PANTY-SNIFFING AT THE NY TIMES

(Via Atrios and Crooks & Liars)

Greg Sargeant at The American Prospect takes Byron Calame, the Times ombudsman, to task for defending the gossip article about Hillary & Bill Clinton that appeared on the front page of the Times. Here I'd like to concentrate on just a few sentences of Calame's lame defense:

Careful editing was evident throughout the article, which was cleared by both Bill Keller, the executive editor, and Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news. If anything, I think the cautious editing occasionally left the story appearing too considerate to the Clintons; I'm actually surprised so little has been heard from their critics about that.

When it comes to deciding whether to report on political figures' private lives, "few cases are as clear as the Clinton marriage," Mr. Keller wrote to me in an e-mail last week. "It would be irresponsible NOT to take a hard look at how these two people relate and operate as a couple." Joseph Sexton, the metro editor, whose reporters are involved in covering the senator from New York, said the story "grew out of a meeting of editors weeks ago aimed at developing lines of reporting for covering Hillary's re-election campaign and potential bid for the presidency."

I'd like to know exactly why Calame thinks it was "too considerate." Is it because they didn't run it by Matt Drudge first? If the rabid Clinton-haters haven't bitched that the article is too nice to the Clintons, isn't that a sign that it isn't?

Keller thinks that the Clinton marriage is "fair game" and suggests that there are other clear cases that are also. Now, I would think that would include the adulterers Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani and I wonder if Mr. Keller thinks so too?

Most disturbing was the remark by Sexton. This seems to show that the Times has decided on a script to follow when covering Hillary and thanks to the Daily Howler, we all know what the script did to Al Gore in the 2000 race and is still doing today.