| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| How the NYT dealt with Julian Assange: 6 key takeaways |
| 2011-01-27 |
 Bill Keller, the editor of The New York Times, has published a detailed account of his newspaper's dealings with WikiLeaks in the past six months. In it, Keller describes his and his reporters' relationship with the website's "elusive, manipulative and volatile" founder, Julian Assange, and how the newspaper's various exclusives came together. Here, the key takeaways from Keller's piece ....Enjoy. :-) The question is still, who's the tool in all of this? |
| Link |
| Home Front: Culture Wars | ||
| Unfair and unbalanced, Times spins toward oblivion | ||
| 2009-04-27 | ||
 The nation's largest left-wing newspaper and the bible for network news producers and bookers may be going under. This past week, The New York Times [NYT] announced more staggering losses: nearly $75 million in the first quarter alone. The New York Post is reporting that the Times Company owes more than $1 billion and has just $34 million in the bank.
The spin from Sulzberger is that the Internet is strangling the newspaper industry, and there is some truth to that. Why read an ideologically crazed paper when you can acquire a variety of information on your computer? But other papers are not suffering nearly as much as the Times, so there must be more to it.
The problem is that under Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller, the Times has gone crazy left, attacking those with whom the paper disagrees and demonstrating a hatred for conservatives (particularly President Bush) that is almost pathological. The Times features liberal columnists in every section of the paper, and they hit low, often using personal invective to smear perceived opponents. That unfair and unbalanced approach has alienated a large number of readers and advertisers. According to a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 46 percent of Americans define themselves as conservative, while just 34 percent say they are liberal. In this very intense marketplace, insulting half the country on a daily basis may not be a great business plan. The Times Company also has a major problem with The Boston Globe, which Sulzberger bought back in 1993. That paper is on the verge of bankruptcy and recently asked its union employees to accept cuts in pay and health benefits. Since the Times and the Globe are big on "universal" health care, that caused some giggling in anti-Times precincts. Over the past few months, newspapers in Chicago, Seattle, Minneapolis and Denver have either folded or filed for bankruptcy. With the exception of The Rocky Mountain News, all the papers were committed left-wing enterprises. The truth is that most Americans are traditional-minded folks. They believe their country is noble; they want respectful discourse. Fanaticism of any kind is not the American way. The New York Times is most definitely a committed left-wing concern that is openly contemptuous of the conservative, traditional point of view. That is the primary reason the paper may soon dissolve. And all the cash in Carlos Slim's fat wallet is not going to change that. | ||
| Link |
| Economy | ||
| Cost-cutting at NY Times, reorganization at WaPo | ||
| 2009-04-17 | ||
The Times said it was doing away with several weekly sections "in a bid to save millions of dollars" in ink, paper and freelance reporter costs, absorbing them into other parts of the newspaper. On the chopping board are the "Escapes" travel section in Friday editions, the regular fashion layout in The New York Times Magazine and regional weekly sections for surrounding areas such as New Jersey, the Times said.
At the Washington Post, executive editor Marcus Brauchli unveiled a number of personnel changes and the creation of a "Universal News Desk" that will edit stories for both the print and online editions of the newspaper. He said the reorganization was designed to "create new reporting groups, streamline editing desks and anticipate the impending integration of our print and digital news operations." "We want to empower journalists and encourage them to work across departments and platforms," he said. "A single editor ultimately ought to be able to oversee all versions of a story, whether it appears in print, online or on a BlackBerry or iPhone." Earlier this month, the Times threatened to shut down the Boston Globe, which was purchased by the Times Co. for 1.1 billion dollars in 1993, unless unions at the daily agree to pay cuts and other cost-saving measures. | ||
| Link |
| Economy |
| Cash-Starved Times Compared to Dafur: NYT Editor |
| 2009-04-03 |
| NEW York Times Execu tive Editor Bill Keller equated the Gray Lady to a PBS pledge drive, claiming readers have offered to donate money to keep the Times alive. Keller was speaking at Stanford University to dedicate a new building for the campus newspaper -- an event he likened to a "ribbon-cutting" for "a new Pontiac dealership." The bombastic broadsheet editor went on to equate the keep-the-Times-alive movement to the cause of starving African refugees, saying, "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause." Keller said he had little use for Web sites like Google and Drudge Report: "If you're inclined to trust Google as your source for news -- Google yourself." Keller's comments come as the Times sat down with the Newspaper Guild Wednesday in their first serious bargaining session to figure out how to extract $4.5 million in savings from the newspaper company's unionized workforce. There are believed to be around 1,200 to 1,300 members of the Newspaper Guild working at The New York Times, and they are apparently not ready to accept the same pay cuts that their bosses did on April 1. "Most of the [union] council believed that the company has not gone far enough in eliminating superfluous managers and exempts who hold few responsibilities, and that most of the burdens for corporate missteps have fallen on Guild members," said a Guild newsletter fired off yesterday. The company agreed to look at alternatives to a wage cut, but is standing firm on its need to shave $4.5 million in costs. The company's proposal also includes a stipulation that will make members take an additional 10 paid days off before the end of the year. "The Times threatens to lay off 60 to 80 workers, mainly in the newsroom, if the request is not met," warned the Guild, which is trying to come up with a solution that prevents layoffs. |
