Skip to comments.Andrew Sullivan Has Been Banned by The New York Times
Posted on 05/11/2002 7:27:00 AM PDT by aculeus
If, like me, you both write for the mainstream media and also snarl at it on a regular basis, some editors can take revenge and cut you off. Most of the time, people in big media, being journalists, don't mind criticism, especially from a piddling one-man blog. But others take offense, and you get canned. In my case, I have been barred indefinitely from writing any more for the New York Times Magazine. Although I have long had a fantastic relationship with the editors there, and have written some of my best journalism for them, their boss, Howell Raines, has sent down a ruling. My presence in the Times, I'm told, makes him "uncomfortable," and I am off limits for the indefinite future. A great sadness to me, but completely his editorial prerogative and, given the sharpness of some of my broadsides, understandable. I'm lucky I have other outlets - and this blog of course! - but it does tend to show that the notion that new media and old media are effortlessly complementary is not completely true. When you bite the hand that feeds you, sometimes you'll get a good slapping. But don't worry. I'll keep biting.
Maybe, Andrew turned him down for a date.
Howell Raines and the New York Times were made for each other.
Perhaps this is the reason? :>)
The National Enquirer has actually done some investigative reporting in the past few years. This puts them several steps higher then the NYT.
andrew has a secret agenda and I guess Raines decide that he is not going to be the goat that advances it!
Obviously the prosecutor ought to be investigated himself. Why has he stopped two steps short of the maximum penalty and settled for twenty-five years of hard labor? After all, there is a punishment in our Criminal Code which is the final penalty, a punishment far more dreadful than twenty-five years of hard labor.
Isaak paused, so as to make as big an impression as possible.
What is it, Isaak? they shouted at him impatiently. And unhurriedly, with mock innocence, he replied: Section 20-Z, Paragraph a.
Of all those present, for all their great prison experience, no one had ever heard of such a section. How did this legalist know a thing like that?
And what does it say? They screamed indecent suggestions at him from all sides: Castrate him?
Almost, almost, Isaak confirmed imperturbably. It is, in fact, spiritual castration. Section 20-Z, Paragraph a, provides that one is declared an enemy of the workers and expelled from the boundaries of the U.S.S.R.! He can die in the West as far as we are concerned. I have nothing more to say.
-- Solzhenitsyn, The First Circle, ch. 50 ("The Traitor Prince").
I bet he has a great apartment, too! ;)
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.