The New York Sun today runs a delightfully arch commentary on the coverage lavished by the New York Times on the developing scandal with a part time correspondent of the New York Post's Page Si accused of blackmailing super—rich Clinton crony Ron Burkle. The Grey Lady publicly pretends that it is in an entirely different category than its tabloid competitors. And it takes no public notice of the competition provided by the Sun, an upmarket broadsheet of limited circulation. But its behavior with regard to the Post reveals the hollowness of that pretense.
By our count, at least 13 individual reporters have been named as contributing to the Times's coverage. By yesterday the Times had run more than 10,000 words about Page Six. Over the same period, so far as we can tell, the Times ran just two sentences about the genocide in Darfur, a passing reference in the Times's own gossip column. The Times ran but 4,000 words on the Israel election in a four—day period during which the vote took place. The German election last fall rated similar coverage, about 4,000 words over four days. While the Times had 13 reporters chasing a two—day—a—week freelancer for the Post it missed the news reported in yesterday's New York Sun by our Josh Gerstein that a California judge had dismissed Senator Clinton from a lawsuit that had been brought against President Clinton relating to campaign fundraising improprieties. The Times has yet to acknowledge the scandal over the anti—Israel paper coauthored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
The Sun correctly notes that the Post has been drawing blood from the Times. It is getting advertising from upscale retailers like Coach Leather and Macy's, and out—circulates the Times in Manhattan and New york City. As Jack Risko and I wrote earier this year, the Times has milked its metro New York edition for cash in order to finance its national edition and a strong of dubious diversification efforts, many of which have not paid off.
Any comparative tabulation of newspaper scandals between the Times and Post will expose that when it comes to full time employees, and to actual false words printed, the Times has far more to answer for.
Hat tip: Ed Lasky
Thomas Lifson 4 11 06
Share