| Link |
| Home Front Economy |
| White House Fires Back at Times Over Housing Meltdown Story |
| 2008-12-23 |
 The White House is pushing back hard against a New York Times article that essentially blamed President Bush for the sub-prime mortgage mess and the Wall Street collapse by linking those crises to a policy goal he stated more than six years ago. That goal? "We want more people owning their own home," as Bush said in December 2003. But a 5,000-word article in the Times on Sunday, under the headline, "White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire," said Bush was also encouraging a "hands-off approach" to regulation that encouraged "lax" standards on behalf of lenders. "He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent -- and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors," the article said. "That's about as myopic as you can get," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in response. White House counselor Ed Gillespie lashed out at the Times for its interpretation of Bush's housing policies. "They've had to mortgage their building in Manhattan to help make ends meet, and they've been reduced to junk-bond status. I don't know if the New York Times' shoddy reporting is the result of being in junk-bond status, or if their junk-bond status is what's resulting in their shoddy reporting," Gillespie said. In fact, the Times' article ignored a wealth of its own reporting, dating back to the era of Bill Clinton, whom the article mentioned only once, in passing. For example, in September 1999, the Times noted that, "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits." The 1999 piece went even further: "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times," the Times noted presciently. "But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's." Likewise, the Times made no mention over the weekend of President Clinton's aggressive deregulation of the financial services industry, which empowered banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies to engage in some of the very practices -- such as credit default swaps -- that contributed most to the current fiscal crisis. While the Times mentioned that mortgage bankers and brokers donated almost $850,000 to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, the newspaper omitted the fact that the top three recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and its sister organization Freddie Mac over the last two decades were all Democrats. Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; President-elect Barack Obama; and Bush's 2004 opponent John Kerry all benefited from Fannie and Freddie. Asked to respond to the White House criticism, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said Sunday's article "was based on on-the-record interviews with dozens of current and former (Bush administration) officials." "It is part of an ongoing series that examines in-depth the accountability of numerous players in the economic meltdown, including Congress, rating agencies, brokerage houses and the Fed," Keller said. |
| Link |
| Africa Subsaharan | ||
| Mugabe rides off into the sunset. Or not. | ||
| 2008-04-04 | ||
 A New York Times correspondent who has been covering Zimbabwe's elections was among two foreign journalists arrested on Thursday for operating without accreditation, police and the newspaper said. National police spokesman Wayne Bvudzijena said the pair had been picked up in a raid on the York Lodge, an upmarket guest house near the centre of the capital Harare, and were now being held in custody. "I can only confirm that we have arrested two foreign journalists at York Lodge," Bvudzijena told AFP. "They are being investigated for practising without accreditation. They were picked up early this evening and taken to police custody."
Zimbabwean authorities, which barred most foreign media from covering last Saturday's general elections, warned a week ago they would deal severely with journalists who sneaked into the country and were caught operating illegally. However a number of news organisations, including the BBC, have been filing reports from correspondents operating under cover. The situation is growing increasingly tense in the capital as Zimbabweans await to see if President Robert Mugabe has been defeated in his quest for a sixth term. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change claims its leader Morgan Tsvangirai won the presidential poll outright. But there has still been no official word on the outcome five days after the ballot, but the election commission announced overnight that the MDC had won control of parliament. A leading US press freedom group responded to news of the arrests by calling on the Zimbabwean authorities to immediately release the foreign journalists. "We are alarmed by reports that foreign journalists have been detained in Harare," Joel Simon, the executive director of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement. "In light of the political situation, it is imperative that all journalists, foreign and domestic, be allowed to work freely. We call on authorities to immediately release all journalists currently being held," he added. Zimbabwe has strict rules on media and no independent radio or television stations are authorised to operate. The country's only daily newspaper, the Herald, is controlled by the government. | ||
| Link |
| Home Front: Culture Wars | ||
| New York Times editor blames READERS for dustup over John McCain article | ||
| 2008-02-23 | ||
| WASHINGTON - The embattled executive editor of the New York Times defended its John McCain story Friday with a novel explanation for the flood of critical e-mails the newspaper received: slow-witted readers. The truth dawns. "Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction," Bill Keller wrote in a Times Web site Q&A forum. Readers posted 2,000 comments and sent in 3,700 questions. "I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot," Keller added. The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn't get it. "Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story."
