The Shape of the Race to Come

New York Times:

"And an experienced Democratic operative e-mailed: “Finally, I think [McCain’s] going to win. Obama isn’t growing in stature. Once I thought he could be Jimmy Carter, but now he reminds me more of Michael Dukakis with the flag lapel thing and defending Wright. Plus he doesn’t have a clue how to talk to the middle class. He’s in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in.”

In a close race, that “dash of Harvard disease” could be the difference."

This from William Kristol, a Harvard Ph.D., in a NYT op-ed.

I consider Kristol's column utterly worthless, and the decision to hire him a low point in the history of The Times. I've written several letters to The Times making this point in relation to particular Kristol columns. Unlike William Safire, Kristol's writing is pedestrian at best, he does no real reporting (this column is a joke), and seems utterly incapable of fresh thinking or insight on any issue. I have yet to discover a single redeeming feature. (Safire, the object of a Kissingerian wiretap during his time in the Nixon White House, had the good grace to care about personal privacy of others in subsequent years).

There are, of course, numbers of conservative thinkers and writers doing interesting, well-written, and usefully provocative stuff, who would deserve a place on the rather valuable real estate on the NYT op-ed page and provide a real service to its readership. It is said that the selection of Kristol is due to The Times' publisher, who has been on a rather extended losing streak of late. The publisher can't be fired, but maybe it is time for a nice extended vacation.

And speaking of "Harvard disease", if Obama has "a dash", Kristol is a source of mortal contagion. What a pompous windbag.

That's some writer's block

From New York Times Book Review:

From a review of The Fortune Cookie Chronicles, by Jennifer 8. Lee, on a subject close to my heart:

Intrigued by the Powerball drawing of March 30, 2005, which produced an inordinate quantity of winning lottery tickets because the lucky numbers had turned up in fortune cookies all around the country, Lee rides her obsession on a three-year, 42-state, 23-country journey during which she discovers that fortune cookies, like so much about America’s Chinese restaurants, aren’t really Chinese. They originated in 19th-century Japan and were sold in Japanese confectionery shops in San Francisco until World War II, when Japanese-Americans were interned, at which point Chinese entrepreneurs took over the business. Lee tracks down Donald Lau, who spent a decade writing fortunes for the biggest cookie manufacturer until he suffered writer’s block and had to retire in 1995.

On The NYT McCain Fiasco

Here is a copy of my response to the now notorious NYT piece on John McCain's lobbyist associations. I sent this on the afternoon of Feb.22, before the appearance of NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt's column on the same subject. Hoyt came to rather similar conclusions.

To the Editor:

I continue to struggle to make my mind up on this article. I am inclined to wait to see what new facts emerge before reaching any final judgment. My guess--and my hope--is that The Times knows more than it is yet prepared to publish, and that further facts are yet to emerge to fill in the story. If that is incorrect, my judgment will be more harsh.

I appreciate the detailed examination of Senator McCain's contacts with and responsiveness to lobbyists for the rich and powerful of corporate America, particularly given his powerful role as (former) Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. The new wrinkle, given Senator McCain's self-promoted image as a crusading reformer, is that he is apparently so convinced of his personal rectitude that he is largely oblivious to situations that would raise legitimate concerns if they involved others. That is a recipe for disaster, particularly in a potential President. An article effectively raising and shedding light on this issue is clearly justified.

My concern is with the series of decisions made on how to play the "romantic"/sexual innuendo piece of the story. I think this aspect was peripheral, rather than central, to the main focus of the story. While it did, to some degree, advance the central thesis of the story, it was predictable that attention paid to the sexual angle would overwhelm everything else, as has in fact been the case. This was made significantly more likely by the decision to play this issue at the top of the story, despite the lack of harder documentation and identified sources. In an effort to play it cute--or perhaps to avoid legal attack--The Times highlighted the salacious sexual innuendo, with its predictable impact on the privacy of the individuals concerned, while seeking to avoid responsibility for stating and proving its case. The added news value of the suspected romantic relationship seems to me insufficient to justify playing this aspect at the top of the piece, as opposed to leaving it out altogether or running it much deeper in the story, as an illustration of concerns raised by McCain's closeness to lobbyists.

