What did Pinch know and when did he know it? (MoveOn.org/NY Times scandal)

American Thinker ^ | 9/23/07 | Thomas Lifson

[LdSentinal]

Once again, the Watergate maxim that "the cover-up is worse than the crime" is proving valid. And Clark Hoyt, "public editor" (ombudsman) of the New York Times is playing the part of John Dean in what could be titled "All the Publisher's Men."

The revelations about the MoveOn "betray us" ad contained in Hoyt's column today raise serious questions about the integrity of the company's management. Members of the Sulzberger/Ochs family who control the Times have even more reason to be gravely concerned the very survival of their patrimony is being jeopardized by incompetence or worse on the part of Pinch Sulzberger and the management team he has installed.

The New York Times made a severe error when it violated its own policies in allowing a scurrilous personal attack on General Petraeus to be published in a full page ad and in providing a deeply discounted rate to MoveOn.org Hoyt properly describes the discount as a "mistake." But that term is inoperable (to use another Watergate era expression) when it comes to the cover-up. When the paper's management was challenged and the company learned of the errors, it continued to maintain otherwise for almost two weeks.

There is no pleasant way to state this, but Rick Moran put it very well in the American Thinker blog section when he wrote: "... all the lies told by spokesmen for the New York Times have all been shown to be an effort to hide the truth from the American people."

Newspapers and other media properties must be perceived as interested in conveying the truth. The handling of the aftermath of this affair demonstrates by actions that the management of the company is indifferent to the truth. The damage to the brand of the company is catastrophic.

The needs of the journalism business aside, any expert in the field of crisis management will advise any management of a company embroiled in a scandal or crisis to get the truth out first, to be the ones delivering the bad news. That way the public can at least have confidence that the company is doing its best to solve the problem, and management at least has the ability to be heard and maybe even believed. Leaving the job of truth-telling to others means that management will always be on the defensive, and not on top of the story.

Instead of following the common-sense textbook pattern of action, Punch Sulzberger and his management team have sat on the truth, and left it to an internal investigator, someone outside the usual chain of command, to tease it out. And even as Hoyt's article was in preparation, and Sulzberger knew the truth was coming out, he continued to stonewall. Hoyt writes:

"Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its parent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whether disciplinary action would be taken." 

He's stonewalling!

So Pinch is in effect saying to the Federal Election Commission, which is in receipt of a formal complaint on the ad as an illegal campaign contribution, that he will need to be placed under oath if the truth is ever to be fully disclosed. Pinch's ballyhooed cost cutting plan might need to add a few million dollars in unanticipated legal fees related to a federal investigation.

The headline for Hoyt's piece recognizes that these larger issues are at stake. The title of his column is "Betraying Its Own Best Interests." While the obvious reference is to the MoveOn ad itself, the resonance of the first word for a family which reportedly considers itself guardians of a sacred public trust is unmistakable.

For quite some time I have been urging members of the Sulzberger/Ochs family to wake up and remove Pinch from his leadership role in the company before it is too late. The company is in a downward spiral financially, strategically, journalistically, and now for all to see, ethically.

There is no longer any reason for the family to assume that the company will always be there for one of the clan to steer. Christopher Alleva demonstrated in American Thinker a week ago that the company is in dangerous financial territory, and that it could in fact be forced into receivership if it is unable to change the adverse trend its business results have taken. Pinch Sulzberger's strategic blunders have put the company in this bind.

The MoveOn scandal harms the company deeply, making the task of whoever will try to save the company all the more onerous. When Richard M. Nixon persisted in holding onto his power despite a looming impeachment effort, two senior members of his own political party came to him and convinced him that it was time to go before even more damage was done to the party, the presidency, and to the country.

Where are the Sulzbergers?

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.

[PanzerDeutscheschafferhund]

RIP

[proxy_user]

The ad does not constitute an illegal campaign contribution, because it does not advocate or oppose a candidate for election.

McCain-Feingold does not pretend to regulate the speech of revolutionary communists who reject the entire electoral system.

[Mrs.Z]

Cute, a column calling on the owners of the NYT to get their act together and get rid of Pinch.

Might as well recommend the Kennedys tell uncle Teddy to get himself in AA.

[FormerACLUmember]

Tsk, tsk.. must not bother Pinch. The hereditary unaccountable Highness is too busy driving the NY Times stock into the toilet during the greatest bull market in history.