Gitlin said the story, which ran on Thursday, fell short of establishing that McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman had an improper relationship, or that she won special favors for clients. He suspected the Times actually pulled its punches on the ethics issues for fear of being accused of liberal bias. Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson defended the part of the article that caused the biggest uproar - the concerns of two unnamed former McCain advisers that the senator was having a romantic relationship with Iseman. "We believed it was vital for the story to accurately reflect the range of concerns shared by our sources," and to not succumb to "possible qualms over 'sexual innuendo,'" Abramson wrote. I agree. If slow-witted metrosexuals didn't try to read the traitorous fishwrap, capitalist robber-barons would quit advertising their worthless products and dubious services in it. It would quickly run out of filthy lucre to pay its depraved staff of fifth columnists and third-rate fiction writers. Lacking any other motivation, these mendacious hophead "journalists" would drift away to work for Mother Jones or High Times, and the NYT would soon be consigned to the dustbin of history. | ||
| Link |
| Home Front: Politix |
| New York Times sullies itself with McCain story |
| 2008-02-22 |
 One of two things will happen in the wake of Thursday's New York Times story that suggested John McCain may have had a "romantic relationship" nine years ago with a lobbyist who did business before the Senate Commerce Committee which he then chaired. (The story purported to be about McCain's ethics and dealings with D.C. lobbyists, in a failed attempt to gloss gossip with a patina of gravitas.) Either new information will come forward to corroborate this weak story - based solely on the speculation - as opposed to actual knowledge - of two sources (who refused to be named and, for all we know, may have an ax to grind), and despite denials by both McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. Even then, the Gray Lady's reputation will suffer, because the New York Times, not John McCain, has become the story. Or nothing new will come forward and the public will have every reason to believe that the New York Times and copycat media smeared McCain. And the next time the Times' announces that it has lost circulation or is eliminating more newsroom positions, people will cheer, when they should be saddened. This story is bad news for the news business. No doubt Times reporters Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton believed they had a story. That's why newspapers have editors, to insist that reporters nail down hunches that reporters believe in their guts to be true. That didn't happen with this story. We've read this script before. In 2003 before the California gubernatorial recall election, the Los Angeles Times ran stories in which six women - four of whom remained anonymous - accused Arnold Schwarzenegger of groping or otherwise mistreating them between 1975 and 2000. The public never believed Schwarzenegger acted like a choir boy in his acting and Mr. Universe days, but voters revolted against the dredging up of unsubtantiated allegations older than many voters. Gutter journalism may be the reason Californians opted for the governator. GOP strategist Dan Schnur, who worked on McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, remembers how the L.A. Times stories shored up Schwarzenegger's support among Republicans. Schnur noted, "John McCain can win a Republican primary against the New York Times." Not that the Times' story is all good for McCain, Schnur added, as it keeps the candidate from talking about issues. Camp McCain has charged that the New York Times ran the lobbyist story Thursday because the New Republic was about to post a story "behind the bombshell" story. Times executive editor Bill Keller has denied that charge. "On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready," he wrote in a widely dispersed e-mail sent to The Page political Web site. It's not good for journalism when the paper of record's editor has all the credibility of a losing candidate who claims to never pay attention to political polls. It didn't have to be this way. Editors at the Idaho Statesman refused to report on rumors about Sen. Larry Craig hitting on men - until the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, broke the story in August 2007 that Craig had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis airport men's restroom. Craig's guilty plea nailed the story. When Craig tried to blame his guilty plea on the fact that his "state of mind" was distorted because the Idaho Statesman was out to get him, people laughed. No one is laughing at the Times' story. The paper set out to shine a spotlight on McCain's ethics, but it ended up turning a harsh light on its own ethical lapses. |
| Link |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| New York Times to Cut 100 News Room Jobs |
| 2008-02-15 |
| The New York Slimes is cutting 100 jobs from its newsroom this year as financial pressures mount from readers leaving the rag in droves. Executive Editor and part time bottle washer Bill Keller told his minions that the cuts would come mainly through attrition and buyouts but layoffs and backstabbings were also possible. Spokeswomen Catherine Mathis said the paper has a total of 1,332 indentured slaves in the newsroom, which would make the cutbacks equivalent to nearly 8% of the editorial staff. Half of which are normally at Hazelden anyway. The Times has cut jobs elsewhere in the paper. Mostly in the fact checking department. But these cuts are the first and hopefully not the last in recent memory to affect its newsroom and DNC brothel. |
| Link |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Florida televangelist loses show after Muslims complain |
