Letters to the Editor
jdmf
Published Letters: 91 Editor's Choice: 11
-
The problems at the Times
[Read the article: Prying open the Times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone looking for some insight into why the NY Times has managed to screw up so royally in the past few years on issues as critical as the Blair fiasco, the Judy Miller fiasco, the coverage-of-the-'04-campaign fiasco (think Jodi Wilgoren's comparison of Kerry to a "caged hamster"), and now the wiretapping fiasco need look no farther than the New Yorker's excellent profile of Arthur Sulzberger last week by Ken Auletta.
What emerges is a portrait of a fairly well-intentioned, unreflective person who is inclined to reach snap decisions and who seems to see the world in black and white. In other words: Sulzberger seems like someone who is likely to stumble from mistake to mistake and not learn much from his blunders.
I have no independent way to confirm Auletta's impressions, but they certainly may explain a lot of the Times' recent maddening gyrations. And they make sense when you consider that Keller (for whom I am not inclined to make excuses) probably must defer to the (apparently flawed) judgment of his publisher.
There is no question that the Times' reputation has taken body blow after body blow over the last few years. And the remaining (relatively) independent media, such as Salon, as well as Times reporters have not been silent about the problems at the paper.
What remains astonishing in all of this is how the Sulzberger family, which owns the Times, can sit back and watch while Arthur apparently damages the paper so thoroughly and consistently.
-
The problem: Impeachment and the war
[Read the article: The war Lieberman didn't want]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem with Joe is that he has shown that when the chips are down, he'll sell his party out every time -- from the impeachment of Clinton to the war. And he cloaks himself in the arrogance of self-righteousness.
I'm sorry. My country has been put through a constitutional crisis over a blow job, has been subjected to a coup d'etat, and now is being forced to endure a war without end based on lies and incompetence (not to speak of torture and the end of civil liberties as we know them) and there is Joe, backing all of it.
With that kind of friend, who needs enemies?
-
Ummm... Relative v. Absolute
[Read the article: For hot sex, try equality]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I'm skeptical of anything that, snag-free, deems Western societies as sexually egalitarian."
Well. yeah. sure. But I suspect that the claim is a relative one, not an absolute one. I'm not sure that there is any problem deeming that, say, Germany or Denmark is more sexually egalitarian than Saudi Arabia.
-
This is so disappointing.
[Read the article: Rove lawyer: My client is not a target]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Darn. Drat and tarnation.
-
Spellcheck?
[Read the article: Colbert: Not just a flop, but "rude" and "a bully" too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More tyops ni her e then yu kan shake a shtick ta.
-
Answer: Why is Bumiller still reporting on the Admin?
[Read the article: Bumiller and Bush: Amigos!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because the Times doesn't acknowledge when its reporters (mind you, this is different for its columnists) have a conflict of interest, until they have dragged themselves through the muck and mire via criminal investigations seasoned with imprisonment for contempt of court. Only after the Times incurrs millions of dollars of legal fees does it (sometimes) acknowledge that there might be a problem.
On a serious note: reporters like Bumiller, who are not only obviously biased, but also willing to hide the news (think Colbert) when it diverges from the propaganda they wish to diseminate, should be fired.
-
Up in arms
[Read the article: The return of Miss Run Amok]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If I were a reporter for the WSJ, I'd be up in arms about Judy writing again about WMD. Afterall, the WSJ shouldn't be stooping to the NYT's lax journalistic standards!
-
Once again...
[Read the article: Front-page news, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well. If I had to guess, I'd say that the NYT's editorial decisions are now being made by... Maureen Dowd. After all, for years Ms. Dowd has had an unhealthy, sexualized obesession with Bill Clinton, as well as a pronounced dislike of his wife's reaction to his affairs. She's been critical of their marriage for over a decade. It was a sham, she implied, week after week in her columns. What couple could have a marriage like the Clintons? Only European leaders, like Mitterand or Kohl, could arrive at such an accomodation. You'd almost think, from Dowd's reactions, that she herself had been spurned by that cad, Clinton.
But perhaps I'm giving Dowd too much credit. Maybe this kind of story is evidence of something rotten at the the NYT's Denmark on Broadway. Could it be evidence of an unbalanced journalistic preferences at the NYT? Let me see. Jodi "the caged hamster" Wilgoren's coverage of Kerry was impeccable. Adam Nagourney's coverage of Bush has been flawless. And Elizabeth "who's Colbert?" Bumiller could never be accused of bias. Of course, there was Judith "the turning aspen" Miller's slight deviation from the standards of ethical and solid journalism. But that was an aberration. (Except for that other guy, Jayson Blair, who just made things up, too.)
No, the Times is in fine shape. Its journalism up to now has been a paragon of integrity and professionalism. So this article must be the result of Dowd pulling the stings. After all, she has been perfecting her persona as the "charm kitten" of the Gray Lady. I can only guess how much perfume-scented influence this Salome of the newsroom used to overwhelm the solid judgment of old Bill Keller and young Mr. Sulzberger to get the Clinton's marriage onto the front burner.
I'll bet she's behind the gratuitously inept redesign of the NYT website, too.
-
Congratulations!
[Read the article: Hurricane Al]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good job, Andrew. It takes a big man to admit he made a mistake.
It takes a slightly smaller man five years, one stolen election, two wars, two hard-right Supreme Court Justices, "legalized" torture, the unitary executive, rampant governmental corruption, environmental catastrophe, and one-party rule to realize he made a mistake. Kudos to you!
-
Come on...
[Read the article: For the Times, another gutter awaits]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who would cover the story of the collapse of the Bush marriage for the NYT? Elizabeth Bumiller? Adam Nagourney? Jodi Wilgoren?
No. The Times is *right*. Only the Clintons' marriage is fair game. Besides, Republican's don't have marital or family problems, anyway. Having taken their wedding vows, all Republican men are strong, moral and true; all Republican women are humble, good mothers, who never stray farther than Church on Wednesday and Sunday; Wedded bliss abounds among Republicans(except for that Cheney girl...)
-
A monent of levity...
[Read the article: Colbert feels the love -- from some confused Tom DeLay supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Priceless.