[Diogenesis]

The Boston Globe meanwhile stands by all of Blairs articles (of course).

[TheGeezer]

Meanwhile, the Guild and The Times were set to begin round-the-clock negotiations this weekend toward a new labor contract.

A big issue for the Guild is the paper's refusal since January to extend a "no layoffs" guarantee, written into the contract that expired in March.

The NYT can't guarantee the worker bees lifetime security? I thought the workers' paradise had to begin somewhere...why not at the rag that preaches it overtly AND covertly?

[Catspaw]

I've been following the Blair story for a while. He had to have put amazing energy and effort into falsifying stories when it was so much easier to write the story straight. Why he would do that is baffling, more baffling is that they didn't can his butt the first time he did it (except for the usual reasons freepers have figured out already).

[BIGZ]

To obtain diversity, the least common denominator must be used.

[BrookdalePark]

Guild members ranked job security as their No. 1 priority in the new bargaining.

That's a crock. Union leaders always claim job security is the top priority. That way, when negotiations are over, they can claim they got some provision that will save workers jobs, and in the end it always turns out to be hogwash.

Money is the top priority. Always. If the surveys of members were tallied by outside authorities, that's what the results would show. But unions give members their little surveys and then always claim that job security was the No. 1 request no matter what the results actually were.

If union leaders went into negotiations saying that money was the top priority, they'd actually have to accomplish something. Those 1.5 percent raises they wind up with would look even more pitiful.