[Cicero]

I don’t have any first-hand familiarity with the Sulzberger family, but I have to wonder whether Pinch is so golden with all his relations that they will back him no matter what. There have been a whole series of crises, he has again and again proven his incompetence, yet they continue to back him.

Don’t they have any cousins or nephews or even nieces to put forward to take his place? Don’t they have any reliable friends whom they could put in as caretakers?

It’s not just his leftist politics. The Times has always been leftist. It’s his incompetence. They pay the highest salaries in the business, yet their editorial writers and reporters are childishly bad. Maureen Dowd alone would be enough to make any decent company ashamed of employing her, but they have dozens of others who are nearly as dreadful.

It extends to the arts, book reviews, science, religion, and every other area of the paper. It’s almost all self-conceited drivel, badly written, barely literate.

I suppose we should be hoping they will keep Pinch on, since he is ensuring the death of a newspaper that is probably unsalvageable at this point.

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you for posting this. Every year or so the Times names a new ombudsman. He stays until he burns out in the effort to make the Times honest and journalistically capable. Then the ombudsman leaves to "pursue other opportunities," and a new person with a good career to date becomes the new sacrificial lamb.

Did I miss anything?

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "Dan Rather, CBS, Plus Duke"

[Clay Moore]

“and now for all to see, ethically.”

I hope he did not mean to imply that the ethical lapses are any thing new.

[Verginius Rufus]

Actually, I think the word that Ron Zeigler made famous was “inoperative,” not “inoperable.”

[dynachrome]

[Rocky]

Dan Rather and the NYT: Fake but accurate

[RedRover]

I have to wonder if this was just Pinch’s way of getting back in MoveOn’s good graces. The Times is widely blamed on the Left for supporting the war in Iraq (largely due to Judith Miller’s reports on WMD) prior to the invasion.

[Albion Wilde]

From the article:

The company is in a downward spiral financially, strategically, journalistically, and now for all to see, ethically.

[Albion Wilde]

From: American Thinker

Click here: Rats and maggots infest the new NYT building — really.

[FlyVet]

Currently reading "The Reagan Diaries", and the thing that ticked off RR the most was the underhanded lies, and their refusal to see truth when he presented it to them face-to-face, coming from the Left. He'd say, "I'm afraid I'm talking to ears that refuse to hear."

Today I read about a Mediot who told him he had a picture of Reagan administration officials involved in a sex orgy, and that he would only show it to RR. Reagan refused to bite, and told him to turn it over to the Attorney General's office, which he didn't (probably because it didn't exist). Those weasels would make up scandals, and lie about his policies, to try to get to him, almost daily. Few of them had honor back then, and even less of them now.

The honesty and the humility of the man shines through. I haven't gotten to the Iran-Contra mess yet, but it will be interesting. It's a great book.

[baiamonte]

I hope the NYT goes under and they have to sell the equipment for salvage.

[kitkat]

My dictionary’s definition of “ombudsman” is that he is someone appointed by the government. I’m lost in this article because I don’t know if the NYT can appoint ifs own ombudsman and call him a “public editor.” Are there two definitions for that title

[FlyVet]

They're a pathetic bunch. "By any means necessary" Commies. No difference between Truth and Lies. Sociopathic.

I remember Rush saying this started during RR's administration, when Tip O'Neil proclaimed, "From now on, our job is to oppose."

Truth no longer mattered, only winning. And, anyone who is paying attention should be able to see it is government corruption that will destroy us and turn us into a 3rd world country. Reagan's statement that we are never more than one generation away from tyranny was prophetic. It seems very few men of character run for office these days, it's all about self-serving power. It's hard to swallow that they are merely a reflection of us, as a people. Where's Mr. Smith when you need him? We need a few hundred Mr. Smiths....right now.

[Congressman Billybob]

"Ombudsman" began as a governmental official (somewhere in Scandinavia) who had the power to search out and report on wrongs in the government. It has come to mean a person appointed in any large organization to examine and report on its failures. That's why the Times refers to these poor b*stards as "public editor."

The sad fact is that the public editors at the Times either do their jobs well, and have to be eased out, or they do their jobs poorly, and become an embarrassment. It is a classic situation that is no-win for whomever holds it.

John / Billybob

[kitkat]

John, thanks for your present-day explanation of “ombudsman” especially as it applies to the NYT. You’ve taught me something I couldn’t find anywhere else, and it makes the article more understandable.