Posted on 05/24/2003 8:04:09 PM PDT by ThreePuttinDude
May 24, 2003 -- THE NEW York Times double-crossed Styles section writer Alex Kuczynski this week by leaking word that the sexy journalist had quietly resigned - without noting her departure was merely temporary.
"Alex told the Times a year ago when she signed her book deal with Doubleday that she would take a six-month book leave," a source explains.
"They were fine at first, but when the time came for Alex to leave, the top brass said, 'times are rough - we want you to informally resign. No one will ever know.' "
Sadly, Times management went back on its word. On Monday, a "staff notes" memo was sent around to employees stating that, "Alex Kuczynski has resigned from the Times."
"Alex was furious," said our mole. "It was very upsetting."
Speculation was raised further when Kuczynski cleaned out her desk Tuesday afternoon, to make way for ex-New York scribe, Vanessa Grigoriadis, who will be joining the Styles section.
"Vanessa will sit at Alex's desk until she comes back - and she is coming back," our source said.
But others still aren't so sure Kuczynski will return. "The memo was the Times' way of pushing Alex out," one insider said. "They were supposed to send her a formal letter offering her job back, and they haven't. They are trying to screw her . . . she left for book leave in April and the memo didn't come out until now."
Kuczynski declined coment. A rep for the Times said at first: "Ms. Kuczynski left the Times in early April to write a book with the understanding that she would return to the Times later this year."
After Kuczynski threatened the Times with a lawsuit if they didn't sound "more enthusiatic" about getting her back, a Times rep added: "We anxiously await her return."
The dark days aren't over at the paper. Four unidentified reporters under investigation for Jayson Blair-like abuses "have banded together and threatened to sue the paper if their names are leaked," another mole added.
The probe has widened to include graft. "They are worried about people breaking the strict code at the paper about accepting gifts," our spy said. "The masses of reporters are getting angrier by the moment because they were held to strict standards while several others obviously were not."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Keep them coming!
The probe has widened to include graft. "They are worried about people breaking the strict code at the paper about accepting gifts," our spy said. "The masses of reporters are getting angrier by the moment because they were held to strict standards while several others obviously were not."
OK...who got paid off and by whom? My favorite would be Maureen Dowd paid off by the Rats via Michael Douglas.
Two at one paper seems awfully odd, even in a high-pressure profession.
A bump for a New York Times journey into reality thread.
They are now beginning to see that the meeting was nothing but show, and now they are madder than they were before. Leaks a-plenty will start appearing over the next few weeks.
I am STILL convinced that there is something criminal that we are not seeing. Why wouldn't they assist in the prosecution of Blair for fraud? You would think if they were the victims they would like to really dump all the blame on him by making him a criminal.
But they put the quash on that idea right away. They didn't hold some talks with the prosecutor...they simply refused, basing it on First Amendment rights. That makes no sense at all, unless you are looking for a virtuous way to avoid having the feds investigate and discovering something else.
Firing the vocal people will only get those left even MORE angry.
You are quite correct that this is a tactic used by the left. Unfortunately for Howell Raines, there isn't a prison in which he can incarcerate dissenters.
Or unless you are so utterly consumed by hatred for the Bush Administration that you are willing to let Blair keep publicly screwing you just to spite the (Bush) federal prosecutors. Or (more likely, IMO) you are so paralyzed by political correctness that you see any move you make against Blair as an automatic indictment of you as racist.
I would hope they figured that one out quick, like when it became known that Howell Raines wasn't going anywhere. What's interesting to me now is this - Blair's behavior has very rapidly gotten more and more bizarre and he's just about out of control. It's obvious to me now that this guy has had serious mental and/or emotional problems for quite some time, and I just wonder how big were the blinders that Raines and the rest of the NYT's management put on to avoid seeing this. That ignorance (probably deliberate) of Blair's instability is, to me, evidence of mismanagement that should be sufficient grounds for tossing Raines and his management toadies out the door.
 |
 Schadenfreude  |
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.