E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

New York Times editor blames READERS for dustup over John McCain article
WASHINGTON - The embattled executive editor of the New York Times defended its John McCain story Friday with a novel explanation for the flood of critical e-mails the newspaper received: slow-witted readers.
The truth dawns.
"Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction," Bill Keller wrote in a Times Web site Q&A forum. Readers posted 2,000 comments and sent in 3,700 questions. "I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot," Keller added.

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn't get it. "Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story."
We readers being the stoopid slackers we are, of course ...
That point, he said, was that McCain, "this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances, also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation."
He was a reckless womanizer in his younger days. We knew that already ...
While some press watchers defended the Times, others said the problem wasn't dense readers. "I don't want to fault the journalists," said Columbia University journalism Prof. Todd Gitlin. "But the article as it ran was a mess and not the highest point of journalism."

Gitlin said the story, which ran on Thursday, fell short of establishing that McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman had an improper relationship, or that she won special favors for clients. He suspected the Times actually pulled its punches on the ethics issues for fear of being accused of liberal bias.

Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson defended the part of the article that caused the biggest uproar - the concerns of two unnamed former McCain advisers that the senator was having a romantic relationship with Iseman. "We believed it was vital for the story to accurately reflect the range of concerns shared by our sources," and to not succumb to "possible qualms over 'sexual innuendo,'" Abramson wrote.
I agree. If slow-witted metrosexuals didn't try to read the traitorous fishwrap, capitalist robber-barons would quit advertising their worthless products and dubious services in it. It would quickly run out of filthy lucre to pay its depraved staff of fifth columnists and third-rate fiction writers. Lacking any other motivation, these mendacious hophead "journalists" would drift away to work for Mother Jones or High Times, and the NYT would soon be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-02-23
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=229241