What I didn’t read in the NY Times

Taint by Association by Clark Hoyt

The bigger question is whether The Times should be publishing him at all. But why would the Times give a spokesman for a terrorist organization a platform to promote Hamas? If he wanted to write about the inner workings of a terrorist organization to give the military and law enforcement agencies a better understanding of how to fight them, that would be one thing. But each time the newspaper uses Yousef as it has, it is conferring greater legitimacy on him.The deal works two ways. The Times’s luster may help Yousef and Hamas. But some of their taint rubs off on the Times.

Right, that’s what I didn’t read in the Times. The paper’s public editor was writing about former Wall Street star, Henry Blodget.

The bigger question is whether The Times should be publishing him at all. Like Nocera, I believe in second chances, and Blodget seems to be doing fine establishing a new career. But why would The Times give a former analyst who lied to investors a platform to write about financial markets? If he wanted to write about how investors can spot phony reports by analysts, that would be one thing. But each time the newspaper uses Blodget as it has, it is conferring greater expert status on him.These deals work two ways. The Times’s luster may help Blodget. But some of his taint rubs off on The Times.

This is how he actually defended the op-ed written by Hamas spokesman, Ahmed Yousef.

THE op-ed page of The New York Times is perhaps the nation’s most important forum for airing opinions on the most contentious issues of the day — the war in Iraq, abortion, global warming and more.“We look for opinions that are provocative,” said Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page. “Opinions that confirm what you already thought aren’t that interesting.”

But some opinions provoke more than others. Two very different columns by guest contributors, one last week and one last month, caused enormous reader outcries and raised important questions. Are there groups or causes so odious they should be ruled off the page? If The Times publishes a controversial opinion, does it owe readers another point of view immediately? And what is the obligation of editors to make sure that op-ed writers are not playing fast and loose with the facts?

So let’s get this straight, a guy who represents (and defends) a group who fires rockets at civilians is not too “odious” to appear on the op-ed pages of the Times, but a guy who misled investors but paid his debt to society it too “odious” for the hallowed op-ed pages of the Times? And that’s even though the former is writing propaganda meant to help the rocket launchers and the latter is offering expertise to help the readers? Is the value of being “provocative” really that cleansing?

It reminds me of Alice’s Restaurant when Arlo Guthrie is informed that he can’t be a soldier due to his conviction – for littering.

I mean I’m sittin’ here on the Group W bench, ’cause you want to know if I’m moral enought to join ther army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein’ a litterbug.”

(No, I don’t share Arlo Guthrie’s view of the army.)

By Hoyt’s standards, then, cheating is worse than shooting rockets at innocents, even if the cheating is in the past and the rockets are still flying. Glad to know that the public editor of the New York Times has such a sensitive moral compass.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.