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
- MI on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- MI 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
- Obama's Copenhagen Climate Deal: Real or Not?
- The New Senate Health Bill Explainer: Changes You Should Know About
- Health Endgame: Time To Embrace Half a Loaf (And Learn to Love It!)
- 'Botox Tax' Out, 'Tan Tax' In New Senate Health Bill
- Health Care Breakthrough: Ben Nelson Will Vote for Health Reform
- It's the Comedy, Stupid
- Compromise Climate Deal Reached in Copenhagen
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 19)
91. paul,
so under your justification its ok to kill 30 million babies since roe vs. wade? ok. does a seond tri-mester baby count? how about a third? why do you justify taking the un-born life because your playing God with creation, in this case a human life. why do you bother with those who kill whales, certainly a whale does not have cognative abilities. do you put more value on save the whales than save the children? 30 million and counting and you feel good about that? 99.99% of all abortions are birth control and nothing more. you know that so don't throw the race and incest and mothers life around as if your getting noble. if a couple want to have sex they should deal with the ramifications of not taking precautionary measures to prevent un-wanted pregnancy. its called being responsible. it would save the woman alot of grief later because you know women who have abortions suffer much guilt,regaurdless that the law says it a-ok
brian at 1:49PM on Feb 25th 2008
92. k,
so you think you have the right to play god and decide the fate of the unborn. what you don't want or care about a less than perfect child in our perfect world thats O____K!!! K
brian at 1:53PM on Feb 25th 2008
93. For: Paul, William, and others of like mind
Okay, atheists, pay attention: since Christians believe God created everything then it follows He is the Absolute Authority on everything (Logic 101). Since He made the rules, either we live by them or we do not. If you choose not to, and suffer the consequences, you have only yourself and not the rule-maker to blame. If you cannot live with Christian beliefs, fine for you, but do not dictate to us how you think God should act just because your "touchy-feely" little liberal atheist egos might be offended.
Marlinj Brown at 1:55PM on Feb 25th 2008
94. "92. k,
so you think you have the right to play god and decide the fate of the unborn. what you don't want or care about a less than perfect child in our perfect world thats O____K!!! K
brian at 1:53PM on Feb 25th 2008"
_____________________________________
Brian, how many unwanted children have you adopted? Can you name one person in your church who has adopted a child? An American child, not one from another country?
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/foster_care
500,000 kids in foster care. About 30% of children in foster care have severe emotional, behavioral, or developmental problems. Two thirds are black children.
Why are you not concerned about these kids? There are 500,000 kids in foster care who need homes and no one is adopting them, or holding signs outside their orphanages that are pro-adoption. When you and your kind start caring about kids AFTER they are born, maybe your "arguments" will hold water.
Until then, don't you dare accuse me of not wanting or caring about a "less than perfect child in our perfect world." You are no better. All you do is bitch from your computer chair and look at the world through your Christ-colored glasses. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
K at 2:02PM on Feb 25th 2008
95. Well-said, K. brian, I was going to address your response but I've been beaten to it.
I will summarize however. Keep YOUR beliefs out of other people's lives.
Now, if somebody in your church decides to abort....throw as many books as you want at them. What will probably happen is they'll lose faith in the church, and leave. But luckily for established religion...they're always promoting LOTS and LOTS of breeding to keep the ranks full.
Strados at 2:12PM on Feb 25th 2008
96. Paul at 1:11PM on Feb 25th 2008
A miscarriage occurs when there is something wrong physically with the mother or the fetus, when some damage has occurred through accident or some disease has overcome the immune system. To say that the fetus' will to live somehow has something to do with that shows only your supreme ignorance. Again, I ask, how is self-awareness a condition for life?
Since you think a fetus is only a "cluster of cells", then the same defintion can be applied to you and you can be aborted NOW by the same rules you apply to the fetus.
Marlinj Brown at 2:14PM on Feb 25th 2008
97. "But do not dictate to us how you think God should act..." --Martin
Wow! Such a target rich environment...this is just too easy. I've got more important things to do at this time.
But let me say this, Martin, your god can act however you want it to act. I don't care. Trouble is that I DO care when zealots want to foist their god-based rules upon a free and democratic people.
Martin, you're free to worship whatever superstition you need to make you feel good. I, however, as a free American, want to avoid that worship and wish to maintain a government that will not force me into worshiping, bowing down to, donating to (through taxes), or otherwise acknowledging superstitions I do not subscribe to, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Wicca, Christianity, or Satanism.