I can imagine a response saying that would amount to burying the lede. But that is precisely my point. If the lede is to be the romantic/sexual allegation, than state your allegation and prove it, using more than anonymous sourcing. If you are unable to do so, and are not able to name your sources or provide more in the way of proof, than this does not belong anywhere near the lede, and perhaps not in the story at all.
Can you explain the news judgment that you feel justifies organizing the story as you did?

Was There Napalm in Fallujah? Part II

New York Times Blog: By Clark Hoyt

The war in Iraq has stirred up such passion that something very valuable is in danger of getting lost – facts. I’m an old-fashioned journalist in the sense that I don’t buy the argument that facts are insignificant in the face of a higher truth. It isn’t true if it isn’t factual.

In the case of Iraq, the anti-war movement has plenty of factual material to work with. I’m astonished that FAIR would feel the need to play so fast and loose with the facts about Fallujah.

FAIR’s response to Hoyt is posted at: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3141

Did The Times Betray Harry Potter Fans?

So maybe this is a cultural phenomenon not to be ignored, and maybe not everyone shares my high opinion of Clark Hoyt, at least when he takes on Harry Potter:
Did New York Times Blog:

“I think it’s important to remember that there was never a contract or an agreement between The Times and Rowling or her publisher.”

That does NOT give you right to be so disrespectful to Jo Rowling or her fans. I would have thought that a paper, like the New York Times, would have been able to use their common sense to realise how big this is; you’re doing nothing but embarrass yourselves. You’re proving that you’re no different from the vermin out there, trying to get their name in the headlines for selling the book early. So many papers look up the New York Times, but you’re just sinking lower and lower when you disrespect Jo Rowling and her fans. Stop trying to be the top at everything; have some compassion and sympathy; have some damn respect and patience.— Posted by Kelsi

*******************

I sent the below email to both the NYT and the Baltimore Sun,

Dear Sir or Madam,

The early publication of Michiko Kakutani’s review of ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’ provides a sad example of the state of American journalism. When a formally respected newspaper like the New York Times stoops to publishing articles that the notoriously uninhibited British press restrain themselves from publishing I can only conclude that the paper is no longer worth reading. I wish that I was a subscriber so that I had the pleasure of canceling my subscription, since I am not I will simply refrain from reading anything published in your online offering.

I hope that an apology is forthcoming to all the children of America and the world.

Serious consideration should be given to the dismissal of Michiko Kakutani, Rick Lyman, and anyone else at the Times that participated in this decision.

Not as Respectfully as before,

NormH

The Times sent me this link.

I consider Mr. Hoyt comments above as yet more evidence that the Times does not get it. In an age when newspapers are struggleing for marketshare against the internet news sources the NYT has managed to alienate a substantial number of online veiwers. The comments by Mr. Hoyt confirm to me my evaluation that the NYT is no longer worth reading. I can not consider it a source of trustworthy news if it can not be trusted with our (and their) children’s dreams. A long, long way from the New York Sun’s “Yes Virginia…”

*****************

What a disappointment to see that the NYT has stooped to the scoff-worthy level of prematurely publishing Katutani’s tasteless review to garner attention ahead of other book reviewers. After reading the review, I was reminded of another NYT article lamenting the early release of movie reviews, as film magazines and newspapers calculatingly publish their articles on Spiderman, Die Hard, and of course - the fifth Harry Potter movie - well in advance of the movies’ release dates. From that July 4th article, “…The News and The Post are blatant examples of the explosion of the old gentlemen’s agreement by which the Hollywood studios screened movies early for critics, and the critics held their reviews until opening day.”

Now, the New York Times should be included along with The Daily News and The Post as not just a blatant but also a singular, shameful example of a newspaper exploding the muggles’ agreement by which we respect both Rowling’s and her readers’ desire to let Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows unfold its mysteries as we read it. NOT as we read some second-rate review by a critic whose Wikipedia entry is only as long as it is due to the stink she’s caused over her most recent appalling contribution to the NYTimes.

I actually took it upon myself to complete the painful task - more painful than Harry’s cheerful task of defeating Voldemort, I’d wager - of reading Katutani’s two other equally bad reviews of the previous Harry Potter books. Is Katutani incapable of writing a thoughtful and incisive book review without a self-indulgent, gleeful rambling of the book’s main plot points? Is she unable to come up with a tasteful and clever way to reveal her own musings on the book without spoiling it for the rest of us? All of her reviews sound like uninspired, elementary school book reports, as she plods her way through “and then this happens”, “and then that happens”, “oh, did i mention? this happens back there too”.

