ny magazine miller's crossing
via dratfink
this reading suggests that (raines in particular) going with millers spin reflected the papers desire to get scoops that will sell papers, not a pro-bush ideology at the top. are we buyinng that ?
then theres this :
"So why did it take so long to run an editor’s note? In the newsroom, there are several theories. The first, and least persuasive, is the Sulzberger factor. “There was always the sense, true or not, that she had a benefactor at the top,” says Seth Faison. When Miller joined the Times in the late seventies, she arrived in the Washington bureau at about the same time as Arthur Sulzberger Jr.—a recent college graduate getting hands-on experience in the shop floor of the family business. The D.C. office had only about half a dozen reporters under the age of 35, including Sulzberger, Miller, Steve Rattner, and Phil Taubman. They clung to one another. After work, they would retire to Duke Zeibert’s for a drink. The crowd became even more sociable. When Miller dated Rattner, they shared a weekend house on the Eastern Shore of Maryland with Sulzberger and his wife, Gail. There’s no evidence that Sulzberger ever directly intervened to help Miller, and Miller has undergone enough career reversals to make this hard to believe. Still, that friendship has become well known within the newsroom. Fairly or unfairly, there’s a sense that Miller has protection at the absolute top—and that fear reportedly deters some editors from challenging her."
Steve Gilliard critiques the critique.
It's the big thing now for papers to say they were "fooled" by Chalabi, et al. I just don't buy this. Everyone knew that pinhead Bush had decided to go to war and the intelligence was cooked--the papers just weren't anticipating that the Bushies would stop cooking it once we were in Iraq. In other words, no bogus WMDs or fake al Qaeda documents materialized, so the media was stuck admitting they'd falsely sold the war.
|
via dratfink
- bill 6-01-2004 8:28 pm
this reading suggests that (raines in particular) going with millers spin reflected the papers desire to get scoops that will sell papers, not a pro-bush ideology at the top. are we buyinng that ?
then theres this : "So why did it take so long to run an editor’s note? In the newsroom, there are several theories. The first, and least persuasive, is the Sulzberger factor. “There was always the sense, true or not, that she had a benefactor at the top,” says Seth Faison. When Miller joined the Times in the late seventies, she arrived in the Washington bureau at about the same time as Arthur Sulzberger Jr.—a recent college graduate getting hands-on experience in the shop floor of the family business. The D.C. office had only about half a dozen reporters under the age of 35, including Sulzberger, Miller, Steve Rattner, and Phil Taubman. They clung to one another. After work, they would retire to Duke Zeibert’s for a drink. The crowd became even more sociable. When Miller dated Rattner, they shared a weekend house on the Eastern Shore of Maryland with Sulzberger and his wife, Gail. There’s no evidence that Sulzberger ever directly intervened to help Miller, and Miller has undergone enough career reversals to make this hard to believe. Still, that friendship has become well known within the newsroom. Fairly or unfairly, there’s a sense that Miller has protection at the absolute top—and that fear reportedly deters some editors from challenging her."
- bill 6-01-2004 9:57 pm [add a comment]
Steve Gilliard critiques the critique.
It's the big thing now for papers to say they were "fooled" by Chalabi, et al. I just don't buy this. Everyone knew that pinhead Bush had decided to go to war and the intelligence was cooked--the papers just weren't anticipating that the Bushies would stop cooking it once we were in Iraq. In other words, no bogus WMDs or fake al Qaeda documents materialized, so the media was stuck admitting they'd falsely sold the war.
- tom moody 6-01-2004 10:16 pm [add a comment]