| 2007-08-25 |
| A Christian televangelist in Florida who harshly criticizes Islam and other religions said Friday that his late-night program is being pulled off the air because of pressure from a Muslim group. Earlier this month, officials from the Council on American Islamic Relations wrote a letter to the TV station's owners asking for an investigation of the show it broadcasts, "Live Prayer with Bill Keller." In a May 2 broadcast, the televangelist said Islam was a "1,400-year-old lie from the pits of hell" and called the Prophet Mohammed a "murdering pedophile." He also called the Quran a "book of fables and a book of lies." Station manager Laura Caruso of WTOG, which airs the show, said the decision to end Keller's contract was a programming one, made by station executives and the televangelist. |
| Link |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Televangelist: "Vote for Romney is vote for SATAN!!" |
| 2007-05-12 |
 They're crawling out of the woodwork:While some evangelical Christians are defending the presidential candidacy of Mormon Mitt Romney from an attack by Al Sharpton, another prominent pastor is going further in his condemnation saying a vote for the former Massachusetts governor is a vote for Satan. I am not especially enthused with Romney but this kind of attack is beyond the pale. Even the Hillary Arkancide conspiracy theorists do not equate Her Thighness with the Devil himself. That's the word from Bill Keller, host of the Florida-based Live Prayer TV program as well as LivePrayer.com. "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" he writes in his daily devotional to be sent out to 2.4 million e-mail subscribers tomorrow. He and Hugo Chavez need to get their stories straight. Sharpton, the Democratic Party activist and former presidential candidate, has been widely condemned for singling out Romney's faith as an issue in the campaign. Could Romney's candidacy catalyze a weird new alliance between fundamentalists and lib race-baiters? We see gay-rights proponents and Hollywood libertines siding with Iranian mullahs so I guess anything is possible. "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," he said. Keller also comes out swinging against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a cult. "This message today is not about Mitt Romney," he writes. "Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell." Hmmmm. I am no fan of the Mormon religion either but, speaking of dangerous cults, I seem to have missed any news of the latest spate of Mormon instigated beheadings and car bombings. "I guess what I can tell you is it shows that bigotry can still rear its ugly head in society," Alex Burgos, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, told WND. "It's sad that anyone would target a fellow American on the issue of faith." "We really have no comment," Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Mormon church, told WND. "I am not permitted to call someone a raving psyschopath on church time." Keller is also critical of other evangelicals who have reached out to Romney. "I have watched in horror over the past weeks as one evangelical Christian leader after another has either endorsed, supported, or just as bad, refused to denounce Romney's run for the White House and those Christian leaders who support him," Keller writes. "Last weekend Pat Robertson, founder of CBN and Regent University, had Romney deliver the keynote address to the graduates of Regent. Regent is one of the great Christian colleges in this nation, and Robertson allowed this cult member to deliver the commencement address. Is he out of his mind? Do you think there would ever be a true Gospel preacher giving the commencement address at Brigham Young?" But the focus of his appeal to followers is to discredit Mormonism as a legitimate faith in line with the tenets of Christianity. "I have been warning you for years now about this cult born out of the pits of hell and responsible for sending millions of souls to eternal damnation," Keller says. "For the nearly 200 years this cult has been in existence they have strived for mainstream acceptance. They are the most devious of all the cults since they have always tried to portray themselves as 'just another Christian group' when in fact, they are no more Christian than a Muslim is! Their deception starts with their name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Sounds like a Christian church doesn't it? Some Mormons have recently changed their name to simply Community of Christ to disguise even better who they are in an attempt to lure people in." Keller goes on to say that when LDS members talk of God and Jesus they are not talking about the God and Jesus of Christianity. He claims Romney's high-profile candidacy for the presidency is an important effort by the church to gain credibility and respectability. "There are reportedly 12 million Mormons worldwide, half of those in the United States," he says. "The worldwide holdings of the Mormon cult are in the tens of billions of dollars. Mitt Romney is the first member of this cult who has had the legitimate opportunity to help them achieve their goal of mainstream acceptance while holding the most powerful office in the world. Romney will have the full resources of this cult behind him in his bid for the White House." He says if Romney wins the White House, millions of people will be attracted to Mormonism. "Those who follow the false teachings of this cult, believe in the false jesus of the Mormon cult and reject faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, will die and spend eternity in hell," he charges. "Romney getting elected president will ultimately lead millions of souls to the eternal flames of hell!" Keller also criticizes Romney for political flip-flops on issues like abortion, citing a recent report that his wife