Get it? I'm a free American and I will fight to the death to REMAIN FREE of the shackles of ANY religion.
Paul at 2:22PM on Feb 25th 2008
98. 90. Clif...
We're not voting for the new king of rock'n'roll, are we?
xxx
you don't skim very well.
Most of you are. You couldn't actually defend republicanism and what it's done and continues to do so that makes you exactly that - your guy is no different to you than some other republicanist's favorite entertainer, his beer or cigarette brand or his sports team.
Look at your propaganda and it screams yes - you are indeed voting for the 'king of rock 'n roll'.
But let's go on...
XXXXX
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.
xxx
I won't debate this because it's a straw man. I know better, so does the tide of followers and they are swaying the BPD sufferers who were trained to be 'fans' by homer simpbaugh and herr rupert.
Your petard, and up she comes. You'd be better off on Obama's website, or paying attention to the *substance* of his speech, not the grandeur of his rhetoric.
But you won't. You'll go the karl rove slippery eel route because it's all you know and I'd estimate you're used to having your masters make your decisions for you. That's what shows up here, anyway, dittohead talking points and you talk about substanceless.
xxxx
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.)
xxxx
Well, if you can't get through about Obama, you're welcome to deflect your focus and say something shitty about me or my ability to think, but you let Obama go scot free when you do.
Back to reality and not the republicanist fugue state you're in, like most politically aware non-atavistic people, I vote for the person who, first best reflects the political policy I think is best for the COUNTRY not me personally, a huge difference between us, and second the one who has the best chance to beat what I consider disloyal to treasonous politics, which at this time is practiced by the republicanist party.
As to the borderlines your party created, you will reap what you sow.
Your control people are unable to understand the effect of mimetics, especially on the group of people of negotiable loyalty created by fascism and propaganda and the effect is showing so far in the popular vote returns. Look at all the independents swayed by Obama.
The Obama people are already narrowing the gap between republicanism and hitler but you have to be heads up and following every speech he makes, just like the 'fans' that are no longer republicanists.
And just for the record. I am NOT a Republican.
xxx
ok, fascist or libertarian or neoliberal if you prefer, but your ideation is one of disloyalty to American principles of government as prescribed by the constitution and this makes you a person who takes advantage of freedom to sow discordant failed philosophy for whatever your reasons or whatever your rationalizations.
And look at your methods. You're a slippery eel who can't confront his enemies' issues, but either portrays them erroneously or avoids them altogether. You can only name call and you aren't even very creative at that.
And when I post this, you just can't resist shooting the messenger. Obama's people are way ahead of your type, sport, and I have been for a good long time too. Wail away and see what good it does.
Paul at 1:47PM on Feb 25th 2008
Clif Kuplen at 2:31PM on Feb 25th 2008
99. brian - " certainly a whale does not have cognative abilities."
Are you sure of that, mr. intolerant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/giselakaplan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/whales
http://whales.org/news/dolphinIntelligence-10-3-2006.asp
brandon at 2:33PM on Feb 25th 2008
100. A few notes and then I must be out the door.
brian: The crux of the argument is "what makes a baby a baby and what makes a fetus a fetus?" There isn't an answer to this. Doctors, theologians, and philosophers can not pin point the moment a person becomes a person. Thus we are all required to make our own opinion on the matter. That's fine. The problem is when we must then pass a law that binds and subscribes the action of all women who may become sterile.
My approach to the debate is this: I don't care about the fetus / baby until it can survive outside the mother's body. Until that point, it's a malignant tumor that will kill its host if it is not removed. Fortunately, nature has devised a means of removing it safely, and science has devised methods of removing it if that means should fail. But it isn't a person. It's meat. Meat with the potential to, with time, become a person, but until that time it is nothing more than protein. Once it is capable of surviving without its host organism then I think it is entitled to all the help and protection due any human being. Until that point, it's so much flesh and nothing more.
So MY focus isn't on the meat. It's on the mother. The actual living flesh and blood person who is carrying this growth and will one day be legally responsible for its survival. You can't talk to a fetus. You CAN talk to the mother, because she is actually a person.
Now, would I rather she weren't pregnant? Absolutely. I would rather she not have sex at all till she were in a commited monogamous relationship. And if she does have sex, that she use contraception, and that if contraception should fail, that they try to raise the child anyway, and that should they be unable to raise it, that they should give it for adoption. The only time I'd rather a woman have an abortion is if she is trying to raise it alone, has health risks, or does not have the economic means to provide for the child. That is the only time I think having an abortion trumps raising the child. There is nothing more critically crippling to a child than poverty.
