Cry Me A Hipster New York Times

The New York Times went with an article today on the woes of the hipster class in these trying times. In what seems like is becoming a series of articles, the Times continues to highlight the rich who cry poor in this recession. Unlike the poor elites who have trouble getting by on less than half a million a year, today's article focuses on the privileged youth that live in gentrified Williamsburg.

From The NY Times:

Luis Illades, an owner of the Urban Rustic Market and Cafe on North 12th Street, said he had seen a steady number of applicants, in their late 20s, who had never held paid jobs: They were interns at a modeling agency, for example, or worked at a college radio station. In some cases, applicants have stormed out of the market after hearing the job requirements.

“They say, ‘You want me to work eight hours?’ ” Mr. Illades said. “There is a bubble bursting.”

Famed for its concentration of heavily subsidized 20-something residents — also nicknamed trust-funders or trustafarians — Williamsburg is showing signs of trouble. Parents whose money helped fuel one of the city’s most radical gentrifications in recent years have stopped buying their children new luxury condos, subsidizing rents and providing cash to spend at Bedford Avenue’s boutiques and coffee houses.

While the Village Voice feels bad for the way the Times rips these carefree 20-somethings, I would rather the Times use ink in more industrious ways.

The article includes an in-depth exposé on trustafarians and their parents. Summing it up, the balance scale has tipped, meaning less money from the parental units and more time in finding a job that pays for Williamsburg apartment life. Now, it isn't as if I don't sympathize a little, but really, the Times should be focusing more on the real pain the recession is causing, like the foreclosures in Southeast Queens and the rise in crime there that the Bloomberg Administration would love to keep under wraps. Now to be fair, the Times does have a "Living With Less" section online, but many of those stories do not get the prominence in the paper that they deserve.

NY Times Lets David Halbfinger Get Away With Scott Murphy Smear

Why is it that so many editors cannot do the jobs that they are hired for? Case in point is David Halbfinger's editor at the Times, who let the author pull a hit job on the surging Democratic challenger in the 20th District. Scott Murphy is a self-made man in the financial sector, but to tie him with the worst elements of the fiscal disaster we are in is extremely misleading. Yet with just a few days to go in this toss-up race, that is exactly what the "paper of record" in New York did.

From The Albany Project:

Yesterday, the New York Times had a story on the 20th congressional district race. The story was entitled, "Ire at Wall St. Bonuses Is Now Factor in House Race."

If you read the piece, which is a two-page story, you would get the feeling that the Times wasn't so high on Democratic candidate Scott Murphy. Even though the title of the article suggests something more broad (like voters being concerned about the bonuses AIG received) it is actually more specific than that. The target was Murphy and how his support of the stimulus package means that he supported the bonuses being handed out to AIG executives.

Recently, Irene Jay Liu of the Albany Times-Union termed this line of attack a "stretch." That's exactly what it is. The stimulus package covers a lot of ground and at $789 billion, there are a lot of things in there. Murphy might not support all of it, but he supports the goal: In order to stimulate the economy, we need to invest in our country.

However, one of the most prominent newspapers in the country didn't consider this a stretch. In fact, they essentially helped Tedisco further this talking point. There are a couple of things about this story that should bother the average reader and media critic alike:

- There isn't a single direct quote from Scott Murphy or his campaign and there are only a few select quotes from the debate on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Tedisco has at least two long quotes in the piece from the debate on Tuesday.

- The author of the piece, David Halbfinger, wrote the piece asserting that the AIG bonus issue is the major story in the race's final days leading up to Tuesday's special election. While AIG bonuses might be something on everyone's mind (they have certainly upset us all), to try and say that Murphy's support of the stimulus package means he supports the AIG bonuses is absurd. As others have said in recent days, it is a stretch.

- There is only one passing mention (that you could easily miss if you read the article fast enough) to Tedisco's refusal to take a position on the stimulus package. That is not a stretch, yet the article seems to downplay its significance.

- And here's the important one: There is not one mention of Tedisco's financial disclosure, which includes AIG under the "assets and unearned income" section. That asset is worth between $1 and $15,000, but apparently it wasn't worth inserting into a story about, well, AIG and its impact on the 20th district race.

