Always announce bad news on Friday: As foreshadowed with eerie prescience in kausfiles, Mary Matalin wants to spend more time with her family! ... She spins it to the wall: 1) She'd planned to leave anyway! 2) It's part of the traditional turnover! 3) She was really influential -- (as AP puts it) "a key adviser not only to Cheney but also President Bush ...at the center of most high profile announcements"!... She only left out 4) Bush doesn't like her! ... 1:P.M.
Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals.
When it comes to recent Republican presidential egalitarianism, I still prefer Ronald Reagan's far more difficult appeal for social equality (as opposed to mere legal equality or equality of opportunity):
Whether we come from poverty or wealth... we are all equal in the eyes of God. But as Americans that is not enough--we must be equal in the eyes of each other.
P.S.: Bush had to go spoil it all by saying that "welfare policy will not solve the deepest problems of the spirit." ...P.P.S.: The only downside I can see to Lott relinquishing his leadership post is the revival of "blogger triumphalism" that will follow. Though blogs (e.g. Atrios, Josh Marshall, Tim Noah, Sullivan, and Instapundit) took the lead in blasting Lott -- while the NYT 's Guilty Southern Liberal Howell Raines, hilariously, was asleep at the switch when a real 60's-style civil rights controversy came along -- wouldn't Lott eventually have gotten into big trouble for his remarks even if the Web didn't exist? ... When Raines steps aside, I'll become a triumphalist too. ..Update: John Podhoretz is already boosting the "victory for the blogosphere" meme in what is actually a pretty persuasive column. ....4:10 A.M..
Thursday, December 12, 2002
Still Gaining Acceptance! Columnist Dick Polman joins the Anti-Homeland Resistance with a widely-syndicated column. He quotes philosopher Michael Walzer, who notes another reason the word is un-American:
"America has always been a nation of nationalities, of immigrants who were attracted to our notions about newness. That was the central American ideal. The homeland was the place you left behind. I define homeland as the ancient territorial base of a people. ...
As everyone said after Sept. 11, 'now we've joined the rest of world.' There's a kind of sadness to that."
Polman's column comes at a time when ... well, it comes at a time when nothing much seems to be happening on the anti-Homeland front, actually. [Can we say "pressure is mounting"?--ed How about "some observers say pressure may be mounting"? Best I can do. "White House Remains Silent As Pressure Mounts." I like it--ed] 2:59 A.M.
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
It's All a Dim Memory: But haven't I seen you somewhere before? ... 11:03 P.M.
Overlooked? Here's a passage from the middle of an 11/27 Patrick Tyler NYT piece, describing Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan's defense of his wife's, and his country's, actions regarding the 9/11 terrorists:
The fact is, [Bandar] continued, that the two Saudi terrorists, Nawaq Alhazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, who helped hijack American Flight 77 and crash it into the Pentagon, were on American and Saudi "watch lists." They had been observed meeting with operatives of Al Qaeda in Malaysia, and one had been overheard on wiretaps speaking to Qaeda officials in Afghanistan. [Emphasis added.]
Hmmm... Did we know this before? ... Doesn't Bandar's revelation raise, as they say, as many questions as it answers? Like: 1) How did the Saudis know these guys were potential al Qaeda agents? Did they tell the CIA? The FBI? (The men weren't put on American "watch lists" in time to stop them from coming into the country, remember). 2) More important, how is it that the two terrorists were on Saudi lists, known to the Saudis as Al Qaeda types -- yet according to Newsweek they still managed to get their rent paid (and, allegedly, flight school lessons arranged) by the mysterious Omar al-Bayoumi, whose wife received money (on one bounce) from Bandar's own wife?. ... There are several interesting, and purely speculative possibilities here. One obvious scenario is that al-Bayoumi (who, Newsweek says, seems to have worked for a company with ties to the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation) was somehow supposed to watch over the two men for the Saudi government -- but either screwed up his assignment, or else had al Qaeda sympathies. ...Al-Bayoumi himself initially disappeared, but recently resurfaced in Arab News denying that he could have known the two men were terrorists.. Earlier, he had offered a highly implausible explanation for why he befriended the hijackers, according to Newsweek:
He told investigators that he just happened to be in a restaurant at the Los Angeles airport and overheard the two men talking in Arabic. He introduced himself and offered to help the two newcomers get settled and adjust to life in southern California. It was a chance meeting, he insisted to the skeptical agents. His offer of help was nothing more than the usual charity extended by one Muslim "brother" to another.
Columnist Mark Steyn has great fun mocking this explanation, and also suggests another scenario to explain why checks from Bandar's wife, allegedly written to help needy Saudis, might wind up in the wrong hands:
I doubt very much whether Princess Haifa is deliberately bankrolling al-Qa'eda, but I'm not so sure one could make the same confident claims of those embassy staffers running the begging letters past her
Have I mentioned that all these scenarios are purely speculative? ...P.S.: More speculation: Al Bayoumi left San Diego in July, 2001. In August, the FBI suddenly woke up and began frantically searching for the two terrorists. Why did they suddenly sound the alarm? Information from the Saudis? Did the Americans think that somebody was keeping an eye on the men, and then discover that the somebody wasn't doing that? ... 1:32 P.M.
When the NYT's Katharine Seelye, reporting on the Lousiana runoff, says "the Republicans did their best to suppress the black vote so crucial to Ms. Landrieu's fortunes," some very nasty images come to mind. But all Seelye's talking about is "a last-minute outcropping of anti-Landrieu signs" containing an accurate quote from Louisiana State Senator Cleo Fields ("Mary: If you don't respect us, don't expect us.") ... True, the signs were cynical, in that Fields (who ultimately endorsed Landrieu) was annoyed in part because Landrieu was too close to President Bush and the Republicans. But Fields was also annoyed because Landrieu hadn't endorsed his own candidacy for governor -- a personal grievance the GOP could legitimately remind voters of. ... If this is the form attempts to "suppress" the black vote take, we've come a long way. ... Backfill: WaPo does report on a misleading leaflet (flaunted by the Landrieu campaign) that, if actually distributed by the GOP, was much sleazier than anything Seelye describes. ...1:08 P.M
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
Poor Choice of Words, The Sequel: Trent Lott has apologized:
"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past.'
"Discarded policies of the past"? Alert kf reader S.W. points out that this phrase is alarmingly non-judgmental. Policies can be foolishly "discarded." Was the big problem with segregation that it lost? Why not "shameful," "discredited" -- or just "wrong"? ... Update: Lott's latest apology is better ("I don't accept those policies of the past at all.") but doesn't quite get him off the hook. "Wrong" is, indeed, the word he seems unable to bring himself to utter. Why? Is he afraid of annoying some part of his constituency? ... Lott says he wasn't thinking of segregation, only of Thurmond's support of strong defense and balanced budgets, which is marginally plausible. But he must have known that large portions of his audience would give another, more obvious, meaning to his words. Where is the evidence, in his serial regrets, that he wasn't winking at them, trying to have it both ways? .... 11:18 A.M.
In honor of Trent Lott, here's a good, short $2.95 column (see the fifth search result) by South Carolina lawyer David Bruck on Strom Thurmond's pathetic legacy. Bruck writes:
But what has Thurmond actually accomplished after nearly half a century in the U.S. Senate?
His one enduring achievement, if you want to call it that, is to have led the white South out of the Democratic Party after the Democrats started supporting the civil rights of black Americans. ..
And that's about it. ... In politics, Thurmond's last appearance as a national player was in 1968, when he helped Richard Nixon squelch a last-minute campaign by Ronald Reagan for the presidential nomination. Then he pretty much dropped out of sight, devoting himself to getting re-elected.
There's been no Thurmond-Smith bill, no Jones-Thurmond Act -- just Strom looking after his folks, thanks to a tax-supported constituent-services staff of legendary efficiency.
P.S.: Bruck, surprisingly, accepts that "Thurmond's admirers are probably right when they insist that he never actually harbored racist attitudes." Even back in his Dixiecrat days, Bruck argues, he was mainly just acting to promote Strom....P.P.S.: Maybe Strom should get some points for just standing there rather than doing something in the last few decades of his career -- i.e. for not engaging in misguided liberal projects. On the other hand, as Bruck notes, when puffing journalists boast about how Strom helped some poor constituent collect Medicare benefits, propriety should require that they also note he voted against Medicare. ...Backfill: David Plotz makes the same point ("He has done nothing that can be called an achievement") in a 1997 Slate assessment. ....3:23 A.M.
