Posted on 06/10/2003 1:38:07 AM PDT by kattracks
When Howell Raines was editorial page editor of The New York Times, he notably did not call for Bill Clinton's resignation over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Now, Clinton may have returned the favor.The former president contacted Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to argue that Raines' resignation as executive editor was too severe a response to what happened at the paper, according to sources.
Sulzberger declined to comment yesterday through a spokeswoman.
Raines resigned Thursday, capping weeks of upheaval that began with disclosure of ex-reporter Jayson Blair's plagiarism and fabrications. The revelations quickly led to a referendum of sorts on the top editor's heavy-handed management style.
Managing editor Gerald Boyd also stepped down.
Raines, who became executive editor in September 2001, was editor of The Times' influential editorial page through Clinton's eight years as president.
A fellow southerner, Raines came down hard on Clinton in many editorials, irking the White House.
"It was always surprising to me the degree to which the Clinton people saw things in personal terms," Raines told The New Yorker last year.
Last week, Clinton was said to have acknowledged his past differences with Raines' views, but claimed the editor's resignation was unwarranted.
Jim Kennedy, spokesman for the former president, said he didn't expect to have any comment "regarding The New York Times issue" by late yesterday.
Meanwhile, though gone from The Times, Raines and Boyd may still figure in the plans of a powerful, in-house committee that continues to review the Blair scandal, with an eye toward proposing changes in newsroom operations.
The committee, led by assistant managing editor Allan Siegal, "is discussing whether to try to interview Howell and Gerald," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said in response to a question from the Daily News.
"Thus far it has made no request," she added.
In a schedule sent to committee members, Siegal said that he "may try to invite Howell and Gerald for interviews" on June 20 - "off premises."
Sulzberger, himself, is penciled in for June 24.
Interviews and committee meetings, plus subcommittee sessions, run through July 11.
The Times previously said it would report on the panel's findings when they're released to the staff in July.
Staffers are wondering how the responses committee members are getting from editors and executives, in reviewing Blair's case history, will compare to a reporting team's Blair chronicle, already published over four pages on Mother's Day.
"Our goal is not to seek scapegoats but to understand the weak spots in our journalistic defenses," Siegal said in a separate staff memo last week.
Former executive editor Joseph Lelyveld was called out of retirement by Sulzberger to be Raines' interim successor.
Boyd's position, No. 2 in the newsroom, will not be filled until Sulzberger names a new executive editor.
Originally published on June 9, 2003
No, feeding the "defense" story to the press was comment enough, right Jim?
I don't consider an editorial that says, "President Clinton is to be condemned for his behaviour in the (fill-in-blank) affair, but this matter does not rise to the level of impeachment, and the President deserves our support as he gets back to the work of the American people", as "coming down hard". And that is the only editorial I can ever recall seeing at The New York Times.
Well just who gave the Daily News the heads up on the Toon's "defense", eh?
Let me think. Hmmmm...
Ouch!
Bubba always stands up for his servants when recieving his Lewinskies, except when they are in "under the desk" position.
There's a kernel of truth in every article.
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.