Powered by TypePad

« Surging Support (Ongoing) | Main | An Aside On The Beauchamp Bellyflop »

August 07, 2007

Comments

JJ

Studying on how to form a lobbying group to keep Dowd, Rich, Krugman, and Kristof in Times Select...

"Dear Mr. NYT,

I feel their [names above] contributions to public opinion should not be cheapened by allowing anyone to just read their thoughts without paying homage -- in the form of cash, of course. Please keep Times Select up and include in it all your editorial pages!

Sincerely A Big Fan"

Syl

Heh!

clarice

I double your HEH! And raise it to a He Haw.

Jane

AS Don Surber suggests:

World’s IQ to drop


… women and minorities hardest hit

After safely caging the opinions of Enron advisor Paul Krugman and Technicolor-headed Mo Dowd behind a gate that few would pay to enter, the New York Times is about to unleash its opinion columnists upon the Free World again.

anduril

I dunno--I kinda liked having Dowd and Krugman segregated from the real world.

Crunchy Frog

Alas, after two years, the sanctions against the Pinch regime are failing.

Invasion to follow.

Elliott

Jane,

Did you watch any of the debate on Sunday? If so, what did you think?

LindaK

Yesterday marked the official shrinking of the NY Times by 1 1/2 inches. I haven't seen it yet, because I cancelled my subscription to the "Slimes" in 2004. I kept the Sunday delivery because of the crossword puzzle and the TV listings. But six months ago, they stopped printing the TV guide so my rationale for the subscription is pretty thin.

Perhaps not coincidentally, while the Slimes has shrunk, its Murdock-owned competitor, the tabloid-style NY Post, has become NYC's leading daily. This must cause Pinch and his staff of Ivy League lefties at the Slimes no small amount of angina, because the Post, in addition to having really terrific colunmists, is dedicated to the time tested tabloid formula of crime, sex and sports.

Jane

Elliot,

I was in Philly visiting my niece and didn't know it was going on until I missed it. Did you live-blog it?

All I've heard is about Romney and his Obama remarks - which were great.

EH

The NY Post as the leading NYC daily. Right.

Elliott

I didn't see it either. Jim Geraghty had a summary and analysis.

I thought about tape-delay blogging, but by that point there was golf to watch.

Neo

interesting piece on federal “shield-law” legislation.

clarice

Latest from TNR:
"We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own." When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, "We don't go into the details of how we conduct our investigations."
--The Editors

posted 2:12 p.m."

rrk

It's amazing how quickly the TS inmates disappeared from public discourse when the wall went up.

I wince at the prospect of hearing Krugman et al widely quoted again, even if the purpose is to critique.

4jkb4ia

But George Vecsey and Harvey Araton have committed no crime! We must celebrate their freedom!

Jodi

I am glad David Brooks is again available. I always try to tape the News Hour where he appears as a commenter.

As for some of the other op-ed types, I usually read just a few lines and then skip.

JM Hanes

Neo:

It's ironic that the folks who were so quick to condemn Libby for obstructing justice by ostensibly making it impossible for the Special Prosecutor to ferret out the truth, seem to be lining up behind shield laws which will make it legal for reporters to do precisely that -- and, indeed, quite possibly commit national security crimes themselves with impunity.

ATS

Can't we put Charles Krauthammer is some kind "select" lockbox? A few free subs might be given to illegal settlers in the West Bank, Font Page regulars and accolites in the Abramoff sniper school.

JM Hanes

Jane:

"After safely caging the opinions of Enron advisor Paul Krugman and Technicolor-headed Mo Dowd behind a gate that few would pay to enter, the New York Times is about to unleash its opinion columnists upon the Free World again."

Hopefully, they'll find that free wheeling world on the web much changed in their absence. I'm not sure enough to hold my breath though.

[I'm lookin' at you TM! Knowing your weakness for Krugman's weaknesses, I don't suppose there's any hope of you takin' the pledge to forswear further indulgence, is there?]

The prospect of having to watch Krugman's ego being regularly fed again is seriously depressing. Ditto for Frank Rich. Maureen Dowd was always more entertaining than influential in print (her real sway has always been behind the scenes I think) so I don't see her return to public print as problematic. Unfortunately, I don't see much benefit to be had from David Brook's return either; after a good start back in the day, he began to strike me as increasingly unserious somehow.

Rick Ballard

I dunno, I think it's going to be kinda nice watching the Over The Hill Gang That Can't Shoot Straight gallop together in public again. Perhaps they'll be able to achieve as much for The Beast as they did for Magic Hat?

I must say that I'm much more interested in what Rupert has planned for the WSJ than what Pinch's next flub will be. As long as Pinch keeps knocking value out of the NYT, I'll keep cheering for him.

Jane

I'm not gonna watch. I've taken the pledge.

Neo
But what if the calls fall on deaf ears?

"We'll see," Gilliam says. "I haven't thought that far through, yet."

Theory of Causality at work.

I wonder if the NYT staff went through the same process.

sylvia

The editorials are the worst thing about the NYT. (The best are the quirky articles on foreign human interest stories.) How funny that they are now getting that people won't miss them. Although I hardly ever read the NYT online anymore as for some reason, each story takes FOREVER to load, if at all. I wonder why this happens to me or is it just a problem with everyone online.

Poppy

Apparently the Washington Post is about to break a huge story on the New York Times.

Sensitive intelligence sources have told the Washington Post that most of the foriegn New York Times correspondents, reporters and third party stringers are actually working for the CIA. In fact the Schulzberger Family are all in bed with the CIA.
The New York Times attacks the Bush administration as cover for their covert intelligence activities. This deeply held secret is called the Schulzberger Project.

A White House source says that they fear revealing this program could get New York Times employees and their families killed, but they respect the right of the Washington Post to print the article.

The Wapo will report that the adminstration fears the greatest damage Al Queda could do to our intelligence would be to attack New York Times employees, their families and the Schulzberger family in particular.

When the Washington Post asked the NYT for comment on the story, they were outraged how this could possibly be published and put all their lives at risk.
The administrations answer was: 'Now you know how it feels.'

kim

All the cognitive dissonance it gives them fits to print.
================================

kim

All together now, in concert, "Penis".
======================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame