After Just Seven Months, NYT Kills Off Ethicist's "Moral Of The Story" Blog. Randy Cohen Calls The Decision "Mutual."

The blog "pruning" promised last month by executive editor Bill Keller has begun. The NYT has quietly killed The Ethicist's blog, "Moral Of The Story," shutting it down in November after only seven months in existence.

Randy Cohen, the longtime "Ethicist" columnist for the NYT Magazine and the blog's sole contributor, confirmed to The NYTPicker that it was dead by a "mutual and amiable" decision of Cohen and his editors.

"Having produced 'Moral of the Story' for the term we'd agreed on, my editors and I decided not to continue it," Cohen told The NYTPicker via email. "I quite liked writing it, but I'm eager to devote my non-'Ethicist' time to other sorts of writing and am at work on a play."

The NYTPicker contacted Cohen and NYT spokeswoman Diane McNulty on Friday to inquire about the status of the blog, which Cohen hadn't updated since November 4.

McNulty told The NYTPicker at noon on Friday that she was "checking" on the blog's current status, but had yet to reply with a comment by Sunday evening.

Just last April, the NYT launched Cohen's blog -- devoted to deconstructing the ethical issues behind various news events and trends -- with a major splash on the website's front page. It addressed a multitude of diverse subjects: the nature of religious debate, the David Letterman scandal, where Michael Jackson should be buried, wolf hunting, and the propriety of magazines using Photoshop.

The blog posts often appeared several times in a week with long, discursive essays by Cohen, sometimes including followups addressing the hundreds of reader comments it generated. In August, Cohen took some heat from The NYTPicker -- and later changed his column -- after quoting his ex-wife, Katha Pollitt, as an expert in the column, and not disclosing their relationship.

Rumors have been flying in recent days about the possible closing of various NYT blogs. Keller warned of the prospect of blog cutbacks in November, telling the staff:

Many of our blogs serve a valuable journalistic purpose... But if we find instances where a blog or a vertical is consuming considerable effort and expense with little reward, we're prepared to do some pruning.

Despite the decision to close "Moral of the Story" last month, the NYT has left Cohen's blog up on the NYT website as though it's still in business -- complete with a rotating series of ads that include Toyota, Seroquel, JetBlue and Banana Republic. The final, November 4 post from Cohen explained a new format for commenting on the blog, and gave no hint of its imminent demise.

BREAKING: NYT Accuses Washington Post Editor Marcus Brauchli Of Lying To NYT Reporter About "Off The Record" Dinners.

The NYT is calling Marcus Brauchli, the executive editor of the Washington Post, a liar.

The NYT has reported this morning -- in a brief, buried "postscript" in the corrections column -- that it now has evidence that Brauchli lied last July when he told the NYT that he didn't know the paper's controversial corporate-sponsored dinner parties would be off-the-record.

The NYT doesn't state flatly that Brauchli lied. But the juxtaposition of the two Brauchli statements in the postscript make clear the NYT's position that he misrepresented the truth in interviews with the NYT.

[UPDATE: In an email to The NYTPicker, a NYT spokeswoman stands by the postscript. "The note speaks for itself," wrote Diane McNulty, the spokeswoman. "Information came to our attention after the Sept. 12 article and we decided that this note was warranted." McNulty did not elaborate.]

In a July 3 page-one story, Richard Perez-Pena reported that the Post had abandoned plans to hold high-priced dinners that would bring together Washington lobbyists and Washington Post reporters and editors. The news created a media firestorm around the idea that the Post would sell access to its staff to business interests, and led to the resignation of the Post's marketing executive, Charles Pelton.

At the time, Brauchli told Perez-Pena that he'd been explicit with the paper's marketing department about the paper's right to use information gathered at the dinners -- a distinction that enabled the editor to maintain a discreet distance from the scandal. The July 3 NYT story reported:

Mr. Brauchli said that in talking to The Post’s marketing arm, “we have always been explicit that there are certain parameters that are elemental for newsroom participation” in special events. Among those, he said, “we do not limit our questions, and we reserve the right to allow any ideas that emerge in an event to shape or inform our coverage.”

Brauchli extended that claim to a flat denial of knowledge that the dinners would be off the record, in a NYT story in September reporting the resignation of Pelton:

Marcus Brauchli, executive editor of The Post, and Ms. Weymouth said they should have recognized the ethical issues created by the plan and ended it earlier. But they said they had not known all the details of how the dinners were being promoted — for instance, Mr. Brauchli said he had not understood that they would be off the record — and that those details significantly compounded the ethical problems.

But in this morning's "Postscript," the NYT reports that Pelton's lawyer has provided them a letter from Brauchli to Pelton that proves otherwise:

However, in a subsequent letter to Mr. Pelton — which was sent to The Times by Mr. Pelton’s lawyer — Mr. Brauchli now says that he did indeed know that the dinners were being promoted as “off the record,” and that he and Mr. Pelton had discussed that issue.

The "Postscript" doesn't quote from the letter. However, by placing in its corrections column, the NYT is making the bold statement that the two previous statements by Brauchli to the NYT were false.

This represents a new development in the story. Andrew Alexander, the Washington Post's ombudsman, reported in July that several mid-level managers knew of the ethical problems created by the dinners, but continued to absolve Brauchli of direct responsibility, repeating Brauchli's claim that he was "stunned" by the news. Here's what Alexander reported on July 12:

Brauchli conferred with Pelton about the salon dinners. At one point they showed up at the newsroom desk of reporter Ceci Connolly, who covers health care, which was to be the discussion topic of the July 21 dinner. Subsequently, she said, "Charles asked me for some contact phone numbers and e-mails, which I provided."

Brauchli said that Pelton believed that "in order for these things to succeed, they need to be on background. And I think the language went from 'background' to 'off the record' which, from my perspective now, [is] even worse."

Alexander absolved Brauchli -- and publisher Katharine Weymouth -- of any direct knowledge of the parameters until the story broke on the Politico website on July 2. He reported that Brauchli forwarded Pelton's May email outlining the plans to top newsroom managers, but does not suggest that Brauchli read it himself, or knew in advance that the dinners wouldn't meet the Post's ethical standards.

Why did the NYT not report this news in the paper itself, where the rules of journalism might have applied -- and where a reporter might have called Brauchli for his comment on the discrepancy? Was it hoping to bury the news on a Saturday, when the media hordes might not descend on Brauchli over this apparent contradiction? The NYT's brief statement doesn't address those specific questions.

UPDATE: In Brauchli's letter to former Post marketing executive Charles Pelton -- the basis for this morning's NYT "postscript" accusing Brauchli of lying to the paper -- Brauchli claims that the NYT reporter "apparently misunderstood me."

In acknowledging for the first time that he knew the controversial dinners were off the record, Brauchli said he explained to NYT reporter Richard Perez-Pena that "my original intention had been that the dinners would take place under Chatham House Rule -- meaning that the conversations could be used for further reporting without identifying the speaker or the speaker's affiliation."

Brauchli stated definitively to Pelton in the letter that "I knew that the salon dinners were being promoted as 'off the record.'"

But when Perez-Pena's stories appeared and suggested otherwise, Brauchli made no attempt to clarify or correct the NYT articles. "I should have said something at that point but did not," Brauchli wrote in the letter to Pelton, dated September 25, and published this morning by Politico.

However, in McNulty's statement to The NYTPicker today that "the note speaks for itself," the NYT is clearly stating that it doesn't believe Brauchli's version of events. The postscript made no mention of Brauchli's claim in the letter that he had been misunderstood.

UPDATE: "The letter speaks for itself," says Kris Coratti, communications director of the Washington Post, in an email to The NYTPicker responding to our requests for comment from Brauchli. It's probably not a coincidence that Coratti's comment is virtually identical to McNulty's statement on behalf of the NYT earlier today.

Did Stephen Farrell Ignore Official Warnings On Reporting Trip's Dangers? British Paper Reports Military Anger At Farrell Over Deaths.

Does NYT correspondent Stephen Farrell bear some responsibility for the deaths of his interpreter and a British soldier in the raid that freed him from captivity this week?

That's the implication of an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, one of England's most respected daily papers, which raised serious questions about Farrell's decision to report from the Kunduz region last week -- a choice that resulted in his kidnapping and a pre-dawn raid Wednesday by British commandos that freed the 46-year-old NYT correspondent, but resulted in the deaths of his interpreter and a British soldier.

Under the headline, "Army anger as soldier killed saving journalist who ignored Taliban warning," the Telegraph reported yesterday:

Afghan police and intelligence officers repeatedly warned journalists including Mr Farrell that it was too dangerous to go to the site. Kunduz is a notorious Taliban northern stronghold and was one of the last holdouts of the regime when it was toppled in 2001.

Farrell and his interpreter were kidnapped on Saturday on the reporting trip to the Kunduz province, where they were investigating civilian casualties in the wake of a deadly NATO airstrike the day before.

The telegraph quotes two British military officials, both anonymously, suggesting that the operation -- and resulting deaths - could have been avoided if Farrell had heeded the warnings not to report in the Kunduz province that day.

One, described as a "senior Army source," told the Telegraph:

“When you look at the number of warnings this person had it makes you really wonder whether he was worth rescuing, whether it was worth the cost of a soldier’s life. In the future special forces might think twice in a similar situation.”


A second comment from an unnamed "military source" to the Telegraph was even harsher:

“This reporter went to this area against the advice of the Afghan police. So thanks very much Stephen Farrell, your irresponsible act has led to the death of one of our boys.”

Farrell's own extensive account of his ordeal, posted yesterday on the NYT website, makes no mention of advance safety warnings from Afghan officials. He only acknowledges the warnings of one local of an ominous Taliban presence as they worked (emphases added):

A crowd began to gather, time passed and we grew nervous. I do not know how long we were there, but it was uncomfortably long. I am comfortable with the decision to go to the riverbank, but fear we spent too long there.

I said, “We should go,” almost exactly as Sultan said the same thing.

An old man said we should not tarry. The driver went to the car. Even as we were carrying our gear bags to the car, villagers shouted, “Taliban,” and scattered away from the river. Our driver fled, with the keys. His instincts were immaculate — he survived.

Sultan and I fled a shorter distance, stopped and tried to gauge where we were running, and from whom. Should we stay and hope they did not cross the river toward us, or flee straight across unknown fields and run the risk of being cut down by Taliban in the field ahead of us, shooting at anything that moved?

We hovered, and got caught.

As for any advance checks by Farrell regarding security risks associated with the reporting trip, the reporter had only this to report: "The drivers made a few phone calls and said the road north appeared to be safe until mid- to late afternoon."

But the Telegraph article yesterday describes what appear to be previous admonitions from Afghan police and security officials that were apparently ignored by Farrell when he proceeded on Saturday, and that aren't mentioned in any NYT account of the episode.

While stopping short of placing full blame for the deaths on Farrell, the article did quote by name a former special forces soldier with the British Army who had harsh words for the Kabul-based correspondent:

Tim Collins, a former SAS officer, said the journalist had a “big thank you to give to the people who gave their lives to make up for his mistakes”. He said: “These soldiers were doing their job but I would say Stephen Farrell would be wise not to crow to loudly about his experience because his incompetence has cost a life. Unfortunately in journalism you do come across people who believe they are infallible.”

In an interview with NPR's "The Takeaway" on Wednesday, NYT executive editor Bill Keller said that the NYT may re-examine its safety protocols in light of the Farrell kidnapping.

"The first thing we're going to do is have Steven come out and do yet another security review," Keller said. "The situation has gotten more and more perilous, not so much in Kabul but once you get out into the countryside. We had set up some new protocols for reporters traveling out in the field, and we're going to take another look at those now to find out whether they're strict enough."

Bill Keller Is Shocked -- Shocked! -- To Find Elitism In The NYT. (Your Paycheck, Sir.)

Nothing quite nauseates us more than when the NYT -- and specifically, executive editor Bill Keller -- wraps itself in the "common man" image, as Keller did today in saying that Cintra Wilson's J.C. Penney essay shouldn't have been published.

In a statement of mind-bending hypocrisy, Keller told public editor Clark Hoyt this morning that the Critical Shopper piece in the Styles section -- which archly (and Hoyt confirmed, correctly) noted Penney's seming obsession with the obese -- “would make a fine exhibit for someone making the case that The Times has an arrogant streak.”

