That old gray lady, she ain't what she used to be

Theodore Dawes
Well shut my mouth and call me preposterous.

It seems like just yesterday I was on American Thinker lecturing one of our less-informed readers that the response to a request to review a newspaper article before it's published "is always and everywhere no."

Maybe I recall it so clearly because it was yesterday.

To add insult to injury, I explained that you don't ask because it makes you look naive and foolish.

Not so with the New York Times, which now allows Obama and Romney representatives to fine-tune their quotes.

I stand by one point in my argument: the practice has mostly been followed for the convenience for the reporter and to help meet deadlines. "Like many aspects of journalistic ethics, this rule tarts up an institutional benefit in the language of high purpose."

But now the New York Times, America's former newspaper of record and today's Democratic Party organ, has turned my world on its head.

Quotes from both the Obama and the Romney camps are now being fine-tuned by the people who said them.

Does anyone doubt this was done to serve the wishes of the Obama campaign? The Times did at least have the presence of mind to extend this extraordinary privilege to the Romney camp.

A quote from the New York Times' own article: "We don't like the practice," said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. "We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder."

Hey, New York Times. Just say no.

What won't the Times do to serve their political, and increasingly tenuous financial, ends?


Well shut my mouth and call me preposterous.

It seems like just yesterday I was on American Thinker lecturing one of our less-informed readers that the response to a request to review a newspaper article before it's published "is always and everywhere no."

Maybe I recall it so clearly because it was yesterday.

To add insult to injury, I explained that you don't ask because it makes you look naive and foolish.

Not so with the New York Times, which now allows Obama and Romney representatives to fine-tune their quotes.

I stand by one point in my argument: the practice has mostly been followed for the convenience for the reporter and to help meet deadlines. "Like many aspects of journalistic ethics, this rule tarts up an institutional benefit in the language of high purpose."

But now the New York Times, America's former newspaper of record and today's Democratic Party organ, has turned my world on its head.

Quotes from both the Obama and the Romney camps are now being fine-tuned by the people who said them.

Does anyone doubt this was done to serve the wishes of the Obama campaign? The Times did at least have the presence of mind to extend this extraordinary privilege to the Romney camp.

A quote from the New York Times' own article: "We don't like the practice," said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. "We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder."

Hey, New York Times. Just say no.

What won't the Times do to serve their political, and increasingly tenuous financial, ends?