Now that a semblance of normalcy has returned to upper Broadway, I thought it worthwhile to call attention to what some may have missed: the Public Editor’s column in last Sunday’s Times.
For nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a
political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the
American commander in Iraq.
But I think the ad violated
The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the
advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.
By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both
MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times.
It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change
the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a
respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a
Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a
cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the
And, in a manner reminiscent of some episcopal non-statements, this:
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its
parent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whether
disciplinary action would be taken.
Bravo to Clark Hoyt for temporarily breaching the bastions.