22 February 2008

The Times, They Are A-Suckin'

Leave it to the pinheads at the NY Times to print an article
that is so poorly sourced and edited, it makes them look
like even bigger tools than usual -- while simultaneously
rallying conservatives around McCain.

But the real kicker is they actually expected to get
high-fives from Democrats.

Q. I must say that the McCain article left
me embarrassed for your paper. So little
substance, but trumpeted prominently as
though you somehow had the goods on him
or were raising burning questions. It
makes it look like your reporters or
editors had an ax to grind. I hope they
didn't. Question: Do you read the coverage
of your coverage? Did you see the piece
at slate.com ridiculing your paper for this?
Doesn't it smart?

— Brian Mullaney

A. I think we all expected the reaction
to be intense. We knew from our experience
last year, when word leaked out we were
pursuing this story, that Senator McCain's
operatives would set out to change the
subject by making the story about The
New York Times rather than about their
candidate.That's a time-honored tactic for
dealing with potentially damaging news
stories. We knew some readers would
disagree with our decision to publish this
information. After all, we wrestled with
our own doubts on that score. We anticipated
that it would provoke at least a brief media
firestorm — and that our efforts to put
Mr. McCain's relationship with a lobbyist
in a bigger context would probably get lost
in the retelling.

Personally, I was surprised by the volume
of the reaction (including more than 2,400
reader comments posted on our Web site).
I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion
was against our decision, with readers who
described themselves as independents and
Democrats joining Republicans in defending
Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap

Whitewater... Wen Ho Lee... Jason Blair... Judith Miller...
And an op-ed page that is truly an intellectual sewer.

Yet the Times editors are surprised that no one from the
left is standing up to defend their shoddy journalism
against a livid Rush Limbaugh.