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
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- 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
- andreawalker419 on Breastfeeding an Eight-Year-Old?
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson 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
- Meat for Public Schools Often Rejected by Fast Food Chains
- Salahis Subpoenaed To Appear Before Panel Probing Party Crashing
- Will George Stephanopoulos Go Better With My Omelet?
- $1 Billion Spent on Political Ads in '09
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Tiger Woods' Transgressions and the Gender Split
- Jimmy Carter's Grandson Runs for Office in Georgia
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 19)
31. strados,
actually i think the war is and was a mistake. i think the iraq people needed and deserved hussien because they cannot get along. the border being barbaric. so yes i think, and sadly, that iraq should have been left to saddam. and i KNOW you demoncrats are against anyhting other than your little small world of "personal liberties" which usually is just a nice word for freedom of perversion. thats cool though, this is america!! afterall we were founded on individual rights to happiness. but the demoncrats are as a group not willing to fight for anything that resembles honor,integrity,sanctity, i mean where is your virtue stratos? you call virtue save a whale and kill a baby? you call virtue hug a tree and turn your back on the human rights because the world knows your not going to back up your drivel with action. you liberals are spineless and the world knows it and half america knows it. thats why we are the divided states. the "right" is right for a reason!!! get some backbone and resolve and maybe your worth listening to. until then take your decadence elsewhere this country was not founded on decadence
brian at 8:24AM on Feb 25th 2008
32. For the Democrats who think Barack Obama is their saviour, before you pop the cork on your champagne, I have some bad news for you.
Barack Obama is a slippery eel, and his trail of slime will eventually cause his own fall.
How so?
Well, the American public isn't so dumb. We know that we're hiring a person to fill the position of CEO of these United States. When we check Obama's resume, though, we find some pretty big holes!
Where?
Check his voting record.
In 2008 alone, Obama has FAILED to vote on fully two-thirds of the bills put before the US Senate.
Now I know...you'll be inclined to say that he's been out campaigning. Before you play that card, however, you had better check this year's voting records of the other presidential candidates.
What's more, even if Obama were busy campaigning, three bills went through the Senate on the same day. He declined to vote on one of them. Why?
Why? Because he's a slippery eel who's playing a game of finger-pointing (mostly at Hillary) and using her political record against her (namely, her support for the war) when he doesn't have much of a record and absolutely refuses to establish a significant record on matters of national interest.
It's easy to blame someone else when you didn't have to (or refused to) make the decision.
He's a slippery eel.
Do we REALLY want to elect someone who will govern ONLY when it's in THEIR best interest? Do we REALLY want someone who avoids making a decision fully 66% of the time, or would we prefer a president who can confront the tough issues and make a decision that's in the best interest of our nation?
A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for a flaccid, ineffective, and absentee government.
Paul at 8:37AM on Feb 25th 2008
33. Better late than never? Maybe not. This story had no legs to begin with; everyone knows the NYT for the slime bucket it has turned into, so McCain had little to fear. In fact, it appears now the story may in fact help him. The real story is "Live by the Times, die by the Times". McCain was delighted with NYT while it was praising him; now he's "dissapointed" that he can't have his cake and eat it too.
fanmanaf1 at 8:45AM on Feb 25th 2008
34. paul,
are you saying you like Hillary the Hun? or have you got sense enough to be for mccain?
brian at 8:53AM on Feb 25th 2008
35. paul,
also name calling isn't cool for a liberal. or do liberals get a pass for calling a man "slippery eel" ? now if a republican made the same comment they would be branded racist because obama is a black man.
or you racist?
brian at 8:55AM on Feb 25th 2008
36. BRIAN: (but the demoncrats are as a group not willing to fight for anything that resembles honor,integrity,sanctity, i mean where is your virtue stratos?)
LOL ... you speak of honor, integrity, sancity as Ney and Cunningham sit in prison for corruption, as they warm up a cell for McCain's fellow Arizonan campaign manager, Rick Renzi. And who can forget that your former leader DeLay leaving under indictment while Craig and Foley were accused of what? Where is all the Republican honor as 36 and counting are retiring from Congress like rats as they race to jump off this ship!!!
Jim at 8:58AM on Feb 25th 2008
37. To this Butterfield responded, "But by quoting it you have made it your line."
Nice comeback
Why is NYT making the same mistake twice? They're embarrassing themselves, like the lanky kid in school who stuffed his briefs with rolled up socks.
Mokele-Mobembe at 9:10AM on Feb 25th 2008
38. Brian...
At the risk of actually dignifying your stupidity with a response, I'll answer one of your allegations.
Rather...make that two.
First off, describing someone as a slippery eel is NOT name-calling. And even if it were, when name-calling fits then it's appropriate. In other words, just because I say it's so doesn't mean that it isn't so.
Secondly, as for YOU calling me a racist, I can only ask you one question: Which is more racist? Voting for a man because of his skin color or not voting for a man because of his skin color?
When (as of latest polls) nearly 80% of the black people in this country have thrown their support behind Barack Obama, I can easily recognize who the REAL racists are and I (as a white person) no longer fear the label of racism. If 8 out of 10 blacks in American can vote for Barack simply because he's black then 8 out of 10 whites can NOT vote for him simply because he's black.
End of racism discussion.
Paul at 9:10AM on Feb 25th 2008
39. jim,
by the way what was Delay ever convicted of,ever? it was demoncratic vendetta pure and simple.
its save the whale and kill the babies for democrats. your track record is there. don't make an excuse just own up and say thats right
brian at 9:15AM on Feb 25th 2008
40. Paul,
"describing someone as a slippery eel is NOT name-calling"
Is it name-calling to say someone is a stinky poopyhead?
Mokele-Mobembe at 9:15AM on Feb 25th 2008
41. paul, i agree with you 100% there is no doubt what you say is true. it happened here in tennessee when harold ford ran for senate. he got close to 90% of the balck vote. now the tennessean ran an article that tried to accuse the whites of voting for the republican. yet ford got 40% of the white vote state wide. go figure. but we do agree. racism is most alive in the black community. white have no need of it
brian at 9:19AM on Feb 25th 2008
42. mo,
your out of you mind, a slippery eel is a name just as a demoncrat is a name, its a lable,like-dolt!!
brian at 9:20AM on Feb 25th 2008
43. brian,
You deserve kudos for coming here every time Dinesh posts a new pile of hate-jizz and lapping it all up without puking your guts out.
Seriously, you must have a strong stomach.
Just make sure you wash that dress when you're done...no incriminating evidence!
brandon at 9:24AM on Feb 25th 2008
44. Pretend as you may, that there is some sophisticated nuance. It's name-calling pure and simple. This discussion is a cul-de-sac anyway.
Mokele-Mobembe at 9:27AM on Feb 25th 2008
45. This is just another example that there is no objectivity in this world.... everyone has an agenda... right, left or whatever... we are human. We all have preferences that shade our observations, even Mr. Hays, though I am sure he would *try* to argue that...
Shannie at 9:44AM on Feb 25th 2008