I apologize for quoting so much from Robert Harding at TAP, but he covers this episode of journalistic misconduct perfectly. Calling out the NY Times for this is important and the more so, the better. With less than 55 hours to go in the race, time is at a minimum and voters should be informed by newspapers with the facts, not a pro-Tedisco/anti-Murphy bias. As Robert said in his post, and I'll say in my affirmation of it, that the progressive blogs can tout Murphy and point out the failings of Tedisco in any way we want (as long as it is truthful of course). The Times though is and should be held to a different standard....they should try living up to it.

Does The NY Times Think "Gay" Is A Beeping Word?

Censorship is generally never a good thing, unless you have some sort of family broadcast and a host inexplicably starts cursing and doing all sorts of inappropriate things. That is besides the point though. "Beep," "beep" and "beep" are good substitutes for "F**k," "s**t" and "a**." But the New York Times has added another beeping word to their mobile service that is either ridiculously careless or just plain stupid, homophobic and ignorant.

From Towleroad:

A bad word?

Text message someone an article with the word "gay" in the title from the New York Times' mobile website, and they may be a bit confused as to what you're sending them.

That's because the service replaces every instance of "gay" in a headline with the word "beep".

My friend Al sent a message to me on New Years Eve containing a link to Frank Rich's recent column about Rick Warren, and it arrived with the headline "You're Likable Enough, 'beep' People."

I wonder if Pastor Warren had anything to do with it? And how could the Times allow that to be censored, or was it the spitefulness of someone that works at their mobile server? Either way, someone in charge needs to do something about it or "beeping" heads will roll.

Caroline Kennedy Getting Special Treatment From The NY Times

I know a lot of people here in New York and beyond would like to see Caroline Kennedy take Senator Clinton's soon-to-be-vacated seat. Perhaps because she is the daughter of the legendary JFK, her good works in education or they've been getting personalized phone calls from Uncle Ted. Whatever the reason, the more this drags on, the less I like her as a choice. I don't really keep up with much gossip, but when I heard that Caroline has an alleged extra-friendly relationship with Arthur Sulzberger it made me wonder. And then the evidence of special treatment presented itself soon thereafter.

From Gawker:



See, that stuff just isn't cool. If a paper doesn't mind reporting on these issues for other celebrities and politicians, they especially should air their dirty laundry when the guy involved just so happens to own the newspaper. And when people leave comments on your blog about it, or anything unless it is truly vulgar or offensive, then please, cut the censorship shit.

NY Times Editorial Must Be Bloomberging Themselves

The New York Times may be the paper of record and they certainly have the right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean you can't call them out when the Op-Ed board starts to sound ridiculous. The Times has always been a strong supporter of abolishing term limits and made that clear as they endorsed the idea of allowing Bloomberg to run for a third term at the end of September. Then when it has passed, to come around and cry out for the Mayor to adhere to spending limits is so laughable I almost want to cry. Not tears of joy however but those that lament the erosion of democracy in our city.

From The NY Times:

After two elections in which he campaigned with more than $150 million of his own money, this time he should comply with New York City’s excellent campaign finance system, which would limit the amount he could spend on his third campaign.

Mr. Bloomberg has often argued that by using his own money, he does not owe anybody anything. But that does not stop the billionaire mayor from choosing to support the city’s campaign finance system by abiding by its rules. He could still use his own money — just not as much of it, certainly not the $100 million that some inside City Hall have predicted he could spend next year. Like other candidates in the system, the mayor would be limited to spending $6.1 million for a contested primary and another $6.1 million for the general election.

If the mayor does not respect the limits, he will trigger what is called the Daddy Warbucks provision, which makes the whole election more expensive for everyone. When one candidate spends unlimited private resources, the other candidates no longer have limits on their own campaign spending. And the matching funds, provided by the public, increase substantially as well.

Ever since Mr. Bloomberg began running for mayor in 2001, we have lamented the way he used his oversized checkbook to get his message across. Back then, at least, he was an unknown. Some of the $75 million that Mr. Bloomberg spent in 2001 helped him introduce himself to most New Yorkers.

After two terms, Mr. Bloomberg is an established political name, not only in New York City but in most of the country. He is an incumbent, which gives him a head start since he will be heavily covered by news organizations. But most fundamentally, because his main argument is that he is giving voters more choice by running once more, that choice should be as fair as possible.

And that last sentence is at the essence of this whole debacle. Bloomberg does not believe in playing fair."Fair" is only what suits his goals for the moment. If it sounds like giving him a chance to run again for a third term gives New Yorkers more choice, so be it. It is "fair" for him to spend a bajillion dollars when his competition must grovel and scream from the tops of skyscrapers in order to raise a tenth of what he is about to spend. And it is "fair" to arm-twist and cajole certain members of the City Council to vote for 845A so that he gets what he wants.

