I would defy anyone to label Maureen Dowd by party affiliation or ideology. I've known her and worked closely with her for 20 years and I can't tell you the answer to either one -- Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of The New York TimesPosted on 09/29/2007 5:15:54 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
What would be worse: that when Times editorial page editor Rosenthal claims not to know Maureen Dowd's politics he's not being honest -- or that he is?
Today's Times contains a long column by Rosenthal responding to reader questions. Here are annotated highlights in addition to the Dowd rib-tickler:
The news report produced by the news staff of The Times is the heart and soul of this newspaper. Its mission is to bring our readers the best reported, best written, most carefully edited and most attractively produced report on paper and on the Internet, founded on the principle that the role of the newsroom is to provide a dispassionate accounting of events, free of political or ideological coloration.
Andy's gonna be at the Laff Shack all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
We are passionate opponents of all forms of authoritarian behavior by the federal government.
This from the paper that would impinge on citizens' Second Amendment rights, tell them where to smoke, what not to eat, make it impossible for many to have their children educated in accordance with their values, and use government power to regulate virtually every aspect of life and take away roughly half of everything citizens earn.
Responding to a number of questions asking whether the Times is liberal, Rosenthal takes 350 words to conclude that "labels are of little use." Andy thus puts himself at odds with former ombudsman Daniel Okrent. Three years ago in his column "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" Okrent acknowledged in his opening line: "Of course it is."
What can you say about a paper and its editor that is so unwilling or incapable of acknowledging reality on so many fronts?
Rib ticklers from the NY Times. Ping to Today show list.
“What can you say about a paper and its editor that is so unwilling or incapable of acknowledging reality on so many fronts?”
You can say that they are leftwing morons, insulated from reality by the notion that their self guilt can only be matched by their ego.
"Honey hand me that paper over there I have to clean some bluefish"
Yup, she's really hard to pigeon hole
I can't tell either. She could be a Marxist or she could be a Leninist - I really cannot tell which.
LOL
What’s the saying? “Better to let people wonder if you’re a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”? Those NYT people live in a world of their own.
He’s gotta be a Columbia grad. Betcha that school’s got lead paint on the walls. Yeah...that’s it.
Thanks for being there...and catching all this nonsense for us.
Ha!
:)
Couldn't help it. Although retired, I keep my editor's red pen by my side.
This guy isn't delusional, he's hard line 
When we're talking about political endorsements, we do it a bit more formally. On the state and city level, the editorial writers who handle those topics generally talk about each of the candidates and recommend which one to endorse. That choice can be noncontroversial, or it can generate a robust debate. It's particularly hard to choose when we're forced to pick, as we and American voters are all too often, between two candidates that we don't really like all that much.
Here I thought they just endorsed the democrat without regard to any scandals, failed policies, or felonious conduct by the candidate, but no . . . .
They debate the candidate's scandals, failed policies, and felonious conduct over brunch, then they endorse the democrat.
They're very thorough.
Communist, but she pragmatically votes Democrat.
Dowd is very easy to pigeonhole. She’s a Stalinist. Privileges belong to the elite (her.) She needs them in order to lord it over the proletariat (us.)
“founded on the principle that the role of the newsroom is to provide a dispassionate accounting of events, free of political or ideological coloration.”
Boy, have they completely failed to maintain their own goals
Thanks, DC. It was fun to write.
I’d like to point out that after I posted my item, I found that Clay Waters, at NewsBusters’s sister organization “Times Watch,” had earlier written a similar piece.
I’d encourage FReepers to read Clay’s column here:
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070926131627.aspx
I don’t read her anymore.
Her columns are not entertaining, regularly contain abject falsehoods, often meanspirited and support a far left-wing agenda - sometimes poor grammar too!! (and for me to notice that is a miracle - I was a math major)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.