And Mr. Lyman, defending this travesty? Have you not been reading your OWN newspaper’s articles about the hype and secrecy surrounding the series, and how many fans would prefer to keep it a secret until 12:01am, July 21st? This isn’t just any book, this isn’t just any book release – this is the conclusion of ten years of imagination, mystery, and simply put – pure fun! And you’ve had a hand in trying to ruin it.

I also see that both Mr. Lyman and Mr. Hoyt have taken care to emphasize that Katutani’s review was highly positive and “praised the HP series”. Puh-lease! J. K. Rowling – and all of us HP fans – don’t need someone else to praise this book. We certainly don’t need a writer like Katutani to stamp it approved! We know the series, we know Rowling’s work, and we love it all. And because we do, we want to get it straight from the source – this Saturday!

Oh, and lastly – Ms. Katutani, please try reading your old reviews and making your later ones just a little different and, say, original? I am shocked that NYT editors find it acceptable that you mooch off your own old, crappy articles to write your new, crappier articles, but not all of us are fooled. So please take your BA in English and your Pulitzer-Prize money and go buy yourself a thesaurus:

from Katutani’s review of Order of the Phoenix: “This Harry Potter is less Prince Hal than a budding Henry V; less the callow boy in ‘’The Sword in the Stone'’ and more of the young King Arthur.”

from her review of Half-Blood Prince: “It is a novel that pulls together dozens of plot strands from previous volumes, underscoring how cleverly and carefully J. K. Rowling has assembled this giant jigsaw puzzle of an epic.”

from the latest review that has sparked my utter disdain for Katutani and the paper that sponsors her: “…and in this volume he is clearly more Henry V than Prince Hal, more King Arthur than young Wart…” - “…Ms. Rowling has fitted together the jigsaw-puzzle pieces of this long undertaking with Dickensian ingenuity and ardor”

We get it, Katutani! Harry has matured - clearly, your writing hasn’t. J. K. Rowling is a master of plot twists and suspension, a thorough thinker and an excellent writer - clearly, you are neither.

— Posted by interested reader

*********************

Hem, Hem,
Dear Death Eaters at the NY Times:
Your paper and the author of the book review deserve to be sued. Representatives clearly need to be arrested and thrown in Azkaban and tortured into a state worse than death by Dementors. Or better yet, a Cruciatus Curse should be placed upon all of those involved in the publishing of this review until you’ve come to your senses and apologized.
What was the point? Influenced by the Malfoys? Were you sniggering in your offices at the thought of gettting a scoop? You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I agree with P. Mihalick. Apologize. You were wrong. Voldemort must be your new editor.

— Posted by Dolores Umbridge

...and 300+ more, so far, with not many going the opposite way.

When a Competitor Makes Headlines

When a Competitor Makes Headlines - New York Times: By CLARK HOYT

ON June 25, The New York Times began a two-part front-page examination of Rupert Murdoch, the international media baron who is trying to buy Dow Jones and its crown jewel, The Wall Street Journal.

The articles, the result of three weeks of reporting on four continents by five reporters, said that Murdoch and his News Corporation use many tools to further his business interests and build relationships with the politically connected, including book contracts awarded or canceled, and lavish praise for friends and harsh criticism for adversaries in his media outlets.

Gary L. Ginsberg, executive vice president for corporate affairs at the News Corporation, objected strenuously to the articles. He appealed to me to look into whether “the primary motivation for doing such an extensive investigation ... was in the end self-serving and commercial.”...

Ginsberg sent a long list of what he said were factual errors or examples of bias in the first of the two Times articles, which focused primarily on Murdoch’s activities in the United States. I looked into them, and this is a sampling of what I found:...

The Times stories were tough but accurate, no tougher in fact than articles in The Journal and in other newspapers and magazines covering a very big business story.

But Ginsberg’s complaints are another reminder of how difficult it is for a newspaper to cover a competitor, who can always cry foul.

Next week, I’ll look at articles The Times should be writing but hasn’t so far. They’re about itself.

Clark Hoyt's early work as The Times' new Public Editor has impressed me as serious-minded, fair, and focused on important issues rather than trivia. I look forward to this next piece, and more to come.

TimesSelect, R.I.P.?