No, dear opinionists of the Times, there is no such thing as fair when Michael Bloomberg enters the equation. Abolishing term limits is fair for all of us in theory, but the reality and brutality of New York City politics is a far cry from the classrooms that teach Political Science 101. This diary on DailyKos explains what really went down here in Gotham over the last few months, culminating in the atrocious behavior of a self-interested City Council's vote and last week's signing of the bill by Bloomberg. He could have put this to a vote for the people to decide months ago, but that simply would not have been "fair."

NYT Rails On Board Of Elections And Bloomberg, Where Were They Two Weeks Ago?

Yesterday's opinion section had a great rant on the Board of Elections and Bloomberg's hypocritical nature when it comes to helping to reform the system. It was great to see an article that address the fact that we have voting problems of our own right here in New York City and that there are issues that need to be addressed in order to fix the antiquated system.

From The NY Times:

Elections in New York City are managed by an arcane and secretive body — the New York City Board of Elections — that, in turn, is controlled by party leaders in the city’s five boroughs. Over the years, they have turned it into a nest of good old-fashioned patronage that Boss Tweed and the boys down at Tammany Hall would have admired.

Because of late mailings to voters, thousands of absentee ballots might not be received in time to be postmarked by the deadline of Nov. 3. A purge of more than 30,000 voters has raised questions about how many people were mistakenly dropped from the city’s official lists.

And when the elections offices were deluged with new registrations — 200,000 in the last two weeks before the registration deadline — they apparently had difficulty coping.

As a result, many new voters might not find their names on the rolls. Some may be on supplementary lists, but others could be required to vote on provisional ballots, never an ideal way to cast a ballot.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who often rails about the secretive nature of city’s elections board, also made things worse in the short term. He cut city funds to the board and failed to spring for extra temporary employees to help with the expected crowds. Mr. Bloomberg is right that the city needs a better elections operation, but the mayor should have passed along enough emergency funds to help voters on Election Day.

The Times wants to hold the Elections Board accountable and rightly so. However, I have to wonder if this is just a way for them to get back some credibility after pushing for Bloomberg's end run around democracy with the whole term limits debacle. Yes, I am aware that the Times has always been against term limits, but the way the Mayor and Council went about changing the law was anything but ethical and the paper's approval of it was just flat out wrong.

The Times editorial from yesterday just adds to the fact that Mayor Bloomberg does not care about the voters of this city. Whether it be by making it easier to vote in this election with thousands upon thousands of new voters or by following the process with a referendum on term limits, New Yorkers deserve that and more yet we have a Mayor that wants anything but.

A Nation Of Whiners Within The McCain Campaign

"Whining" has been an interesting word in this campaign season, especially when Phil Gramm said that we are a "Nation of whiners" and that times aren't as tough as they feel (probably because he's super-wealthy from working at UBS). He tried to tell people to suck it up, but that is exactly the message that the McCain campaign and specifically Steve Schmidt needs to hear. He whined that the NY Times was going after them and no one else, citing stories about Obama during a conference call that had no basis in fact.

Well the Times took on Gramm's role and told him to grow up:

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, responded in a statement: “The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It’s our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisers. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it’s what our readers expect and deserve.”

I wish that Keller and the rest of the NY Times did more of this journalism thing. It would be amazing if they really covered what was going on in New York, the nation and the world if they and the rest of the traditional media would stop trying to give "balance" to politicos that have no qualm about lying to our faces.

NY Times Editorial Endorses Paul Newell

The paper of record here in Manhattan came out this morning with their endorsements for the upcoming primary on September 9th. The editors that wrote this are looking for change in Albany as much as people across the country want it in the White House. At least here in the city, they have a few picks as to who should stay and who should replace the inhibitors of change up in our state capitol. One of the picks is not Shelly Silver.

It's Paul Newell:

The most important of these races is in Lower Manhattan, where Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, one of the most powerful people in the state, is facing his first real challenge in decades. It is still an uphill fight for any opponent, but the race has already made one difference. It has brought the ever-secretive Mr. Silver out to meet voters and campaign for his job.