Keller then dragged his own mother into the paper's defense, noting that she was "a Penney’s shopper for much of her life,"and would have deemed Wilson's point of view “snotty.” According to Wikipedia, Keller's mother was the wife of the wealthy chairman and CEO of Chevron, and lived in San Mateo, California.

Is this the same Bill Keller who has been seen sitting side-by-side with NYT critics and editors at fashion shows, happily ogling skinny supermodels who promote an industry that has ignored the overweight American population completely?

Is this the same Bill Keller who pays the bills for his much-vaunted foreign bureaus by publishing a high-end, size-2-only fashion supplement, "T," that hasn't featured a full-figure model in its entire five years of existence?

Is this the same Bill Keller who has sent children to NYC's elite private schools? (Sorry, Bill, but once you drag your own mother into the argument...)

Is this the same Bill Keller who closed down his paper's stand-alone Metro, Sports and regional news sections, while preserving its two-day-a-week Styles sections and its arts section that routinely covers Broadway and Lincoln Center events that cost $100-plus a ticket? (Of course, when Keller or other editors go to Broadway or the opera, it's free -- and they sit on the seventh row, on the aisle.)

As hard as the NYT tries to be a newspaper for the common man -- most recently by getting itself a dog, and cloaking itself in the cuddly fur of man's best friend -- it's a staunchly elitist institution that depends on its upper-crust status for survival. Its readers live largely in the city's wealthy suburbs, not in its working-class neighborhoods. They shop at Saks and Bloomingdale's. They eat at the high-end restaurants reviewed by its critics, who stick mostly to Manhattan and Brooklyn when it comes to culling the city's culinary options.

We don't object per se to the NYT's elitist sensibility. What troubles us about Keller's attack on Cintra Wilson's piece -- which we've already defended here against what we consider an unfair pile-on by politically correct readers and critics -- is that he would try to differentiate her point of view from the paper's own, and his own.

Wilson is guilty of only one transgression -- of speaking the truth, in frank language, about a topic we all prefer to avoid. We live in a society that allows obesity to run rampant. These days, stores like J.C. Penney routinely label a dress that was once a size 20 at size 14 -- or smaller -- so that an overweight woman can convince herself she has lost weight. Penney has bought overweight mannequins (now increasingly common) to make its customers more comfortable. Indeed, Wilson praised Penney for its attention to the needs of overweight women, to the exclusion of the city's stereotypical social x-ray.

Keller is guilty of a far greater commitment to elitism than he's willing to admit, or than is reflected in Wilson's essay. During his six-year tenure as the NYT's executive editor, while overseeing the literal shrinkage of his paper and reductions in its news coverage, he has given his full support to the paper's elitist elements -- overhauling the NYT Magazine's Part IIs into high-end vehicles for advertising to the too-rich, too-thin crowd who keep frequent advertisers like Barney's and Armani in business. (We've noted in the past the paper's obsessive, obsequious coverage of Armani.) Those magazines (once upon a time, edited by a NYT fashion critic) have become increasingly less interested in journalism, and more focused on high-end-user-friendly features for the NYT's richest customers.

More recently the NYT has become fixated on Vogue and its troubles, perhaps wanting to comprehend the slide in high-end advertising that has afflicted its own messed-up business model. Just today, Maureen Dowd -- famously fascinated with all things ritzy -- chronicled a MOMA screening of the new Anna Wintour documentary,pressing her upturned nose against the glass yet again.

We don't fault Keller for doing what's necessary to keep the NYT alive and kicking. But we do resent it when he criticizes Cintra Wilson for doing precisely what the rest of the NYT has done for decades -- celebrating the elitist sensibility that has kept the NYT in business. For Keller to make Wilson the scapegoat for his desire to align himself with working-class J.C. Penney shoppers is offensive and unfair.

EXCLUSIVE: Jesse McKinley, NYT San Francisco Bureau Chief, Rumored To Replace Sam Sifton as Culture Editor.

