The NYT Buckles
Plus: Kausfiles floods the zone!
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.
Photograph of Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Slate home page from Reuters.