Paul Krugman says he wasn't an "adviser" to Daniel Drezner's dissertation -- as "outside chair" he "just talked to the actual advisers." ... Er, wasn't that "advice"? ... But it's my fault if I confused anyone or oversimplified when trying (i.e. failing) to concisely describe Krugman's role in layman's terms. Drezner gives the full and accurate story in his initial post. I've corrected my item below. ... I urge readers to take a look at Krugman's post. He's getting a little snippy, no? Drezner's critique was a serious one, made by a not-unsympathetic-to-Krugman source. I only linked to it (see below). Why is that "snidery"? Why lash out at Drezner too? Krugman's post seems like something written by a man at the end of his tether -- which reinforces Drezner's point #1: Churning out a twice-a-week column, Krugman's overextended. ...P.S.: The world is still waiting for Krugman to correct his serious error regarding Bush and the Texas Rangers (which even Krugman-booster Nick Confessore busts him for) in the pages of the N.Y .Times, where the error was made, rather than on his personal Web site. ... 2:34 A.M.
Monday, December 9, 2002
Libertarian Reason magazine's much-rumored new weapon -- a group blog -- appears to be operational this morning, as promised. It already has some juicy tidbits I haven't seen anywhere else. .. 3:26 A.M.
Bush to NYT: Drop Dead! This is too good to be true, but Bush's pick for Treasury Secretary, John W. Snow, appears to be a member of the Augusta National Golf Club. ... The New York Times editorial page will soon be calling for Snow to refuse to stimulate the economy until Augusta National admits women. ...[Thanks to alert kf reader C.M.] 2:52 A.M.
Sunday, December 8, 2002
Daniel Drezner has posted a sophisticated exegesis of Paul Krugman. ...It's not unsympathetic -- Krugman was an adviser (Correction: "outside chair"!) for Drezner's Ph.D. dissertation. ... Drezner's second point is one I've been meaning to make for some time, but he beat me to it. ...Update: [And this second point was?-ed That Krugman is overly and naively "shocked when politicians engage in strategic or opportunistic behavior" -- for example when they fudge budget numbers. (More on this point soon.) ... 8:54 P.M.
Friday, December 6, 2002
Always announce humiliating news on Friday: Howell Raines & Co. have apparently backed down and agreed to publish the two previously-spiked sports columns that dared to question the paper's crusading position on the Augusta National Golf Club controversy. Mnookin has the story in Mnoosweek.. ... Question: Is Raines 1) the sort who will learn a lesson (e.g.: the paper is not an extension of him) or 2) the sort who will get revenge on his in-house critics tomorrow for humbling him today? My guess is 2. ... 3:53 P.M.
Thursday, December 5, 2002
Flood the Zone V -- "Howell's autocratic nature": Gabriel Snyder, who covered the New York media for the New York Observer, sends kf a long email that includes this:
Paul Colford's [Daily News] story ... about Raines killing two sports columnist's dissenting views on Augusta is simply astounding. Not the bit about the columns getting killed, mind you. But the way Raines handled the news. It is yet another episode that absolutely would not have happened if Joe Lelyveld was still running the Times.
(Honestly, I doubt Lelyveld would have spiked columns that went against the paper's current crusade. Not that Lelyveld really had any crusades. But that's all another matter.)
... [U]under Lelyveld, the corporate communications office at the Times was still irrelevant and out of the loop. But, there were always high level editors -- almost never Lelyveld, though -- who would get on the phone to give on the record or anonymous quotes defending the paper. On Colford's story, for instance, there would have been someone who would have told him, "The Times values diversity among our columnist's viewpoints. These stories weren't spiked because they contradicted the editorial page." Or even, if honesty reigned, "Look, the Augusta story is near and dear to Howell's heart, and so he took a look at the columns before they went in the paper, which is, by the way, his right as executive editor at The Times. He didn't think they added anything new to the debate and thought it'd be a waste of space to print them." ...
Howell tried this approach for a few months when he started his job. It was an abysmal failure. ...The signature of how The Times communicates with the world under Raines has been to stonewall. ...