Of the two challengers, Paul Newell, a community activist with deep roots in the Lower East Side, has the stronger credentials. Luke Henry, an attorney who moved into the district more recently, is working hard. Mr. Newell has done a better job of identifying Mr. Silver’s weaknesses: mainly, his devotion to closed-door politics, including his refusal to disclose details about his outside income. Mr. Newell is also pledging to support congestion pricing and to press for a nonpartisan redistricting commission, which is essential for real change. In the 64th Assembly District, we endorse Paul Newell.

Now since I wasn't in the editorial board meeting when and if all three candidates sat down for discussions I don't know the entirety of their criteria. I am for change, so that automatically rules out Sheldon Silver, but between the challengers I have been torn. Both want to reform Albany, both care about their community and not the developers that want to demolish it and both would make excellent Assemblymen.

Of course the Times' endorsement carries more weight than mine, but I am still holding off for the moment. September 9th is still a couple weeks away. Though as long as change in Albany is what wins, then I'll be satisfied.

NY Times Uncovers Massive Propaganda Effort By The Pentagon

Why am I not surprised?

The Death Of The Elephant As We Know It

Editor and Publisher is reporting that the Sunday Magazine in the New York Times is going to address an important political issue. Is time up for the Republican party? This isn't a piece that Republicans can whine about to their conservative or neo-conservative friends. The article examines the 2006 election and takes insights from influential Republicans such as Ken Mehlman and Rich Bond, former chairman and consultant respectively. Basically, it doesn't look pretty for the GOP.

From Editor and Publisher:

“Karl Rove had a plan to realign American politics for generations. Now GOP leaders are struggling to prevent another 1964,” reads the rest of the cover tag. The article was penned by Benjamin Wallace-Wells, who also writes for Rolling Stone. Ken Mehlman, the former party chairman, says in the massive piece, “What is concerning is that we lost ground in every one of the highest -growth demographics” in 2006. “If there are Republicans out there who think that 2006 was a year that could be changed by a few votes in a few districts,” he adds, “they need to wake up.” Much of the article examines the plight of Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who is in charge of turning around the GOP’s fortunes. But the article notes, “In their intimacy with the numbers, many Republican operatives now worry that crucial segments of the electorate are slipping away from them." For example, “Republicans had traditionally won the votes of independents; in 2006, they lost them by 18 percent….Suburban voters, long a Republican constituency, favored Democrats in 2006 for the first time since 1992.” Says longtime GOP candidate/consultant Rich Bond: "Tom was dealt an almost unwinnable hand." Many more Republicans than Democrats are stepping down this year, making it almost impossible for the GOP to make gains, the article relates. The influential Cook Political Report offers an even worse assessment, projecting that 12 of the 14 seats most likely to change hands now belong to Republicans. But Cole sees fully 75 seats in play and feels John McCain at top of ticket will help in many. “Cole’s strategy is not complicated,” Wallace-Wells observers, “but it does contain an essential difficulty: at a moment when Washington is deeply unpopular, he wants his candidates to run as insurgents, but voters still identify Republcians with that they don’t like about Washington.”

And that is what the primary problem is for the GOP. They held power in Washington exclusively from 2000- 2006 and the Congress going back to 1994. In that short time they became more corrupt than any Congress in a long, long time. Their ideology sounded good to many independents in theory fifteen years ago, but now seeing it in practice has shown the fallacy of neo-con thought.

Cole may have a simple strategy, but that will translate into a simple outcome, the further destruction of the Republican party, not only in Washington, but in many states and regions across the country.

NY Times Begins To Shut The Door On Clinton's Campaign

In about two months give or take, the New York Times has gone from endorsing Hillary Clinton for President to dismissing her and showing us the end of her campaign. Of course we heard that it wasn't all pro-Hillary in the editorial room, but now the paper is predicting end times for Clinton '08. I wonder if they don't matter to Senator Clinton now as well?

From The NY Times:

For Mrs. Clinton, all this has seemed something of a long shot since her defeats in February. But that shot seems to have grown a little longer.

Despite Mrs. Clinton’s last-minute trip to Michigan on Wednesday, Democrats there signaled that they are unlikely to hold a new primary. That apparently dashed Mrs. Clinton’s hopes of a new showdown in a state she feels she could win, and it left the state’s delegates in limbo.

The inaction in Michigan followed a similar collapse of her effort to seek another matchup with Mr. Obama in Florida, where, as in Michigan, she won an earlier primary held in violation of party rules.

