Today, the NY Times public editor published an article as to what he called the "uniformly negative and partisan" response to the Healy article on the Clintons' marriage. That response can be found
.
Aside from the idiotic comment about responses being both uniformly negative AND partisan, the article shamelessy defends the Times' coverage of the subject. It got me mad enough that I responded with a letter to Calame, which I'll post on the flip.
I should say here that I am NOT a Clinton supporter, but this type of crap has to be nipped in the bud.
Dear Mr. Calme:
I had been waiting with interest to see how you would handle what I knew, after reading the front page article on the state of the Clinton marriage, would be the almost universal scorn heaped upon the Times, justifiably, in my opinion.
Alas, instead of any type of advocacy to hold the Times to its once-high journalistic standards, we are treated to unsubstantiated and contradictory descriptions of the critics of the article and exclamations of "surprise" at facts that the reporter later admitted, on national television no less, should not be all that surprising. You also profess amazement that a front page article that dredged up a marital infidelity of 10 years ago, drew conclusions from interviews with at least 50 anonymous sources, while quoting none and, in your own words, contained "(o)ne paragraph, containing a year-old anecdote about Mr. Clinton's social life", which "should have gone in the trash can;", "another" that "should have been purged of its zippiness.", which article "was slightly overplayed at the top of the front page" and which was dissected ad nauseum by the cable news networks, was not criticized more for, "appearing too considerate to the Clintons".
Unlike you, I will attempt to substantiate my opinions with facts. as to your unsubstantiated and contradictory descriptions of critics of the article, one need only go to your first sentence. You state that, "COMPLAINTS about the May 23 Page 1 article on Hillary and Bill Clinton add up to one of the most uniformly negative and partisan reader reactions to a Times article during the past year." Mr. Calme, perhaps you can tell the readers for which you supposedly advocate, how a reaction that is uniformly negative can be uniformly partisan as well. Did all of the negative reactions sent to you identify their writers as partisan Democrats? Let us be honest here, Mr. Calme. If a reaction is universally negative, by definition it cannot be partisan. The only words that smell of partisanship, sir, are in your first sentence.
It follows from this that you would not find any "winks and nods" regarding the Clintons' personal life (and please, do not insult us by saying that you referred to "sex life", I will bet that , while you used that term, most of the critics did not), even in the paragraph that clearly, "should have gone in the trash can".
Let's review it, shall we? it stated that, "Several prominent New York Democrats, in interviews, volunteered that they became concerned last year over a tabloid photograph showing Mr. Clinton leaving B.L.T. Steak in Midtown Manhattan late one night after dining with a group that included Belinda Stronach, a Canadian politician. The two were among roughly a dozen people at a dinner, but it still was enough to fuel coverage in the gossip pages." Now Mr. Calme, even you have to acknowledge that, while Mr. Healy couches his accusations in the timeworn method of paraphrasing anonymous sources, there is most certainly, a little bit of a wink there.
Or how about, when Mr. Healy, while writing what would normally be an innocuous paragraph, throws in a zinger like this:
"Friends -- eager to smooth any rough edges on the relationship -- tell old-married-couple stories of them gardening, playing Scrabble, and dining out at Le Cirque, Rasika, and Bayou in Harlem with old pals like the former party leader Terry McAuliffe, the power broker Vernon Jordan and others. On Christmas Eve, they wandered through the near-empty Chappaqua Village Market together, noticed by the occasional fellow shopper."
Really Mr. Calme? Is that what the friends said? Did they say anonymously that they were looking to "smooth out any rough edges"? Or perhaps was that Mr. Healy's little, shall we say, wink?
But let us go on to your finding of the percentage of weekends that the Clintons spent together as, "surprising and interesting". Would it also surprise and interest you that on May 31st, on CNN, this exchange took place between Paula Zahn and Mr. Healy?:
"ZAHN: You did some very interesting analysis of the time they spend together, the time they spend apart. But when you crunch those numbers, are those really any different from members of Congress whose families stay at home in the home district and the -- the working member of Congress stays in Washington?
"HEALY: Sure, it's pretty -- it's pretty similar. And that's a very fair point to make."
Gee, Mr. Calme, surprise!!
Finally, Mr. Calme, I am going to make an assumption, based upon the criticisms that I read in the Times letters section, as well as in other places, that one other criticism raised by many readers, was not even addressed by you. That is the question of whether other Presidential candidates' marital history, some of which contain clear evidence of adultery by the candidate himself and not by his spouse, are also going to get the same type of front page treatment as the Clintons' did. I cannot believe that you never read any letters regarding this issue, however, if you haven't, consider the issue raised now.
I await any response you may deign to give with baited breath and, just so that the record is clear, I am registered to vote in Jersey City and am an unaffiliated voter, which can be verified at the Hudson County Board of Elections, although I am tempted to declare myself a Democrat this Tuesday just to show my resentment at the Times' dive into tabloid journalism and your dishonest defense of same.
Best regards"
Now I should tell you all that I'm unaffiliated because I just moved to JC and am allowed to declare my (Dem) affiliation when I vote in Tuesday's primary, but I see no reason to let Mr. Calme know that. Let him be "surprised".