Posted on 06/10/2003 1:38:07 AM PDT by kattracks
When Howell Raines was editorial page editor of The New York Times, he notably did not call for Bill Clinton's resignation over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Now, Clinton may have returned the favor.The former president contacted Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to argue that Raines' resignation as executive editor was too severe a response to what happened at the paper, according to sources.
Sulzberger declined to comment yesterday through a spokeswoman.
Raines resigned Thursday, capping weeks of upheaval that began with disclosure of ex-reporter Jayson Blair's plagiarism and fabrications. The revelations quickly led to a referendum of sorts on the top editor's heavy-handed management style.
Managing editor Gerald Boyd also stepped down.
Raines, who became executive editor in September 2001, was editor of The Times' influential editorial page through Clinton's eight years as president.
A fellow southerner, Raines came down hard on Clinton in many editorials, irking the White House.
"It was always surprising to me the degree to which the Clinton people saw things in personal terms," Raines told The New Yorker last year.
Last week, Clinton was said to have acknowledged his past differences with Raines' views, but claimed the editor's resignation was unwarranted.
Jim Kennedy, spokesman for the former president, said he didn't expect to have any comment "regarding The New York Times issue" by late yesterday.
Meanwhile, though gone from The Times, Raines and Boyd may still figure in the plans of a powerful, in-house committee that continues to review the Blair scandal, with an eye toward proposing changes in newsroom operations.
The committee, led by assistant managing editor Allan Siegal, "is discussing whether to try to interview Howell and Gerald," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said in response to a question from the Daily News.
"Thus far it has made no request," she added.
In a schedule sent to committee members, Siegal said that he "may try to invite Howell and Gerald for interviews" on June 20 - "off premises."
Sulzberger, himself, is penciled in for June 24.
Interviews and committee meetings, plus subcommittee sessions, run through July 11.
The Times previously said it would report on the panel's findings when they're released to the staff in July.
Staffers are wondering how the responses committee members are getting from editors and executives, in reviewing Blair's case history, will compare to a reporting team's Blair chronicle, already published over four pages on Mother's Day.
"Our goal is not to seek scapegoats but to understand the weak spots in our journalistic defenses," Siegal said in a separate staff memo last week.
Former executive editor Joseph Lelyveld was called out of retirement by Sulzberger to be Raines' interim successor.
Boyd's position, No. 2 in the newsroom, will not be filled until Sulzberger names a new executive editor.
Originally published on June 9, 2003
Sure, Clinton always stood up for his ideological soulmates. However, there is a reason he tried to save Howell's job. Raines was an unabashed Clinton supporter. His control over the vast propaganda apparatus that is the New York Times would have been of great assistance in three important matters: undermining the present crop of Democrats, getting Hillary reelected in 2006, and electing her President in 2008. Now, the Times is not quite in his pocket as it was before.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Clinton needs to show he's still in the game. He has to be careful to pick and choose his plays......he's received criticism for trying to oneup Bush. This issue was pretty much liberals kissing up to each other. Bush was not going to go there.
Bill, The Godfather, speaks and the liberal media listens.
Alas with Howell out of the picture, who's now going to run the Ministry of Truth?
Having Howell being an intergral part of the NYTimes since 1993 (see his bio's still up) bio and the Clintoid flunkies in action during Bill's reign - you could make the case that Bill Clinton was evolving America into a Bananna Republic. He had amazing influence in the media at the Times and CNN which enabled his political fortunes and spackled over his faults. You can make a very strong case for his engaging in macro-economic manipulation, cronyism and kleptocracy as well as intimidiation of normal citizens due to an overall deign for the rule of law. All of this was made easier by having the full knowledge and consent of a willing press.
The Clinton administration was on a glide path for becoming a tin-horn Bananna Republic. That's one of the reasons why the 2000 election was so fiecely fought and leftists actually talked about a "coup" when President Bush actually won. They had already possessed a third-world mindset of politics...
Just a thought.
But its a shot over the bow for the next in charge person or the reporters who remain. It gives Clinton implied power that he even has a relationship that allows him to call.
day late, dollar short
Then why are we reading about it in the papers? Just like Clinton to leak something he did and then "not comment" on it after it's out in the open.
-PJ
Since Slick's motives are not ideological, look for him to weigh in on the side of a Republican in the future if a Repub. gets in hot water for mistruths, which would be a twofer, allowing the impeached one to claim a bogus "bipartisanship."
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.