Without new votes in Florida and Michigan, it will be that much more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to achieve a majority in the total popular vote in the primary season, narrow Mr. Obama’s lead among pledged delegates or build a new wave of momentum.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had hoped that the uproar over inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s longtime pastor that has rocked his campaign for a week might lead voters and superdelegates to question whether they really know enough about Mr. Obama to back him. Although it is still early to judge his success, the speech Mr. Obama delivered on race in Philadelphia to address the controversy was well received and praised even by some Clinton supporters.

Yeah, its over. When will the Senator from New York understand this?

Why The Times Endorsed Clinton Over Obama

Right before the South Carolina primary, with the New York primary not too far off, the New York Times went ahead and endorsed Hillary Clinton. They also gushed over Obama quite profusely. It was an odd editorial piece to say the least. Now sources are revealing that there was more to it, that a Clinton supporter by the name of Steven Rattner had cajoled his friend and NYT Chairman Arthur Sulzberger. This heaping serving of drama came out in the NY Magazine a month ago. Though today there's more.

From The New Republic:

According to Times sources, the paper almost didn't back Clinton. The divisions within the Gray Lady's editorial board mirrored the deep divide that has split Democrats in this tightly contested campaign. The 20-member board had initially leaned toward Obama, Times sources say. But in January, after the board had debated the endorsement in two separate sessions, Times chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. decided to favor Clinton. Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, declining to comment on the internal debate, acknowledged that the vote was a difficult one. "It was a really hard one, no question about it," Rosenthal told me. "We talked about this within our board for hours. It was a very lively, interesting discussion. Several members of the board said it was the best discussion they've had."

Hmmm, is that all Mr. Rosenthal?

Clinton visited the Times on January 14 for her only meeting with the editorial board, after rescheduling her visit several times. Following Clinton's meeting, the editorial board debated the endorsement in two heated sessions, before Sulzberger tipped the scales in her favor. Some have noted that one source of Sulzberger's support for Clinton might be his close friendship with Steve Rattner, the former Times reporter-turned-private equity financier who is a prominent Clinton donor (and Sulzberger's gym buddy). Through a spokesperson, Sulzberger said, "Our endorsements represent the best thinking of the editorial board and we do not comment on them beyond what we say to our readers."

So that would be a "no comment" I presume. Skipping ahead to the present time, people at the Times like Rosenthal continue to write glowing articles about Obama and any pro-Clinton force within the paper has been subdued with her string of defeats. Well good for Mr. Rosenthal, but all of this begs a serious question....why do these papers endorse candidates at all?

The form answer is that way back when papers were meant to inform by means of an obvious and apparent biased contributor(s). Some newspapers still carry their old "Republican" and "Democrat" names. Though for the most part, many do not. Many papers are, or are supposed to have an above-it-all aura that paints a picture of the news fairly and informs their readers based on what is news, not what is good for one candidate or the other. So when you hear about political influence based on friends of the paper's head honcho and who they support, it makes you less trusting of the paper in question and frankly, all newspapers.

I'd love to see our nation's newspapers get their credibility back....maybe they'd like to start in this area first. Though personally, I doubt they'll pass a chance to toot their political horns.

NY Times Endorses Hillary...And Dislikes McCain The Least

In today's copy of the New York Times, the editorial board has made their decision on who they will endorse for the primary. Our state goes to vote in a week and a half from now, but the national paper of record's choices reverberate farther than just the five boroughs. Everyone notices who they endorse, whether they're fans of the newspaper or not. Well the decision is in and it seems to be Hillary, then Obama and finally McCain in a half-hearted way.

From The NY Times:

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

They love Edwards but aren't sure about how he has changed certain positions over the last few years. For Obama, they love him but seem to say he needs to work on his ideas to back up that exuberant hope. He's great news to them, but not ready for primetime against the Republican machine. Speaking of Republicans....

We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

Ouch, that has to be one of the worst 'endorsements' ever. It is easy to see who the Times will go with in the general, but before you go, you must read their critiques of the hometown boy Giuliani. New Yorkers know him well and while Rudy can bash the Times in the debate last night, those pesky little things called facts get in the way when making a case that the Times has some sort of agenda. The only agenda for Rudy has been for a ruthless and power-hungry executive to go out and gain more power....and he'll do step on anyone's face to do it....and jump up and down on you just to satisfy that massive ego and protect his ultra-thin skin.

