things are a two way street. I believe that civilty has its place, however there can be occassions where it is a waste.
M2D5 at 2:51PM on Feb 27th 2008
277. M2D5 - My apologies for not being clear enough. I was not accusing you of anything other than an ineffective shot. As I occasionally do, I was decrying the others, on both sides on any issue, who do make personal attacks, ramble, lie, obfusticate, and otherwise act differently than they would face-to-face. At least I hope they would act differently.
alan at 4:03PM on Feb 28th 2008