This meta-media criticism matters for a couple reasons: first, I think it explains why Howell is getting so much flak about the Times changing - not necessarily because he's editing the paper badly, because certainly complaints about the Times predate Howell's leadership -- but because it is so one-sided. ... No one is defending Howell, including himself. Second, the critics are wrong about the Times: there is something new, but it isn't Raines shift to the left, willingness to go on crusades, those are all symptomatic of the biggest shift: Howell's autocratic nature and the ways he is turning [the paper] into a one-way, subjective, idiosyncratic reflection of himself.
Flood the Zone IV: Alert kf reader P.M. notices yet another revealing Gerald Boyd sentence, this time from his interview with WaPo's Howie Kurtz:
We're writing about discrimination at one of the nation's most prestigious golf clubs and involving one of the world's most prominent tournaments. It's an important story, economically, socially, politically, gender-wise, racially. I don't know what it means to write too much about it.
Racially? Why "racially"? What does race have to do with it, other than that the preeminent golfer, Tiger Woods, is part-black? The controversy is about sex discrimination. Boyd's list seems to reinforce the theory -- #2, below -- that he thinks Woods has some sort of special obligation to fight the Augusta National Golf Club's single-sex membership policy because he's black. But it also raises another possibility: Maybe the Augusta overcoverage it's Boyd's crusade as much as it is Raines'. Maybe somehow Boyd, as a high-achieving African-American himself, somehow feels a weird ability to call on Woods to join him in a new crusade for equality. I'm not equipped to get to the bottom of this psychoanalysis. But there seems to be something going on there -- something "racially," that is. ...P.S. If it's Boyd's crusade, that increases the likelihood that Raines will duck his own responsibility for the Augusta mess by pinning the blame on his underling. ... 4:03 P.M.
Flood the Zone III: For once, Howie Kurtz is late to a press zeitgeist story. But good Shafer, Jones ("appalling") quotes. ... 3:35 P.M.
Flood the Zone II: Will the New York Times, after righteously calling on CBS to drop the Masters, refuse to itself profit from the tournament by selling Masters-related advertisements? Sneaking Suspicions is on the case. ...[Of course they'll sell ads. They believe in the "strict separation" of business and editorial --ed. Another one of those convenient ethical rules!] ... 3:09 P.M.
Flood the Zone I: Alert kf reader J.L. notices another revealing sentence in that wonderfully awful and defensive Boyd memo, a copy of which was recently requested by the Smithsonian Institution:
"Part of our strict separation between the news and editorial pages entails not attacking each other."
A real "strict separation," J.L. notes, would "require that either side be free to say whatever it likes about the other." .. How convenient that the Times' "strict" ethical rules always somehow work to prevent criticism of the Times itself! But in this case the paper's internal ideology ("Call it journalism") is so strong it unthinkingly perverts the meaning of plain English words:
SEPARATION = SUPPRESSION
It's Orwellian, I tell you! 2:59 P.M.
Backfill: N.Y. Times managing editor Gerald Boyd has made disastrous attempts at damage control before ... 3:17 A.M.
The weirdest and most telling part of NYT managing editor Gerald Boyd's damage-multiplying memo is this passage:
Augusta's restricted membership policies have been legitimate news for decades. With the ascendance of Tiger Woods and the campaign by the National Council of Women's Organizations, the club has become an inescapable story.
What does the "ascendance of Tiger Woods" have to do with making the story of the Augusta National Golf Club's men-only membership policy "inescapable"? Is Woods a woman? Is he the first champion to oppose the same-sex admission policy? .. Two possible rationales suggest themselves: 1) Woods dominates the sport, and opponents of the Augusta club's policy figured that if they could get him to boycott the Masters that would give them leverage they haven't had before; 2) Boyd feels it's somehow obvious that because Woods is part African-American he has an obligation to lead the fight against sex discrimination. ... But reason #1 means that any time a left-wing interest group thinks it might get a big celebrity to go to bat for it the group's cause automatically becomes big news. Bill Gates is really powerful too. If I could somehow get Bill Gates to come out for a universal health care system -- and to promise to sell no more software until Congress agrees --- that would give the idea a big boost. But my wish doesn't make the health care story more "inescapable." ... #2 is the likeliest candidate. But there's something disturbing about putting a special moral obligation on Woods to fight single-sex membership policies simply because he could have been the victim of single-race membership policies. For one thing, that argument assumes what the debate is supposed to be all about -- it assumes that sex is the same as race for membership purposes, so if Woods is against one kind of discrimination he has to be adamantly against the other. Is there a clearer example of how Boyd's -- and the NYT's -- policy position is built into their very definition of "news"? ("Call it journalism.") ... It's also mildly offensive to expect Woods to carry a greater moral burden than anyone else just because he's black. Didn't America end race discrimination so people like Woods could be treated the same as everyone else? (NPR vs. NYT: A Scott Simon NPR commentary makes this point.) ... If Boyd's memo is an example of his idea of "logic," I really want to read the columns he killed because "the logic did not meet our standards." ... 2:06 A.M.
