Earlier today, I did a little post on the New York Times and religion — or rather, the New York Times as religion. I linked to this article, from the Times, on the recent shuffle at that paper: Veteran Timeswoman Jill Abramson will be the editor in charge. She was quoted as saying, “In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”
A reader now writes me to say (in essence), “Hey, what gives? The quotation is not in the article you link to.”
And, lo, he’s right. That’s a tiny bit strange, isn’t it? I mean, Abramson’s words were not exactly scrubbable, or scrub-worthy: Many thousands of people can say just what she did (really). I’m not sure what the etiquette, or protocol, is on these matters. When you send out a picture of yourself in your skivvies, I guess you recall it. But what if you merely say how your family felt about the Times?
Gosh, I guess Ms. Abramson never heard of the Times's complicity in the murder of millions of Ukrainians at the hands of Josef Stalin. Their man on the scene, Walter Duranty, was sending home copy saying, "Things are just GREAT here!" and the Times published it, while old Joe was systematically starving out millions of Ukrainians in what is now called The Holodomor.
Absolute truth my pasty white backside.
More recently the Times rapidly promoted Jason Blair with little editorial oversight on what turned out to be plagerized content.
The New York Times needs a house cleaning if it wants people to have any faith in its reportage. It doesn't appear that Abramson is the person for the job. Her pathetic crush on the Times is indicative of the problem, not anything like a solution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Ukrainian Government asked that the Pulitzer Prize awarded to Walter Duranty be given back, the New York Times refused and to this day is proud to have the Duranty Pulitzer in its showcase. Takes more than 10 million starved to death Ukrainians to get a Pulitzer back from the Times. Its now thought by many that Duranty worked for the NKGB and Stalin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess that comment (which I distinctly remember seeing too) was a little too "behind the curtain" to let us rubes see. Then again, when I saw it I just considered the source and shrugged it off. See, that mask slipped a long time ago; scrubbing one illustrative quote at this late date is like a notorious 70-something botox diva pretending to be an ingenue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Ms. Abramson believes the NYT is synonymous with truth, then she must have been living on another planet during the MoveOn.org controversy a few years ago. Her beloved NYT initially denied giving the left-wing organization a special rate to run the “General Betray Us” ad, but was ultimately forced to admit that it did just that.
The NYT’s “special consideration” for MoveOn.org made it possible for anti-war lefties to have their full page attack ad appear in the newspaper on the same day the General was scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill about the progress of the Iraq War. The paper's adamant denial that the Democrat-friendly organization received any preferential treatment proved to be false.
Apparently, it didn’t occur to anyone at the truthful NYT that MoveOn.org’s ad was damaging to our troops on the ground in Iraq, the war effort and our country's reputation, as it accused the General of being a liar, a strategy Democrats picked up on during the hearing. Who could forget Hillary Clinton’s “willing suspension of disbelief” insult?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe-writing history (in this case, a quote) was something that the Soviets were really good at -- as exemplified by the Soviet Encyclopedia. Subscribers would receive replacement pages for articles that became politically incorrect, thus revising history.
The New York Times is failing financially -- in part -- because it's untrustworthy. People have figured out that they really don't have to pay to be lied to.
But of course, the new editor will continue the policy of her predecessor. Grey Lady is most definitely down!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWillP: the term is "disappeared", as in "the quote has been disappeared." They used to do that in the Soviet Union, a place I'm sure held as warm a place in the Abramson family home as the NY Times did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt Ann Althouse's blog yesterday, they were richly mocking her quote; I guess the Times got wind of it and simply disappeared the quote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wasn't surprised at the Abramson quote. I once boarded a plane and saw an acquaintance, headed to the same conference I was attending but sitting in first class, being asked by a flight attendant whether she'd prefer a copy of the New York Times or a copy of the Wall Street Journal. My acquaintance responded: "The Times, of course! The Wall Street Journal...hmmmph! that would be against my religion!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHA HA HA HA!
Uncle Google remembers things!
Cached Version- External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse