Thomas Lifson, from The American Thinker (picked up over at Real Clear Politics) has a good assessment of what has been happening at the New York Times under Pinch Sulzberger. He also point out the even the left is starting to turn on Pinch with a new hit piece in Vanity Fair.
But it is one thing for websites "out there" beyond the Hudson to point out that Pinch is killing the family business, and quite another for the man dubbed "the King of New York Media" by The New Republic to point out that disaster looms ahead for members of the Ochs-Sulzberger clan, who cash dividend checks, and who also control the election for the board of directors. They might start thinking seriously about the attractiveness of professional management for the enterprise which sustains what must be a sophisticated and pleasant lifestyle.
Michael Wolff, longtime writer for New York Magazine, took to the pages of no less than Vanity Fair, the glossy definition of au courant attitudes for New Yorkers of a certain economic and social status, to openly mock Pinch in what can only be described as a "hit-piece."
What gives?
Why the Left is Starting to Hate Pinch
Anyone who understands the importance of the Times in setting the agenda for the entire media establishment realizes that without the Times to lead the way, lesser media properties in broadcasting and publishing might stray away from the left wing party line. Fox News has done better than any other media startup in recent memory by openly grazing in the conservative meadows. Despite intense derision by the Times and others in the Left establishment, it has prospered far more than they.
It simply would not do to have other media outlets beyond talk radio emulate this course. Virtually the entire media establishment, from home town dailies to network newscasts, takes its cues from the Times. Without a vibrant Times, ideological diversity in the media might proliferate.
Almost every ambitious newspaper reporter in the United States must at some point(s) fantasize about breaking a big story, getting noticed by the Times, and moving on up to what remains (for the moment) the pinnacle of prestige in American journalism. Reporters for lesser newspapers in Minneapolis, Montgomery or Missoula don't really make much money, not compared to lawyers and investment bankers. They are mostly in their line of work for prestige, excitement, and the "ability to make a difference." For such folk, toeing the line set by the Grey Lady helps them feel better about themselves, even if the call never comes. The Times' expectations about what defines good journalism serve as a standard by which journalists measure themselves.
Lifson goes on to pretty well damn Sulzberger's leadership of the family business, more importantly, he also brings this fact back out into the light:
But the Times is steadily becoming damaged goods. Its prestige is not what it once was. Jayson Blair, Howell Raines, Judith Miller, and other mere employees have done plenty of damage. Just last weekend (no doubt too late for Wolff's deadline), current executive editor Bill Keller made the jaw-dropping admission that he had lied to his readers about his decision not to publish a story on the NSA telephone intercept program before the 2004 presidential election, a matter of great concern to the Left. Even worse, Keller had a guilty conscience about the lie, but did not fess up until caught in an inconsistency and questioned by the paper's public editor, Byron Calame.
The rest of the media has done an excellent job of ignoring this major scandal. The man who sets the standards for the standard-setting newspaper, on which they model their own professionalism, has admitted to being a liar. And covering it up.
"It was probably inelegant wording," Mr. Keller said, who added later, "I don't know what was in my head at the time."
While everyone has the experience of having words come out the wrong way, honorable men and women correct the mistake before a year has passed, especially when the mistake becomes the basis of a large public controversy. But not the executive editor of the Times. He is on the record as tolerating a lie which he knows to be a lie.
Most significantly, the only boss Bill Keller has, Pinch Sulzberger, has publicly said nothing. No firing, no public reprimand, no exile for the lying liar, to use Al Franken's phrase. So the company is now on the record as regarding lying as tolerable, maybe even normal.
This is not the way to burnish a brand name.
Let's get this quite straight. Keller admitted to making a lie that should have gotten him fired. It would have ended in termination at any responsible news outlet. That Sulzberger has ignored it says a lot about the man. My prediction that Keller would be gone by the end of summer may end up being wrong only because of Sulzberger's protection. In which they will both be gone by the next shareholder's meeting.
