Sex Scandal at the New York Times
"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.
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
- Harvey on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- mac on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- not-pboyfloyd 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
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
Mo's Bio
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Report: Max Baucus Ex-Aide, Now Girlfriend, Met With His Divorce Attorney
- Mary C. Curtis on UpFront: Obama's Security, Unemployment, Climate Change
- Report: Blackwater Guards Used in Secret CIA Raids
- Joe Biden on Chris Dodd: He's 'Getting the Living Bejesus Beat Out of Him'
- House Votes to Tighten Wall Street Regulation
- Abortion in Ireland: Does the Church Ask Too Much?
- More Negative Marks for Obama on Health Care


Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 19)
76. brian
"pro-choice? what about the babies rights?"
Babies, esp. fetuses, are too young to make important decisions like "Do I want to live or not?". If we could present fetuses with informational pamphlets about the world we live in, most would probably rather not be born.
Mokele-Mobembe at 12:14PM on Feb 25th 2008
77. For: Somber at 12:07PM on Feb 25th 2008
Man,you must be living in an intellectual vacuum if you cannot see the liberal agenda of the mainstream media (as they call themselves). On the other hand, is it just that you buy into everything they print without questioning their veracity? I quit believing the newspapers when I quit being a newspaper delivery boy at age thirteen.
Marlinj Brown at 12:20PM on Feb 25th 2008
78. " If we could present fetuses with informational pamphlets about the world we live in, most would probably rather not be born. "
A-freaking-men, Mokele, a-freaking-men.
brandon at 12:26PM on Feb 25th 2008
79. brandon,
Right now my mind is wandering over how we can deliver the pamphlets to the readers...
Mokele-Mobembe at 12:39PM on Feb 25th 2008
80. Jane Doe's Uterus,
42 Liberal Ct,
Anytown, NY 12345
(Urgent Reply Requested)
The postal profession gets a little more difficult.
Mokele-Mobembe at 12:47PM on Feb 25th 2008
81. Paul at 12:08PM on Feb 25th 2008
As usual, blame God. Jesus said “I came that you might have life, and have it more abundantly.” Doesn't say He's denying your rights, which by the way He defined long ago. Since when is awareness the criteria for deciding whether anything is alive? You atheists blame God (whom you refuse to acknowledge, yet aren’t above using as a convenient scapegoat) for human deaths, yet you arrogantly allow and promote the killing of the unborn by the millions each year all over the world and say it is ok? That’s a big load of hypocrisy you’re asking people to accept.
Marlinj Brown at 12:52PM on Feb 25th 2008
82. Martin...
Please be so kind as to show me EXACTLY where I blamed the Christian god for anything?
While you do that, I'll cut-n-paste a passage from the Christian Bible where the main character (god) sends his pawns into a village to slice and dice the inhabitants (men, women, and children) until they're ALL dead.
I can't blame a god I don't believe in. However, I reserve the right to quote passages from a book that some participants in this discussion use as a foundation for their political and social views.
Again...please show me where I "blamed" god for anything.
Paul at 12:56PM on Feb 25th 2008
83. mo,
so since a baby is too young to "make a decision" about anything you think it best to leave the decision up to the mother for whether the child lives or dies? and you do not theink the child has a will to live just because its in the womb? all animals have a will to live. our constitution provides us with life,liberty,and the pursuit....
we have cleverly questioned when life begins in order not to call abortion what it is. it seems to me under our law that if a woman wants a baby then its valid and if she does not then you want the woman to have sole discretion. just because she carries it.with no thought for the father or the baby itself. i do not agree sorry. i think it should be a little harder than birth control
brian at 1:08PM on Feb 25th 2008
84. Brian...
Feel free to PROVE at any time exactly where a cluster of cells (with absolutely NO AWARENESS) derives any sort of will...let alone a "will to live." Then please explain to me what happens to that mysterious "will to live" when fetuses spontaneously abort due to miscarriage.
Paul at 1:11PM on Feb 25th 2008
85. How about a democratic process where the parents and child vote on its fate? And just because things are alive doesn't mean they want to be. Someone trapped in an iron lung would wish for the power to end his own life.