The NYT's idea of damage control: Don't apologize -- slime your writers! ... It's a surefire morale booster! ... "The logic did not meet our standards," says Times managing editor Gerald Boyd of one of the sports columns suppressed by the Times' editors. ... Boyd's idea of logic is to write that "A well-reported, well-reasoned column can come down on any side, with our welcome" -- but then say the column can't quarrel with the Times' editorial position because "[i]ntramural quarreling of that kind is unseemly and self-absorbed." ...Does anyone believe Boyd's explanation, except in the sense that he may think a column that disagrees with the NYT crusade can't be "well-reasoned"? ....[Maybe he's saying you can defend the Augusta National Golf Club's single-sex membership policy without attacking the Times specifically?--ed1) If that were the case it would have been easy to rewrite the spiked Dave Anderson column to avoid mentioning the Times. I've done that myself when writing for the op-ed page, where they also don't let you criticize the Times directly (even when it wouldn't be "intramural"). 2) It's hard to attack Augusta's critics without attacking the Times mainly because nobody but the Times and the National Council of Women's Organizations is making a fuss about Augusta. Correction: I've now spent enough time on Nexis to know that point (2) is not quite right, in that lots of people other than Times editors are inveighing against Augusta. Still, it might seem silly and artificial for a New York sportswriter to avoid mentioning the Times -- its crusade has become such a part of the story. That seems to be Anderson's point.] ...P.S.: I agree with Shafer -- show us the columns! Let us judge if they're so badly reasoned and illogical. That's what the NYT editorial page would (righteously) be calling for if, say, Karl Rove had spiked a critical E.P.A. study. .. Update: Boyd's complete memo is here. It sure is pompous. Andrew Sullivan has a sophisticated exegesis here. ... 12:41 A.M.
Wednesday, December 4, 2002
Clear It With Gail!While kausfiles fiddles, Slate's Jack Shafer has completely taken over kf's traditional ecological niche, feasting on the steady diet of embarrassments thoughtfully provided by Howell Raines' New York Times. 1) First came the front page story portraying House Speaker Dennis Hastert's attempt to rein in the free-spending Appropriations chairmen -- a reform long advocated by sensible liberals and moderates -- as some sort of sinister conservative plot. 2) Then came the news that Raines' deputies, if not Raines himself, squashed two sports section columns because they dared to deviate from the editorial line laid down by the NYT editorial page. "The twin spikes wound the Times sports section grievously," Shafer notes, pointing out that it will be hard for Raines to recruit high-quality columnists if ... how to put it subtly ... their job is to be voices in Howell's Castrati Chorus, apparatchiks obedient to the party line laid down by the paper's editorial page editor, Gail Collins (who does the bidding of ...). ... Shafer generously seems to hold out hope that Raines will recognize his paper's error and correct it. Don't hold your breath! Raines seems more like a proud, competitive sort who will apologize for his mistakes (and give his enemies succor) about the same time that Ann Coulter apologizes for hers, which is to say never. ... Note to Raines: Aren't the in-house dissenters from your campaign against male-only clubs just like those Southern whites who made excuses for segregation? Or actually defended it? Yeah, that's just what they're like! Do you really want a bunch of modern-day Bull Connors running around in the sports section? You wouldn't allow a Supreme Court nominee who disagrees with Brown v. Board of Education, would you? Some opinions are just beyond civilized discourse; they don't need to be represented in the NYT. Isn't it time to purge these deviants once and for all? That'll teach them to go blabbing to the Newsweek and the Daily News! ...[Two Slate items on the Raines spike story. Is it that important?--ed. Flood the zone!] ... Update: Newsweek's Mnookin has more anti-Raines insider grumbling. .. 5:46 P.M.
Monday, December 2, 2002
Another " sophisticated exegesis of a sociological phenomonon" from the NYT! Andrew Sullivan has noticed a highly embarrassing New York Times correction of an Arts section front page piece that (as NEXIS, but not the NYT correction, reveals) was written by TV reporter Bill Carter. The erroneous piece itself has apparently been removed from the Times Web site. (Update: It hasn't been removed. It's here. Thanks, M.R. and V.R.) ... In the piece, Carter described how David E. Kelley, "himself raised Catholic in Boston," wrote an episode of "The Practice" about the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal. Carter's article was headlined,
A Catholic Writer Brings His Anger to 'The Practice'
But it turns out Kelley "was brought up Protestant, not Roman Catholic." Oops! ... This error doesn't vitiate the entire piece (though the piece wasn't much to begin with). It does vitiate the angle the NYT's headline and photo caption writers seized on to sell it. ... P.S.: Why did the Times want Carter's flimsy story, which is really a glorified TV Guide entry, in the first place? Could it have been because the Catholic sex abuse scandals are (according to Newsweek) another Howell Raines crusade -- a crusade during which he's determined to "flood the zone" with Church sex abuse articles, even if that means hyping a single episode of a TV show? ... Just a thought! ... Do Raines' crusades turn out to encourage errors the same way "body counts" encouraged errors in Vietnam? ... 2:17 A.M.
Kerry Mystery Challenge: What is it that makes so many people, myself included, intensely dislike Sen. John Kerry? This is the great mystery surrounding his 2004 presidential campaign. I don't think "aloof and arrogant," the traditional Kerry negatives, are exactly it -- he may be aloof and arrogant, but there are plenty of aloof and arrogant people I don't rule out instantly due to their gross characterological deficiency, which is what I do with Kerry. It's not just his "long record of opportunism," though again that's part of it. ... I say we harness the power of the Web to solve the mystery! A copy of Kerry's undoubtedly riveting book, The New War, to the kf reader (or non-kf reader) who most precisely describes the root of Kerry's loathsomeness. ...(References to descriptions of Kerry by others may also qualify for the prize .) ... My own attempt: I think it starts with the phony furrowed brow. Perpetually furrowed and perpetually phony. It's been furrowed for so long I doubt he could unfurrow it now even if his advisers convinced him that would be a good tack to take! ...Then add the sense that Kerry would never ever take a principled or unpopular stand if losing the argument might actually threaten to derail his precious political career. (He apparently made some anti-affirmative-action noises in 1992 and quickly backed down when the obvious groups complained.) Add in relentless, obvious self-promotion to the point of indignity -- sucking up to Gore while jockeying for the vice-presidential nod in 2000, for example (as described by The New Republic's Ryan Lizza). Plus the way his equally ambitious supporters call him "JFK." It's creepy. The man's an animatronic Lincoln. There's a metal plate in the back of his head -- under all the glued-on "hair" -- that they open up and stick screwdrivers in when he gets back to his office.... There, that's my best shot. But I'm not sure it's quite there. I know you can do better!. ... P.S.: Here's a small-but-telling example of clumsy self-promotional dissembling: TNR's Michael Crowley reports that Kerry is not an "unreconstructed liberal in the Kennedy tradition" because Kerry "was a strong supporter of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced-budget act ... 'That was heresy back in Massachusetts,' [Kerry] says." Heresy in Massachusetts? Teddy Kennedy himself supported Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. How heretical could it have been? ...P.P.S.: See Talking Points on the press' dislike of Kerry. ...12:53 A.M.
Sunday, December 1, 2002
Does the NYT not publish letters to the editor when they're too effective? (Second item) No wonder there are blogs. ...11:29 P.M.
