Posted on 10/11/2004 12:14:16 PM PDT by Davis
Yesterday, Dan Okrent, "public editor " of the NYTimes—the Times is constitutionally unable to use the familiar Swedish import, "ombudsman"—asked: Is The Times systematically biased toward either candidate? and immediately answered, "No."
You were expecting, maybe, he would be biting the hand that feeds him, nibbling Prince Sulzberger's knuckles?
The question is goofy.
Mr. Okrent doesn't tell his readers what evidence would be sufficient to prove that the Times is systematically biased. You can infer that systematically has the effect of spreading vanishing cream on all the Times's Kerry-oozing zits.
Thus, even the Times daily book reviewer, Michiko Kakutani, can casually assert that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been discredited. If the Times doesn't press for release by Kerry of his service records, would that be evidence of systematic bias? If the Times never once acknowledged what was perfectly obvious to Buckhead, to LittleGreenFootballs, PowerLine blog, and everyone with eyes to see that Rather's memos were clumsy forgeries, is that evidence of systematic bias?
If the Times never notes the incoherence of Senator Kerry's Iraq positions, if it doesn't find it possible to scrutinize his bewilderingly inconsistent economic proposals, if it doesn't deal seriously with Senator Kerry's career as fabulist, tall-tale spinner, what in the world will serve as proof of the NYTimes's systematic bias?
Answer: a smoking gun.
Fortunately, I have that smoking gun in my possession.
It is a memo from Bill Keller, Executive Editor, dated 2 March 2004.
It is urgent and imperative that the American electorate be gulled into voting for John Kerry. To that end, all Timespeople are expected to do their duty by favoring Kerry and disfavoring the Republican candidate.
[signed] Bill Keller
Approved: [initials] AOS, Jr.
Prince Sulzberger, Publisher.
Deal with that, Dan Okrent.
This guy should scan that memo... Otherwise, nobody will believe him...
How credible is this guy, and why is this just coming out now?
If Dan Rather can do it...why not Trentino, eh?
Yes. I can just hear the bathrooms filled with sickened NY Times executive terrified of this scoop.
Is there any intent to put this on a billboard, the Goodyear Blimp, on the Coke screen at Times Square? Or is this guy waiting for the highest bidder?
I'll believe it when I see it...
Prince Sulzberger, Publisher.
Clearly a fake. Sulzberger signs everything "Princey".
Why worry if this is credible or fabricated. Remember what Dan Rather taught us. It doesn't matter if the memos are real or fake. It's the seriousness of the charge that justifies using fake memos to make a point that you know is true.
VERY funny!
I agree. Scan the memo and post it.
Now why didn't I think o' dat? Brilliant point!
You are right that this is cutting and well-done satire by Trentino. Surely the NYT will accept his documentation of the smoking gun email without question, right?
bttt
The font is correct. It's Very Old Times Roman. The signature has been vetted by several vets.
It is suspicious that this memo is so short and to the point. Not usual for the Times which specializes in boring readers till they cry out in pain and promise to vote for Democrats.
Geez, and Trentino thought he had the only copy. Look authentic to me, and even if it isn't, I'm sure it's what he meant to say...
bttt
If 260 National Guard vets said Bush was incompetent and a liar, would the New york Times deem it a story?
Paging Dan Rather
This memo is definitely "fake but accurate"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.