April 6, 2006 - March 29, 2006
Major figures at the New York Times
were refusing to comment today about reports that the onetime "paper of
record" had once again been caught publishing unverified rumors
considered damaging to the Iraqi war effort.
The Mudville Gazette has the full story
Reynolds), including the accurate reporting done by Stars and
Stripes about the insurgent activity that led to the rumor and
feeble, buried corrections subsequently muttered by the Times.
The XOFF News Team tried repeatedly to obtain some explanation for this gross abdication of journalistic standards from NYT managing editors Jill Abramson and John Geddes, deputy managing editor Jonathan Landman, executive editor Bill Keller, and publisher Pinch Sulzberger, but were told the five principals were engaged in an all-day meeting of the editorial board. (Something about a group photograph, we understand.)
According to Times insiders, who would not offer quotes for attribution, mid-level staffers are scratching their heads about the embarrassing error, which is only the latest in a series of such gaffes, including the phony Abu Ghraib photo story, the phony Afghanistan missile story, and others being tracked by TimesWatch.org.
"It's getting to be like the Emperor's New Clothes," complained one anonymous source. "We're all supposed to act like nothing's wrong around here, but the more news the higher-ups see fit to print, the more us reporters feel like our bare asses are being hung out to dry. We're sick of getting laughed at."
The anonymous source's colleague and secret mistress added, "Yeah. The only ones who are getting promoted these days are the ones who dream up even fancier ways of hiding all the corrections in the seventeenth paragraph of some unrelated story. If there'd been this many idiotic mistakes in the old days, you'd have been sure that some heads were going to roll."
Apparently, though, heads won't be rolling anytime soon at the Times, except maybe in fictitious dispatches from Iraq still to come. The explanation for this bizarre slide into unethical incompetence remains a mystery to all but the editorial heads of America's largest tabloid newspaper, and for whatever reason, they have chosen to stand mute.
Every once in a while we can't help recognizing a moment when
someone acute has taken the pulse of the situation we're in in a
concise and correct fashion. It happened today. All his points have
been covered here in the past, but we applaud the starkness of
Ordinarily, we'd say read the whole thing. This time, we'll recommend
something different: just follow the links in this one paragraph.
You probably won't be any happier about it than we are.
THEN read the whole thing.
How many victims do we
have to see before we start taking action on
behalf of public safety? Within just the past week we've had two highly
disturbing incidents. First, there was this:
Then there was this:
Please, let's bear in mind the two victims here:
Now look at the cell phone gear pictured above. It's far worse than an
attractive nuisance. It's begging to be viewed and wielded as a weapon.
They even come in holsters,
for God's sake. How can we possibly expect talented, assertive, and
volatile women of color to resist the urge to draw that thing and fire
it right at whoever dares to earn their wrath? It's impossible.
If we keep on in this reckless way, allowing these sinister instruments to be available on the market in whatever form bigoted capitalist corporations run by white men decide will sell, we could be looking at a slaughter of epic proportions and millions of needless, unjust incarcerations. We don't want to lose the Campbells and McKinneys. We can't afford to lose the Oprahs, Goldbergs, Malveauxs, and Houstons to this new plague of violence.
Don't help a good woman go bad. Write your congressperson today to demand serious cell phone control legislation.
UPDATE. Also, thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link. Us news babes have to stick together.
don't have the whole story yet, but we're going with it anyway, in the
tradition of the 21st century New
York Times and CBS News.
Apparently, the sequel to Basic
Instinct stars Jeff Goldblum (H/T to Michelle Malkin)
as a housefly so in love with Sharon Stone that he's willing to let her
swat him cold-bloodedly to death rather than give up the great sex he
thinks he's having with her.
This doesn't seem right to us. According to the review cited by Malkin:
That may be true, but we wonder where the usually relentless watchdogs
of PETA are to protect defenseless little whatsits against the
predatory evil of Sharon Stone. Don't they know how damaging this might be
to the self esteem of young flies, gnats, and mosquitoes the world over?
We've been mad at Hollywood before, but this time we mean it.
you have to be Hispanic to figure out this kind of logic: You've broken
the law and risked your life to get the hell out of the land of your
birth, but when the country you've sneaked into considers sending you
back home, you rush into the streets in protest -- GET THIS! -- proudly
carrying the flag of the country you'd rather die than live in. Some of
you even carry signs suggesting that the poor failed country you've
escaped from should possess the land you've fled to.
I gotta tell you. To us gringos, this whole shtick is so insanely
stupid that it makes us want to boot you back to Mexico out of sheer
principle. If the U.S. hadn't acquired the southwest from the corrupt
descendants of the Conquistadors, it would be just as destitute and
prospectless as the country you left. And if you succeed in taking it
back by force of numbers, it will revert to a state indistinguishable
from the miserable shanty towns you left behind.
Sound harsh? Too bad. Just because your next door neighbor has the wherewithal to buy a giant Hummer, that doesn't mean you have a right to sneak your large unruly family into the back seat for a free ride, even if your father once owned the driveway the Hummer is parked in. That's exactly the kind of thinking that created the great economic non-miracle of Mexico in the first place.
You're blowing the only opportunity you have for a better life. When you're a guest who wants to continue his visit, insulting and annoying your hosts isn't the right policy. And if you make them mad enough, they will throw you out, no matter how entitled your delusions tell you you are.