Raines Staying Silent in Debate on Augusta Crusade, Day 6! Ever since NYT Executive Editor Howell Raines has come under attack for his forced, feverish crusade regarding the Augusta National Golf Club's men-only membership policy, he has been silent on the issue, apparently hoping the complaints of a few Web writers and the New York Observer will be smothered by public indifference! ... But now comes Newsweek's Seth Mnookin, playing catch-up to Slate's Jack Shafer and the Observer's Sridhar Pappu. (Mnookin gives Shafer the required insignificant mention). Mnookin's got internal grumbling from Times staffers, in the form of blind quotes, plus a great closing anecdote. ... He's even got a "comes at a time" paragraph! ... Is Raines "in danger of losing the building," as one staffer tells Mnookin -- the Sulzbergian version of losing the Arab Street? ....The Times has run 32 stories on the Augusta controversy in less than 3 months, Mnookin says. .... The paper appears to be resisting the argument that it should rein in Raines' egomaniacal campaign, instead letting its flack put out the absurd, Fox-like line, "Our coverage judgments are based on news value." ... 5:05 P.M.
Links Drudge Report--80 % true. Close enough! Instapundit--All-powerful hit king. Joshua Marshall--Escapee from American Prospect. Salon--Better click fast! Andrew Sullivan--He asks, he tells. He sells! Washington Monthly--Includes "Tilting at Windmills" Lucianne.com--Stirs the drink. Virginia Postrel--Friend of the future! Peggy Noonan--Gold in every column. Matt Miller--Savvy rad-centrism. WaPo--Waking from post-Bradlee snooze. The Liberal Death Star--Registration required. NY Observer--Read it before the good writers are all hired away. New Republic--Left on welfare, right on warfare! Jim Pinkerton--Quality ideas come from quantity ideas. Tom Tomorrow--Everyone's favorite leftish cartoonists' blog. Ann "Too Far" Coulter--Sometimes it's just far enough. Bull Moose--National Greatness Central. John Ellis--Forget that Florida business! The cuz knows politics, and he has, ah, sources. "The Note"--How the pros start their day. Romenesko's MediaNews--O.K. they actually start it here. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--Money Liberal Central.. Steve Chapman--Ornery-but-lovable libertarian. Rich Galen--Sophisticated GOP insider. Man Without Qualities--Seems to know a lot about white collar crime. Hmmm. Overlawyered.com--Daily horror stories. Eugene Volokh --Smart, packin' prof, and not Instapundit! Eve Tushnet--Queer, Catholic, conservative and not Andrew Sullivan! WSJ's Best of the Web--James Taranto's excellent obsessions. Walter Shapiro--Politics and (don't laugh) neoliberal humor! Eric Alterman -- Always annoying, occasionally right. Joe Conason -- Bush-bashing, free most days. Nonzero--Bob Wright explains it all. [More tk.
Drudge Report--80 % true. Close enough! Instapundit--All-powerful hit king. Joshua Marshall--Escapee from American Prospect. Salon--Better click fast! Andrew Sullivan--He asks, he tells. He sells! Washington Monthly--Includes "Tilting at Windmills" Lucianne.com--Stirs the drink. Virginia Postrel--Friend of the future! Peggy Noonan--Gold in every column. Matt Miller--Savvy rad-centrism. WaPo--Waking from post-Bradlee snooze. The Liberal Death Star--Registration required. NY Observer--Read it before the good writers are all hired away. New Republic--Left on welfare, right on warfare! Jim Pinkerton--Quality ideas come from quantity ideas. Tom Tomorrow--Everyone's favorite leftish cartoonists' blog. Ann "Too Far" Coulter--Sometimes it's just far enough. Bull Moose--National Greatness Central. John Ellis--Forget that Florida business! The cuz knows politics, and he has, ah, sources. "The Note"--How the pros start their day. Romenesko's MediaNews--O.K. they actually start it here. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--Money Liberal Central.. Steve Chapman--Ornery-but-lovable libertarian. Rich Galen--Sophisticated GOP insider. Man Without Qualities--Seems to know a lot about white collar crime. Hmmm. Overlawyered.com--Daily horror stories. Eugene Volokh --Smart, packin' prof, and not Instapundit! Eve Tushnet--Queer, Catholic, conservative and not Andrew Sullivan! WSJ's Best of the Web--James Taranto's excellent obsessions. Walter Shapiro--Politics and (don't laugh) neoliberal humor! Eric Alterman -- Always annoying, occasionally right. Joe Conason -- Bush-bashing, free most days. Nonzero--Bob Wright explains it all. [More tk.