Mokele-Mobembe at 1:18PM on Feb 25th 2008
86. The republicanist party was progressive in Lincoln's time, but all pretense of that was lost in the 1880's with the takeover of the party by the robber barons of that era.
Since then it has only made progress towards fascism. McCain is a perfect example of a mussolinin republicanist as demonstrated by his coziness with Keating and support by corporate lobbies.
His power base is the same as bush - the haves and have mores.
The same people who have criticized him for liberalism, disrespect for fundamentalism, campaign fincance reform, the same people who said he was insane from his POW incarceration and the father of an illegitimate black baby, a breast cancer victim whose first wife was a criminal, those same people are now trying to defend him.
There isn't any chance. Instead they have to go after Obama, but look what happens to Obama's popularity when he's attacked. Go to Graceland and start screaming Elvis Sucks! and you'll get a good assessment of what effect republicanist negativism will have. Call him a cult leader, a messiah, an empty suit or keep on with for god's sake, haven't you noticed, HE's BLACK!!! and it will have zero effect.
He's about issues, and his detractors are about calling him a big poopyhead. If he gets the nomination, republicanists will find themselves stuck with discussing issues, and as you can see here, they suck at it. They have to be brainwashed to a large extent to be fascists anyway. Fascists exist to serve the state, do NOT want elections or two parties just like republicanists, and they are just like republicanists content to think of their country like they do their beer or cigarette brand or football team. Their 'fans', and the word is short for fanatic.
They're absolutely dumbfounded to find there are stronger 'fans' than they could possibly be, and a major reason for this fandom is morality, ethics and national strength, all of which are for sale by republicanists.
But like this slippery eel Paul, they'll all go back to the rove/simpbaugh democrats are all poopyheads and everything we do is perfect.
Maybe now is the time to consider whether you're actually an american patriot who believes in FAIR elections DEBATE ON ISSUES and a two party system, or if you'd just rather bush or cheney or some other fascist becomes your duce and we abolish all this democracy.
I say that republicanists who engage in rovism are less than loyal Americans.
During the entire constitutional crisis that has been the bush legacy, how many republicanists did you ever hear say, 'well, I guess we have enough power now'. Most of them don't like two party government, and because they don't their loyalties should be considered suspect. A good way to show them that is to vote for the democrat, whoever it is, and move this country back to some semblance of sanity.
Clif Kuplen at 1:23PM on Feb 25th 2008
87. Marlinj Brown (#77) - I have come to trust somber's analysis. Your comments add and offer nothing new. It is just as accurate to have written,
"Man,you must be living in an intellectual vacuum if you cannot see the conservative agenda of the mainstream media (as they call themselves). On the other hand, is it just that you buy into everything they print without questioning their veracity? I quit believing the newspapers when I quit being a newspaper delivery boy at age thirteen."
alan at 1:31PM on Feb 25th 2008
88. YES YES YES!!! Another great column Dinesh! We know whose side the NY Times is on! Down with the NY TIMES!
Boner-nosed, beanie wearing jew boy at 1:38PM on Feb 25th 2008
89. "Then please explain to me what happens to that mysterious "will to live" when fetuses spontaneously abort due to miscarriage.
Paul at 1:11PM on Feb 25th 2008"
____________________________________
Paul, don't you know that a miscarriage is god's abortion? It's okay when god does it! I guess its a "do as I say not as I do" philosophy.
Also, don't expect a real answer to any of your questions. They will re-word your question to one they can find a verse in the bible for and answer that one, not the one you actually ask.
K at 1:43PM on Feb 25th 2008
90. Clif...
We're not voting for the new king of rock'n'roll, are we?
When you vote for a candidate who avoids making commitments because that's the politically savvy thing to do then you get what you deserve.
Vote for the guy that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, Clif. Meanwhile, the adults in our nation will vote for someone who can do the job of running this country (and has a resume we can review.)
And just for the record. I am NOT a Republican.
Paul at 1:47PM on Feb 25th 2008