THE TIMES' SECRET CLINTON LINK

New York Post - Page Six ^ | 10/21/03 | Richard Johnson with Paula Froelich & Chris Wilson

[kattracks]

October 21, 2003 -- THE New York Times had a big conflict of interest on Sunday.

The Gray Lady's review trashing "Bill Clinton: An American Journey. Great Expectations" was written by Todd S. Purdum, the husband of Clinton's first White House press secretary, Dee Dee Myers - though Times readers weren't informed of his connction to Clinton.

[martin_fierro]

Well lookie, I say, lookie HEAH.

[martin_fierro]

His Toddiness

[liberallarry]

So only people with no first-hand knowledge of Clinton should be allowed to write reviews of books about him? Only his opponents should review anti-Clinton books?

What utter nonsense.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[nutmeg]

ping

[stubernx98]

"This is not up(down) to the standards one would expect at the New York Times," Hamilton complained.

Of course it is.

[okie01]

...Clinton's womanizing had "nothing to do with sex" and everything to do with "this inferiority complex . . . I think he's spent his entire life being scared that he was white trash."

Most of the white trash I know wouldn't cross the street to pee on Bill Clinton if he was on fire.

[Bogey78O]

How about a neutral third party that isn't sleeping with Clinton's press secretary?

[Timesink]

Schadenfreude

This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.

---

This is the Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this is a medium- to high-volume list.
Please feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of this ping list. I can't catch them all!

[ctonious]

Even the editors of Pravda knew they were full of crap during their slave days. And I imagine that veteran western news guys would politely nod their heads, roll their eyes and wait for the obligatory official bs story to come to a conclusion - and then ask "OK Dmitri, so what's REALLY going on?" over a bottle of vodka later.

But THESE guys at the NYT, they actually A) think that the public doesn't see them for the toady suck-ups they are..but B) they actually believe their own crappola. It takes a special kind of cockroach to sit there in full view when the lights are flipped on.

[texasbluebell]

Wright, who coined the term "bimbo eruptions," said Clinton's womanizing had "nothing to do with sex" and everything to do with "this inferiority complex . . . I think he's spent his entire life being scared that he was white trash

He shouldn't be scared that he's white trash. He is the epitome of white trash, and there's no getting around it.

(Apologies to white trash everywhere of course, he's actually the mud beneath your heels.)

[Michael.SF.]

Most of the white trash I know wouldn't cross the street to pee on Bill Clinton if he was on fire.

I bet they would be willing to take up a collection for gas though.

[MHGinTN]

Depends on the meaning of 'conflicting' is, don'tcha know.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

"This is not up(down) to the standards one would expect at the New York Times," Hamilton complained.

Of course it is. - agreed!

[SteveH]

DeeDee M.

[Grampa Dave]

Isn't Free Republic great to find out what is really happening even behind the closed doors of the Ny Slimes?

[KellyAdmirer]

Apparently, the NY Times feels it would have been appropriate to have Josef Goebbels' wife review Mein Kampf.

[drhogan]

somebody should tell the NY Post not to worry about the Times. Who reads it anymore? who believes what is says? i think the freeper who mentioned Pravda is on the right track. The Times is useful for finding out what the democratic party leadership wants the public to believe in regard to various issues, but that's about it.

[Auntie Mame]

So only people with no first-hand knowledge of Clinton should be allowed to write reviews of books about him?

No, that's not what the brief article is saying. There's nothing wrong with the husband of a Clinton administration "official" reviewing a book about Clinton, but it should have been disclosed at the end of the article, kinda like this: "Written by ________ (whatever his name is) who is married to Dee Dee Myers, former Clinton administration spokesperson"--something like that. It's standard procedure and rather odd that it wasn't done in this instance.