Now, please note my emphasis is on the Mother, not the Meat. Why is she having an abortion? I don't know. I really don't care. Maybe she was raped. Maybe she's having an affair. Maybe she likes having sex and was lazy with the contraception. I don't care. That's between her and whatever god she may subscribe to and her own self esteem. What I do recognize is that I have not, can not, will never be able to fully understand life from her POV and THUS I must not pretend like my point of opinion justifies passing judgement on all women who seek an abortion.
Until such time as we seek to regulate our own reproductivity on a national level, we will always be striken with the grave issue of abortion. But personally, I will always side with the mother over the meat...
Even if her irresponsibility makes me want to smack her upside the head with her own uterus!
Somber at 2:41PM on Feb 25th 2008
101. Clif...
At least be honest in your posts. YOU were the one who compared Obama to Elvis. Not I. But, in running with that comparison, I'll let you join all the other doe-eyed teenie-boppers swooning at the feet of Obama--just the way they did when Elvis was King. (Did I mention that the comparison was YOUR'S from the beginning?)
On top of that, I think I actually did mention that Obama has avoided voting on fully 66% of the bills crossing his desk this year. Why? All the other senators who are running for president have managed to find the time to vote on a majority of the legislation proposed this year. Why not Barack?
I'll tell you why not. Because Obama is slick. He's got a certain "eeliness" to him. (I'm not allowed to actually call him an eel.) He thinks that as long as he doesn't vote on issues that lack of commitment gives him license to deride any candidate who has voted on controversial issues.
Like I've said. He has a certain "eeliness" to him.
Paul at 2:43PM on Feb 25th 2008
102. What makes me laugh the loudest, Clif, is that Obama has actually charmed so many people with his confidence and his ability to parrot great speeches.
What does he REALLY offer beyond charisma and that ability to "borrow" phrases from other truly great thinkers?
Oh, yeah...he puts on one hell of a show...and Americans ALWAYS enjoy a great show.
Paul at 2:47PM on Feb 25th 2008
103. If we elect the eeliness of this hollow charmer then we deserve what we'll get: wasteful government and a society in frighteningly sharp decline.
Paul at 2:50PM on Feb 25th 2008
104. And one last response to MartinJ
93. For: Paul, William, and others of like mind
Okay, atheists, pay attention:
>> Very well. I am paying attention.
since Christians believe God created everything
>> With you so far. Makes sense that God believers believe God created everything...
then it follows He is the Absolute Authority on everything (Logic 101).
>> Yes... it follows that he is the absolute authority on everything.... christian. (Logic 432).
Since He made the rules,
>> Made the rules for christians...
either we live by them or we do not.
>> We being christians...
If you choose not to,
>> You probably aren't a christian...
and suffer the consequences,
>> of which there is no more proof than the rewards of being obediant...
you have only yourself and not the rule-maker to blame.
>> Unless the rule maker is a old white male who is using a literary character as justification for social dictatorship.
If you cannot live with Christian beliefs
>> You probably shouldn't be christian.
, fine for you,
>> How gracious...
but do not dictate to us
>> Like you have to us...
how you think God should act
>> Why not? More to the point, why don't you?
just because your "touchy-feely" little liberal atheist egos might be offended.
>> Very well. I shall instead be offended by your pompous, overbearing, judgemental, intolerant, and hateful attitude. Does that suit you better?
>> In summery, you're making a very common mistake: applying a christianist template to 6.7 billion human beings, most of whom are not christian. You are assuming 1) that god exists, 2) that he actually cares if one man has fun buttsex with another man, 3) that your 2000 yr old obsolute text book is factual, and 4) that everyone should be christian. Every single one of those assumptions are false or invalid. So in short your argument failed before it got started.
Really... you should have... aborted.
Somber at 2:52PM on Feb 25th 2008
105. Marlinj Brown -
I am a liberal and believe in God. The problem is how some Christians interpret His rules. You think you have the market on what the "rules" are, but none of us where around when the "rules" were made. Furthermore if you deviate from what I believe the "rules" are I don't think God will condemn you and cast you to hell. However a certain breed of Christians believes in an unforgiving and intolerant God that they like to push on other people. These people give all of us who have faith in the Lord a bad name.
Gwen at 2:57PM on Feb 25th 2008