Oh and their opinions on the other candidates in the GOP field are just as nasty...all rooted in truth of course.

This Is The Guy The NYT Hired

You call this a serious writer/person?

For Every Positive Kristol Story, There Will Be An Equal Negative Reaction

Sometimes the laws of physics can be a real pain in the ass. Though for some reason I thought they might not apply to people like Bill Kristol. Maybe it was because he supports people that do not believe in science, but as we know, science trumps all. So when Time Magazine made the smart decision to release William "The Bloody" from his contract and his ability to reach out to their readers, it made a progressive like me smile. Unfortunately, the supposed "heart" of the liberal media, the New York Times is determined to let his idiocy rein free on their own print and online space.

From The Huffington Post:

The Huffington Post has learned that, in a move bound to create controversy, the New York Times is set to announce that Bill Kristol will become a weekly columnist in 2008. Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative who recently departed Time magazine in what was reported as a "mutual" decision, has close ties to the White House and is a well-known proponent of the war in Iraq. Kristol also is a regular contributor to Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume.

Maybe they just want to sell more newspapers with what seems like the "Glenn Beck" model. Well, it is their loss (not to mention the readership) and Kristol's gain, allowing him to spew his ridiculous banter on the pages of the national "paper of record." Maybe the Times is tired of that role, so then putting Kristol in as a columnist will set them up to lose the title.

NY Times Strikes A Raw Nerve In The White House

When the powers that be get angry at something one does, you know you are on the right path. Well the New York Times is definitely on a speedy track to finding out the Bush Administration's role in the destruction of the 'torture tapes' the CIA made as they waterboarded terrorists in their custody.

Dana Perino blasted the newspaper for printing a story that showed the Administration was more involved in the destruction of the tapes than they let on. The White House at least wants the sub-heading changed, from "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said" to.....well, probably something that reads like "What tapes?" or "Bush saves cat from tree!"

From Yahoo News:

The Times cited "conflicting accounts" as to whether any of the lawyers supported destroying the tapes, but cited one former top intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter as saying that "there had been 'vigorous sentiment' among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes."

Other officials told the Times that no-one at the White House called for destroying the tapes -- but that no White House lawyer ordered that they be preserved or warned that destroying them might be illegal.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino angrily denounced the Times's sub-headline -- "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said" -- in a highly unusual written statement that demanded a formal correction.

"The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story," she said.

Perino said that the White House has simply refused to comment on the matter beyond saying that US President George W. Bush did not recall being aware of the videos or the decision to destroy them prior to being briefed recently.

Well of course we are going to get a "no comment" out of them now, we wouldn't want poor Dana to perjure herself or anything. Not that anyone in the White House would commit a crime like that.

Unfortunately for the Times and journalism as a whole, the Times submitted to their pressure and caved in, changing the heading.

NY Times, Meet Senator Dodd

Maybe the writers at the paper of record do not know the Senator that can be reached via the Metro-North. Since Chris Dodd is in Washington and on the campaign trail to run for President, he is a hard man to reach. The journalists at the Times might want to know that this Senator from Connecticut has been busy in the Senate, leading a two man show that will stop the Congress from giving telco companies retroactive immunity from their crimes against the Constitution.

Corrente Wire has more:

Dodd, alone among the Democrats, stands up to a Bipartisan juggernaut to grant the telcos retroactive immunity for massive lawbreaking—a story the Times itself broke—by saying he’ll put a hold on the bill. Reid, the Senate [cough] leader, says he’ll ignore the hold. Dodd raises the ante, says he’ll [gasp] filibuster. Biden joins in. Hillary and Obama waver on the sidelines.

We’ve got the Jimmy Stewart figure, standing alone against great odds. We’ve got dissension in the Democratic caucus. We’ve got craven politicians. We’ve got bags of corporate cash.

In short, we’ve got a rich, compelling narrative, filled with drama, human failings, and high principle.

And if all that’s not enough, Dodd’s from the Time’s circulation catchment: Connecticut. What, the locals aren’t interested in their Senator?

The locals are indeed interested in this extraordinary story that exhibits the courage and leadership that is a part of Presidential candidate Christopher Dodd. Being one state and one express train over from his state, I would love to read about what Dodd is doing in the Senate. Of course like a lot of my news, I need to read it from other blogs such as this one in order to get the news.

Earth to the NY Times, get on the boat people!

NY Times Now 100% Free!

