Friday, September 10, 2004

NYT to Michael Moore: Shove It

*Sigh.*

Looks like the NY Times has denied permission for Michael Moore to use its devastating May mea culpa, "From the Editors: The Times and Iraq," in his forthcoming book, citing the desire to maintain the Times' "neutrality in its election coverage," and saying that their note was "not intended to become part of a political battle."

OH, REALLY?

Well, I hate to break it to all the self-serving yay-hoos at the Times -- really, fire them all and let Mrs. Grundy's 7th grade yearbook class handle it -- but what is it that the Times thinks it does exactly? I am not advocating that the Times (consciously) start advocating, but we all know that they are hardly neutral on this moving train, and no matter how many Paul Krugman's they have (erm, one!), that don't a librul paper make. They're advocating already, which they've found results in embarrassing (should be career-ending, dammit) mea culpas. The Times, lest anyone forget, is a *newspaper*, with 'news' being the operative portion of that term. Their job is to present a series of investigated -- and verified -- facts in a coherent narrative such that they relate something of importance or interest to the reader. Well, that sounds easy enough. So why can't the Times just get over themselves and allow one of their eleventy jillion articles to be reprinted in Michael Moore's volume? Why would they fear that allowing such a thing would marr the vision of neutrality that readers (don't) have?

COULD IT BE THE LIBRUL MEDIA BIAS/FILTER/CONSPIRACY??

No, but it could if you're running skeered from the

You'd think the Times had been nominated for an Oscar for all the false modesty and high-minded protestation going on. Why, we're just dishonored to be asked.

From the article:


The New York Times > National > The News Media: The Times Refuses Reprint in Moore Book