donated money to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world. "Please take some time today and pray for Mitt Romney and all those who have been deceived by the lies of the Mormon cult," Keller adds. "The fact is that unless they renounce those lies and turn to faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, they will die and spend eternity in hell. Pray also for these Christian leaders who have for whatever reason, foolishly aligned themselves with Romney. Pray the Holy Spirit will convict them and that they will renounce Romney and find a candidate to support who will hold to Biblical values. There is no excuse, no justification for supporting and voting for a man who will be used by satan to lead the souls of millions into the eternal flames of hell!" T-H-O-R-A-Z-I-N-E, now, max dose. Keller was a businessman convicted of insider trading in 1989, a crime for which he served more than two years in federal prison. After getting out, he received a degree in biblical studies from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, and has been in full-time ministry ever since. Why am I not surprised? Be sure to check out Keller's photo at the link. What is it with televangelists and goofy haircuts? |
| Link |
| Home Front: Culture Wars | |
| NYT pulling out of WH Correspondents' Dinner | |
| 2007-05-01 | |
| New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis confirmed Monday that the newspaper had decided not to participate in the [White House Correspondents' Dinner], but gave no reason for the decision. She said the paper also would not attend future Gridiron Club dinners, while some sources at the paper said the policy could extend to other similar events. "That is what the decision was," Mathis said, declining to elaborate. "I don't want to go beyond that."
Rosenthal said attending the dinners is not the worst thing D.C. staffers can do, but "it becomes more and more of a problem because it has become more public." Executive Editor Bill Keller and Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet did not immediately return calls for comment. WHCA President Steve Scully noted that the Times had skipped at least one dinner in the past for similar reasons, during the Clinton administration. He again defended the event, but said he would respect anyone's decision not to attend. "I am told it will not affect their participation in the associaton," he said, noting that Times photographer Doug Mills is on the nine-person WHCA board. "Everyone has to look at it through their own perspective." The decision comes just a week after this year's dinner, which most in attendance agreed was not among the most memorable. Noting the Virginia Tech massacre just days before, President Bush declined the usual humorous address, while entertainer Rich Little, sticking to dated material and poor preparation, drew many complaints. Ann Compton, incoming WHCA president, said she had not seen Rich's column, but said the Times would not be missed at the dinner. "The New York Times has never been a major player in there, they only buy two tables," Compton said of the event, which usually includes some 250 tables with 10 people each. "We had checks in hand that we had to return that would have filled 42 more tables. I hope they will still be members of the association." Ron Hutcheson, a former WHCA president and current McClatchy White House correspondent, defended the dinner, saying accusations of conflict are largely unfounded. "It is driven by a misperception, largely in the blogosphere, that because we are civil to each other, we forget what our role is, which is ridiculous," Hutcheson said. "Especially in these times, we need civility. The whole reason you get a guest like Karl Rove is to get what you can from Karl Rove." But Rich, who said in his column that the dinner "illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media....," defended his views again Monday. "I don't feel that reporters should be used in presidential publicity stunts," he told E&P. "This is used by the president of the United States as a political event." Rich said he had planned mid-week to write his column as part tribute to the late David Halberstam and partly to criticize the dinner, but added in the Times' decision after hearing about it from Rosenthal. He said he sent Rosenthal and others in charge of the editorial pages a note on Wednesday about his column, as he usually does, and later found out from Rosenthal about the policy change. "I put that in, but it did not change the [focus of the] column," he said. Rich, who has criticized the dinner in the past, said he had played no part in the policy change and had never lobbied editors to stay away from the dinner. "I did not lobby anyone, but I agree with it," he said. "I feel strongly that the Times has to stay clear of things that are potential conflicts of interest." So far, no other news outlets appear to be making similar decisions. Doyle McManus, D.C. bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, said his staffers are free to go, calling such dinners "largely useless and largely harmless....There is a valid concern about coziness in Washington, but the test of coziness is in the coverage," he added. "I have seen no evidence that these rather dreadful events are affecting coverage." E&P was one of the few to note before the dinner the potential conflicts of some guests, including embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, brought by USA Today, and Karl Rove as the guest of The Times. When asked about the paper's unusual guest, Columnist Maureen Dowd quickly pleaded innocence, saying during the dinner, "I don't do the inviting anymore." Times Staffer Jim Rutenberg, also at the table, defended the choice of Rove that night, saying "We cover him, I just asked him." He then joked, "he is telling us everything." | |
| Link |