Tuesday, May 23, 2006

They get letters

Taking Digby's suggestion, I fired off a letter to the editors of the NY Times regarding their god-awful gossip piece about the Clintons, which is not prominent on the website now, but which was prominent on page A1 of the print edition this morning. I expect they will be getting a lot of these sorts of missives regarding their sudden shift to the gossip rag domain, so you probably won't see it show up there.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm frankly tired of anything and everything Clinton; don't want to hear about 'em. When it became clear that Hillary was simply unserious about opposing the grisly Bush agenda, and instead chose to focus on video games as the next threat to American society, well, that did for me. I didn't have much faith in her to begin with, anyway, and that bullshit posturing merely confirmed what had been highly suspected all along.

Nonetheless, the NY Times bit was about as pathetic a piece as I can recall seeing in a major newspaper. If this is what we can expect from "the paper of record" over the next few months -- prissy gossip about Democrats -- don't be surprised if the GOP manages to hold on those congressional majorities in the fall. Because, after all, the Clinton's only see each other 14 days a month.
Dear Editors,

Despite extant wars in two regions of the globe and the mounting death toll of civilians there, skyrocketing debt and deficits, the putative threat of Iran and the continued struggles of those in the still-devastated Gulf Coast region, perhaps esteemed editors at the New York Times felt it was a slow news day. So slow, in fact, that barely digestible tabloid fluff about the Clintons had to be featured prominently on page A1 of the May 23 edition. The article's purpose was entirely unclear, inscrutable even. But one thing was clear, this was not an article to be featured as news.

As the 2006 elections approach, it would be advisable for the Times to stick to news coverage, instead of fretting about how many days per month the Clintons spend together. Leave that tawdry business to those who do it best. I cannot believe your readers would find this even remotely interesting given our current civic and political climate. Let's not return to those dreary days of Clinton rumor mongering and trash talk. Remember, 9/11 changed everything. If anyone should know this, it should be the editors of the New York Times.
As Digby says, the media appears now to be starting its assault on the Dems, at just about the right time to trivialize them as unserious twits incapable of running the country. I have been waiting for this to start and it looks like the first shots across the Democratic bow are now being fired.


Blogger Kel said...

Good for you for writing to them.

I touched on this myself today and was very amused following the supposed blog of the story online.

The comments were all hostile to the piece, so much so that the writer made no attempt to blog back but started erasing entries that he found to be "rude".

You gotta love Repug logic.

Give yourself a treat and go here:


12:31 PM  
Blogger theBhc said...

Yeah, i followed the link you provided to the NY blog. I don't know if you happened to see the letters they actually published about that article, but they were far less "angry," shall we say. Mewling would be another way to say it. NYT seemed completely unwilling to admit the criticism at all.

5:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home