Slate Magazine: By Mickey Kaus

Will TimesSelect Go Jane? Is the infamous NYT TimesSelect paywall about to disappear? kf hears rumblings that the paper is about to abandon the whole misconceived project in which it has blocked unpaid Web access to its op-ed columnists. ... P.S.: The Times claims fewer than 225,000 customers pay the $49.95 TimesSelect fee, up less than 100,000 from what the paper was claiming in November, 2005. More get the service through their regular subscriptions. Meanwhile, the Times could use the ad revenue that would come from increasing the readership of the columnists (by making them free). And the columnists would like to have the readers. ... All this was quite evident two years ago when Pinch Sulzberger embarked on this folly, of course.

My favorite from the early critiques, also from Kausfiles:

A few days ago I jokingly called for replacing TimesSelect with "TimesDelete," a service that would allow readers to pay to silence their least favorite columnists. D.A.'s email has made me realize how misdirected this proposal was. TimesSelect doesn't need to be replaced by TimesDelete. TimesSelect is TimesDelete! The Times has taken the columnists people are most willing to pay for and removed them from the public discourse on the Web.

I've subscribed to The Times (when available for delivery where I was living) for more than 30 years, so I've had easy, included access to TimesSelect myself. That does not necessarily go for my blog readers, whom I frequently refer to articles available only through TimesSelect.
I kind of like the slogan that news wants to be free, but there is a collective interest in keeping news gathering organizations (the dreaded MSM) vital and economically viable as readers shift to the net. I don't know whether charging for access to columnists is the best answer (the TimesSelect model seems rather counterproductive to the larger public aims of the Times), once the material is already up, and some have argued that its net economic benefits to the Times are minimal. I don't know what the best answer is. I'm not sure anyone does. But please: no pledge weeks.

The Times Names Public Editor

From The New York Times:

The New York Times today named its next public editor, Clark Hoyt, a former Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and editor who oversaw the Knight Ridder newspaper chain’s coverage that questioned the Bush administration’s case for the Iraq war....

In the prelude to the Iraq war and the early days of the war, Knight-Ridder stood apart from most of the mainstream news media in raising doubts at times about the Bush administration’s claims, later discredited, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said that record contributed to his selection of Mr. Hoyt.

“There was a lot of work Knight-Ridder did that was prescient, that wasn’t easy to do,” Mr. Keller said. “It’s always hard to go against conventional wisdom. I think it probably brings him a measure of credibility that helps in getting started on a job like that — that he’s been associated with a brave and aggressive reporting exercise like that.”

Mr. Hoyt said that in 2002 and 2003 he had fielded a great deal of criticism “from angry readers who believed that we weren’t being patriotic, from government officials who said that what we were doing was wrong.”

This sounds like an inspired choice for an interesting position. (And I'm beginning to sound like a tired NYT editorial. Sorry for that.) I am an admirer of the Knight Ridder work in the leadup to the war--good journalists doing their job well, and courageously.

'Most E-Mailed' List Tearing New York Times' Newsroom Apart

From The Onion

Your reputation is everything here at the Times, and if you want get known, you've got to deliver what readers want: differences between men and women, and photos of cats," national political reporter Adam Nagourney said. "I suppose I could be most e-mailed, too, if I sat in front of my computer all day making up cutesy names for government officials, like some redheaded Wednesday and Saturday columnists I know....

I thought my Elizabeth Edwards breast cancer article the other week had a great chance, as it was at the intersection of politics, health, death, and family—and had the word 'breast' in the headline—but it didn't even make the top 10, Nagourney said. "Whatever."

When the Onion hits, it really hits!

Re: Hiding posting on Iraq under comments to law school lounges:

Think of it as a scavenger hunt, where you don't know what you're looking for, or even, necessarily, that you're in the game.

Yes, dear reader(s), I guess I do like playing with myself. Have since adolescence.(Sorry if that embarrassed my kids.)

As I.F. "Izzy" Stone (where is he when we need him?--which is always!) once famously said about the Times (more or less; maybe a reader can fine tune the precise quote): the interesting thing is, you never know where you will find that day's front page story...

Stone is a personal hero; I did get to encounter him once when I was in school. His range extended well beyond the Vietnam War reporting that first brought him to my attention, from a book on his travels with Jewish D.P.s from war torn Europe to Palestine, to his reconsideration of the trial of Socrates (after teaching himself Greek in his later years, if I remember the story correctly).

See comments for a suggestion that Stone was a proto-blogger, and his Weekly the first blog by a citizen-journalist.