It feels like forever since the New York Times pulled the ridiculous stunt of charging internet users to read their columnists. For so long now, I've had to use a set of tricks to read Krugman, Dowd and the others to get past the fees the Times wanted to charge all of us. Well that era of dumbassery (yes that is my word) is now over, the Times has finally submitted.

Now I don't have to tell you how I was able to read TimesSelect for free, because we can all do it via their website. That means the Times will enable themselves to keep web users longer, viewing more pages and....you guessed it, able to generate more online ad revenue. Genius isn't it?

Why they ever thought that would work confuses the mind to no end. Sure, I'll pay for somethings on the internet, like my groceries, Netflix, random EBay crap and an occasional contribution to worthy causes. Though I have not and obviously will never pay to read the Times (online that is). It is still the paper of record in our country and I thoroughly enjoy it (plus the CityRoom is an awesome resource).

Now make sure you don't try and charge us again, and we're all good.

Judith Miller Shows Her True Colors

Not that this news is too shocking for people that paid attention to the whole Valerie Plame mess but it confirms a lot about the "reporter" we all came to abhor. She of course was the *cough* journalist *cough* that was used by used information from Scooter Libby to write on the Plame saga, allowing the Bush Administration to leak information on a covert CIA agent. When she denied the justice system pertinent information on the episode, they threw her in jail for 85 days. Well now the conservative demigods have bestowed a nice cushy job for their useful tool of a woman.

From New York Magazine:

Judith Miller, the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times correspondent that pushed all the Bush administration spin about the (so-far non-existent) existence of WMD in Iraq, has finally come home. She's taken a job with the friends of "greater economic choice and individual responsibility" at the Manhattan Institute. She’s written for their City Journal quarterly before, so look for more stories from her on the cop beat. “The Manhattan Institute is doing pioneering work in policing and counter-terrorism,” Miller said in a release today. “As an adjunct fellow, I hope to continue writing about how best to enhance national security and public safety without sacrificing our freedom and civil liberties.” Or sacrificing her journo ethics — Neo-Con propaganda goes down much better when it's properly labeled. —Geoffrey Gray

I agree with Gray, she is definitely in the right place for the crap that she writes. Working at the New York Times helped bring down their journalistic status a few notches. At the Manhattan Institute the acquisition of Judy will keep them at the same spot in the cesspool of neo-con thought.

The Stirrings Of The Fourth Estate

For many years now journalism as we knew it has been falling apart. The media was meant to put a check on the abuses of power by the government. Now the norm is for 'journalists' to write government talking points verbatim without care or question. If you are going to all the ritzy parties and hob nobbing with important officials, why would you want to offend them in your articles?

The ultimate party has been the White House Correspondents Dinner. Nearly everyone in D.C. gets together to drink, laugh and network. Stephen Colbert sobered them up a bit with his scathing satirical humor last year. This time around they didn't want reality so up close and personal so they had Rich Little (who bombed) entertain the guests. A few days later, the New York Times had a revelation that maybe this whole thing about government/media bonding wasn't such a good thing.

So they pulled out of going from now on:

NEW YORK Tucked inside Frank Rich's Sunday column in the New York Times is indication that the newspaper will no longer play ball with the annual White House Correspondents Association dinners in Washington, which he calls "a crystallization of the press's failures in the post-9/11 era." He writes that the event "illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media in its shows....

"After last weekend's correspondents' dinner, The Times decided to end its participation in such events," wrote Rich. "But even were the dinner to vanish altogether, it remains but a yearly televised snapshot of the overall syndrome. The current White House, weakened as it is, can still establish story lines as fake as 'Mission Accomplished' and get a free pass."

Rich mixed this criticism of the press in with regret over the death of David Halberstam this week, who Rich said it would be hard to imagine "yukking it up with Alberto Gonzales, Paul Wolfowitz and two discarded 'American Idol' contestants" at the dinner. "It's our country's bitter fortune that while David Halberstam is gone, too many Joe Alsops still hold sway," writes Rich, comparing the Pulitzer-winner to the now-forgotten Vietnam War cheerleading columnist.

Glad to see Frank Rich got it. It isn't just about the dinner, the problem goes on for 365 days a year (plus one next year). The Times made a good step forward, but only time will tell if their reporting will become more objective in the coming days, weeks and months. Hiding massive stories before an election because the President asked you to isn't exactly good journalism. So the Times still has a lot of making up to do.