The New York Times criticizes nepotism at Commentary but does not mention Pinch Sulzberger's reign at the Times. Is the newspaper actually trying to destroy its credibility?
Can New York Times journalist Patricia Cohen not recognize the obvious parallels between the putative nepotism that is supposedly responsible for the announcement that John Podhoretz will become the next editor of Commentary (where his father has reigned) and the post of publisher and chairman of the board at the New York Times, a position that her paper's head inherited from his own father (as did his father and grandfather)? All this in a publicly-held corporation with an undemocratic dual-class shareholding structure that insulates the Sulzberger family from pressure to reward merit, and instead follows the logic of sanguinary ties.
The Cohen article tries to indict neo-conservatives for hypocrisy since neo-conservatives believe in a meritocracy. One could point out that the New York Times always stands up for the "little guy" and for the ideals of good corporate governance -- both violated by the dual class stock structure of the New York Times Company and by the family's abuse of the same to carve out a sinecure for Pinch Sulzberger.
John Podhoretz has a long history of journalistic competence: he co-founded the Weekly Standard; has written columns for the New York Post, the Weekly Standard, and other publications. He has given numerous speeches to express his ideals. Commentary is in capable hands, which is more than can be said of the New York Times Company.