NYT(reader rep):Report,(Clinton)Review..(violated pg1 "sanctity")

[DeepModem Mom]

THE PUBLIC EDITOR
The Report, the Review and a Grandstand Play
By DANIEL OKRENT

Published: June 27, 2004

....CHIEF book critic Michiko Kakutani's review of Bill Clinton's "My Life," published in last Sunday's paper, was brutal. For any author, it would have been the review from hell, the one from which a career (much less the book at hand) could never recover. Of course, Bill Clinton isn't just any author, and early reports indicate that "My Life" might be the fastest-selling nonfiction book in United States history....

***

Needless to say, Clinton supporters were displeased. Some wrote to say the review was another ambush in a Times anti-Clinton vendetta that began when "Whitewater" referred just to rafting conditions. Many wondered why Kakutani was allowed to include in a review her judgments not just of the book but of the Clinton presidency itself. Others chastised her for failing to mention the book's criticisms of The Times. And quite a few took her to task for the reference in the review's closing sentence to "Lies about . . . real estate." They argued that the failure of the Resolution Trust Corporation or the Office of the Independent Counsel to charge either of the Clintons with any Whitewater-related deceptions proves that the "lies" comment is a calumny.

I don't buy the vendetta charge; it suggests that the different parts of this newspaper operate in sync, when my seven months here have convinced me that the various departments are as carefully coordinated as Manhattan traffic in a thunderstorm. Kakutani herself doesn't seem party to any kind of Kill Bill campaign, as she demonstrated last year in her evisceration of Nigel Hamilton's full-frontal attack, "Bill Clinton: An American Journey." I can't for the life of me come up with a rule that would limit what a reviewer should be allowed to comment on in a review, and I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't keep personal opinions of a presidency in mind while reading the president's memoirs....

***

But it was a different threshold that this review crossed: the sanctity of the front page as an opinion-free zone. Executive editor Bill Keller told me that "the voice of a brilliant critic was something we could add to the coverage that was uniquely ours." As far as I know, the only other time the paper put a book review on A1 was almost exactly a year ago, for Harry Potter. But Bill Clinton is no Harry Potter; his role in the ever intensifying political debate remains substantial, and in some ways might even be determinative. The front page is the home for news, and arguably for analysis, but if it's also the home for unbuckled opinion about figures on the public stage, then you could argue that editorials belong there, too. Managing editor Jill Abramson believes that the review "was every bit as interesting and newsworthy as the front-page stories disclosing its contents." But if Michiko Kakutani's opinions are news, it would be just as logical to write a story about them, or about especially strong columns by William Safire or Maureen Dowd. And that's a logical step too far for me.

I asked both Keller and Abramson whether they would have run the review on Page 1 had it been an unqualified rave, suspecting as I do that anything overly sunny and positive might seem almost promotional in so prominent a position; both said they would have.

I'm sure they believe it. I'm not sure I do....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/weekinreview/27bott.html?hp

[The Zanti Regent]

1. Okrent lies again

Once again, the Screw York Times tries to give a golden shower on the Big Dog, and once again, it backfires.

Okrent KNOWS the Screw York Times was out to get the Big Dog from Day One. Okrent also knows that Maslin was one of those who lied us into war, but that's ok! Anything the Republicans want is OK according to this piece of rancid cow patties.

The SCREW YORK TIMES invented and fabricated Whitewater, as the Big Dog clearly shows in his book. They kept pushing for the destruction of the Big Dog, lying any lie about him, while whoring for the GOP.

Katakani a "brilliant reviewer". Bullshit, she's a PRESSTITUTE marching in lockstep with Ann KKKolter!

F the Screw York Times. Read the UK Guardian instead!

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Okrent wiggled and jiggled, but kudos for his final point...

upholding page-one sanctity (while conceding that the Times may, indeed, have an anti-Clinton bias).

[robbedvoter]

3. Precisely. Instead of apologizing for Whitewater, they demand that Clinton

does.
My letter to them:

NY Times invented Whitewater (Jeff Gerth made himself part of the story disseminating false information to the prosecutors).
In spite of that, the Pillsbury report in 1994 completely exonerated the Clintons of any wrongdoing. Your paper (and the rest of the attack media) refused to report this fact.
To this day, Kahutani expects Clinton to apologize for Whitewater. It's the New York Times who has to apologize.

[AP]

4. NYT needs a public editor for the public editor.

Who needs to have a meeting between all the editors to remind everyone that the NYT should care most about making themselves wealthier?

[Scairp]

7. Tell me about it

I keep writing this guy about Jodi Wilgoren and her continued smear of John Kerry and his campaign, and all I get is this crap about how he's planning to write a column sometime between now and the election about the campaign coverage. I say "swell, but what about the present and the damage being done in the meantime?" I get nada back. No straight answers are forthcoming about why she's still on the campaign trail, nor any comments about how disrespectful and biased her articles are. Okrent is useless as a public editor, and I'm to the point where I believe that the New York Times is just as useless as a newspaper.

[xchrom]

5. the new york = republican party mouthpiece

while i appreciate his ''front-page'' line in the sand -- why oh why does he excuse the reviewers continuing the lie about whitewater?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

6. I have to say, I emphasize with all the above comments, and

a few of them are true.

But this is an amazing admission for the NYT. He actually says the Managing News Editor and the Page 1 Editor lied to him.

I think the worm is turning in the Apple.

We may see the equivalent to the Pentagon Papers in this newspaper again, I hope.

[librechik]

8. more likely Okrent will get kicked upstairs and a more Bush-friendly

type will get his job (if they don't disappear the position)

[swinney]

9. Whitewater trapped NYTimes and Wash Post

Jeff Gerth's trashy article on Whitewater was filled with inaccuracies. The Times ran it then the Post ran it.

They had tails in crack but did not have enough character to admit a wrong. One of WP writers wrote recently that the Post Editor at the time had an obsession on Whitewater and could not let it go.

They do not have character today. The owners should say enough is enough. Plenty of proof there was nothing to Whitewater so give it up.

Oh! How they hate to admit a wrong. Yet can kill Clinton for a cover up of bjs.

Is there a paper in America with Character? Baltimore Sun?