tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post6503988699303104717..comments2023-08-19T06:19:28.990-04:00Comments on the nytpicker: What If Maureen Dowd Is Lying? And What If Her "Friend" Works For The NYT? We Examine The Evidence.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-2491869465830309382009-05-26T01:59:42.817-04:002009-05-26T01:59:42.817-04:00As I know Josh Marshall to some extent, I'm not su...As I know Josh Marshall to some extent, I'm not sure that NYTpicker is giving him enough credit. Josh has worked long and hard ever since the conclusion of Election 2000 to make TPM what it is today. How many blogs succeed? How many, more to the point, grow to the point of hiring a respected journalist as its White House correspondent? Marshall has also made or helped to make the careers of quite a few others through TPM, some of whom have become household names in the blogosphere and beyond.<br /><br />And the year is 2009. Let's face it, an op-ed slot at the OGL is not what it was years ago. Sorry. This does not in any way demean the quality of today's columnists (some are excellent most of the time, some are excellent some of the time... and it diminishes from there), but, as Josh and others have proven, if you are good enough, disciplined enough, etc, you can easily find your place in the dialogue. And even affect overall coverage of it.<br /><br />We're also getting to the point where the percentage of "powerful" or "relevant" individuals who do NOT read or follow blogs is dropping rapidly. The NYT's share of the dialogue has also fallen. Josh also probably likes the freedom of TPM, even the ignorant could presume some stringent rules governing the words and acts of Times columnists.<br /><br />Additionally, while the precise wording is certainly his own, Marshall's assertion is fairly generic as far as these things go. It's not a point he reached through personal research unavailable to, well, anyone with an internet connection.<br /><br />I also think that years and decades at an institution such as the OGL fosters a significant arrogance that can sometimes prove unfortunate. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoy arrogant people (provided there is some justification for it). And what is often lost in the discussion is how, particularly in this age when entire websites exist simply hoping the Times errs, arrogance is needed to stand up to the pressure. One can also recall the much-fabled "unofficial" Times op-ed correction page.<br /><br />Personally, I felt that Ms. Dowd's "narrowed" citation of a President Bush quotation in her May 14, 2003 column (conspicuously missing from "Bushworld") was a far more severe offense. But as this site and others have commented, she is who she is. That's in part why she was hired over twenty years ago, why she penned the famous Kitty Kelley book review, why she captured if not overcaptured the ridiculousness of Clinton/Lewinsky/Starr, called out Judith Miller, and many more things we could name.<br /><br />But this past episode does not reflect well on her column-checking or understanding of today's media world. She has to know that people are out there meticulously chronicling and googling every word she writes; some are just praying for a blunder. These individuals are not notably positive human beings, but they should keep columnists and commentators honest.<br /><br />But the final word is to note that perhaps the saying holds true: only three people truly matter at the Times. And that those people are Arthur Sulzberger, Jill Abramson, and Maureen Dowd. And that the conclusion reached as result of this error is a case in point.OESY0208https://www.blogger.com/profile/17097140636880401791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-32266040306466657762009-05-25T20:43:25.324-04:002009-05-25T20:43:25.324-04:00Isn't Dowd's best friend Jill Abramson? Hmmm....Isn't Dowd's best friend Jill Abramson? Hmmm....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-52260289266105616402009-05-25T16:51:16.623-04:002009-05-25T16:51:16.623-04:00I'll agree that the Dowd thing is important, in te...I'll agree that the Dowd thing is important, in terms of the overall ethics ethics at the paper. (If a star columnist can pull this off, what does it say to a metro reporter?)<br /><br />But why haven't you written about the bigger issue this week - which Hoyt also addressed: That Edmund Andrews piece about going broke?<br /><br />See: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_road_to_bankruptcy.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-71506024049089468902009-05-25T14:05:34.429-04:002009-05-25T14:05:34.429-04:00It's obvious Dowd was talking without going throug...It's obvious Dowd was talking without going through the "handlers," contradicting herself. By Monday morning, radio silence. They're just going to wait for this story to go away, and it will. Dowd is untouchable and Hoyt's no fool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-64547373570306887532009-05-25T12:03:26.852-04:002009-05-25T12:03:26.852-04:00So much for my theory that Maureen Dowd is The NYT...So much for my theory that Maureen Dowd is The NYTPicker. Bob Herbert, maybe?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-64335633172404069372009-05-25T11:43:33.157-04:002009-05-25T11:43:33.157-04:00Agree with anonymous but see nytpicker's point. Do...Agree with anonymous but see nytpicker's point. Dowd's great, no question, but why not answer a few questions and shut everyone up? She knows better than most that the stonewall strategy doesn't work. <br /><br />Good final word on the subject, nytpick. now time to move on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-5712530564187679522009-05-25T11:35:44.289-04:002009-05-25T11:35:44.289-04:00From the post: This action prompted Hoyt to draw a...From the post: This action prompted Hoyt to draw a typically baffling conclusion. "I do not think Dowd plagiarized," Hoyt wrote, "but I also do not think what she did was right."<br /><br />That is what is known as a distinction without a difference.<br /><br /><br />From A NYTPicker blog post headline: What We've Learned: Maureen Dowd Passes Off Her Friends' Words As Her Own. It's Not Plagiarism, But It's Not Right.Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17188464612059920831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-48026188268874409012009-05-25T11:33:49.177-04:002009-05-25T11:33:49.177-04:00best guess: dowd got an email from a pal who cut a...best guess: dowd got an email from a pal who cut and pasted the TPM quote into the email. down cuts and pastes the friend's quote into her story, is mortified that she didn't credit the friend and then - holy smokes - learns the friend had plucked it from TPM, where dowd may even have read it earlier. oh for the days of the remington manual typewriter. <br /> ultimately, she's a commentator. any way you slice it, so what? dowd's a columnist and it's not the one quote that makes a difference - she has a perceptive eye and a sharp tongue and that's why we read her - if some days she packages others' comments better than they do, whatever.<br /> she doesn't make unfounded allegations against prominent people, she hasn't lied to her readers and suckered them into supporting a war, turning a blind eye against corruption or anything else. <br /> while i appreciate your efforts here, nytpicker, there are some far more important bones to pick about stories that don't get enough coverage - like the policing of new york and the rise in recession-era crime, or the spotty coverage of russia. <br /> keep up the good work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-64156021605093643572009-05-25T11:13:18.057-04:002009-05-25T11:13:18.057-04:00Best commentary yet. You've been out front on this...Best commentary yet. You've been out front on this story all week. <br /><br />Interesting how you alternate between these serious posts, and wacky, funny ones...how many of you are there???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com