Statement Published
At arm’s length, nose held, NYT brings you, “Statement From Iseman’s Lawyers,” shoved back in “Media and Advertising.” The Gray Lady’s disdainful treatment almost makes that Post non-apology for the faux scandal over the chimp thing look gracious.
Not fair! Bill Ayers got to call his NYT anti-media screed “The Real Bill Ayers.” Then again, he and NYT didn’t exactly have an adversarial relationship.*
Iseman’s guy from Washington and Lee University School of Law and the other guy from Allen, Allen, Allen and Allen apparently forgot to negotiate a headline. Something like “The Real Vicki Iseman” or “The real NYT” or, I dunno, ”The Malaise of American Journalism: Why NYT Sucks.” The statement itself is a bit of a wasted opportunity and would have been better with a line or two about how some people are convinced NYT has a romantic relationship with Barack Obama. But the statement looks less like it’s about Vicki Iseman or NYT, and more like it’s about the one lawyer from Washington and Lee University School of Law and the other guy from Allen, Allen, Allen and Allen.
* In fairness, Ayers was shoved back on the op-ed page, and didn’t make NYT’s “Terrorists and Mountebanks,” the special section that caters to the international terrorism and charlatan industry. Usually located on the front page.
Topics: media
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:32 am Comments (1) on Friday, February 20, 2009
One Response to “Statement Published”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Keller wrote:
What the article set out to do, and did, was to establish that Senator McCain — a man whose career was ensnared by scandal and then rebuilt on a reputation for avoiding even the appearance of impropriety — was sometimes careless of that reputation. The story reported that a senator who cast himself as the scourge of lobbyists rode on the private jets of business executives with interests before his committee, and that a senator who disdained the influence of corporate money accepted corporate money to support that very cause.
…
It also reported that while Senator McCain sometimes sided with Ms. Iseman’s clients, he sometimes opposed them.
That last quoted sentence is important. Doesn’t that establish that McCain was, in fact, resistant to corruption?
Regardless, what Keller wrote was total BS. If the Times had just wanted to establish the “reckless” meme, why’d they include a glamour shot of Ms. Iseman in an evening dress? If they didn’t have a file photograph of her in a business suit, why’d they have to publish any picture? The Times’s implication was clear and I guess that Keller needed to get in one more dig at Clark Hoyt, who was surprisingly honest in his criticism of the paper’s hit job.