The latest hot rumor among NYT insiders is that Jesse McKinley, the NYT's San Francisco bureau chief and a former NYT theater reporter, may soon be named to succeed Sam Sifton as the paper's culture editor.

"No decision has been made at this time," said NYT spokeswoman Catherine Mathis last night, responding to an email from The NYTPicker seeking confirmation of the McKinley rumor.

McKinley declined to comment on the possible promotion. "I'm afraid I have to defer to Catherine on this, as she speaks for the company on all personnel matters," he said in an email to The NYTPicker last night.

On August 5, when asked by The NYTPicker for comment on a report in Sharon Waxman's "The Wrap" that Living editor Trish Hall had gotten the Sifton slot, Mathis was far more emphatic in her denial. "We haven't picked a next culture editor," Mathis said at the time. "We've just begun the search."

McKinley began writing for the NYT City section in 1993, and for three years handled the F.Y.I. column that answers readers' local trivia questions. In 1998, the paper assigned him to the theater beat, a post he held for eight years. During that time he developed a reputation for thorough, dogged coverage of the New York City theater scene.

In 2006, the NYT rewarded McKinley with a plum assignment on the national desk, as its full-time bureau chief in San Francisco. Those jobs have often led to editing positions at the paper, and McKinley's experience as a culture reporter lends his candidacy added weight. McKinley's brother, James C. McKinley Jr., is the NYT's Houston bureau chief.

It's important to note that McKinley's name has only surfaced as the latest rumored choice to fill the high-profile post. (We had our doubts about The Wrap's report that Trish Hall had gotten the job, but reported it as one plausible scenario after former NYT culture reporter Waxman floated it on her site.) The final decision rests with executive editor Bill Keller, who surprised the rumor mill earlier this month with his unexpected choice of Sifton to take over the restaurant beat from Frank Bruni.

Anybody Got A Question For "Talk To The Newsroom"? Anybody Besides Judith Feinleib, We Mean.

Yesterday's lead-off puffball question in Richard Berke's "Talk To The Newsroom" feature came from Judith Feinleib, of Belmont, Massachusetts.

Does that name ring a bell? It should. It was Feinleib's 30th published "Talk To The Newsroom" question!

Feinleib is rapidly becoming the Helen Thomas of the NYT web feature, except for one key difference: Thomas asks tough questions. But that wouldn't behoove the "Talk To The Newsroom" column, designed to give NYT reporters and editors the chance to make themselves look good in a tightly-controlled situation.

And we're not just saying this because they always ignore our questions. (Okay, that's part of it.)

Actually, so far this week, all three questions come from repeat guests: Devin Banerjee, the Stanford student who asked Bill Keller a question last month about how he spends his day, turned up for his third TTTN appearance yesterday, and Steve Fankuchen, of Oakland, California, asked his second TTTN question.

Shouldn't it really be someone else's turn at the microphone?

Here's Feinleib's latest suck-up salvo, an embarrassing wet kiss directed at the assistant managing editor:

This is your second time answering our questions; you were extremely generous with your time in 2006. Would you comment on what you got from the original experience, on whether and/or how this affected the way you approached your work during the ensuing three years and on what you expect from the experience this time around?

Here's the beginning of Berke's aw-shucks reply, presented as though we're supposed to believe the question was picked at random from a bowl:

What a perfect opening question for my week of blogging. (And who can resist a compliment?)

Feinleib's TTTN debut came on October 18, 2006, when she queried Craig R. Whitney, the NYT's standards editor, on reporters and their rights to speak freely about their political opinions. (By the way, back then, Feinleib was referring to herself ax "Judith Feinleib, Ph.D." She has since dropped her academic credentials.)

Often, Feinleib's questions simply ask NYT editors or reporters to explain their jobs, in a manner that sounds a bit like a third-grader quizzing a visiting firefighter. Here's her question for Khoi Vinh, the design director of nytimes.com, on April 21, 2008:

You have stated that you and your staff are involved with what you describe as the framework for NYTimes.com. To what extent do you and your staff interact with reporters and editors? How does that work? Assuming you do work with the reporters and editors, is that the same as what happens with the graphics team? In any case, how does your team work with the graphics team?

What? Huh? Oh, sorry -- we fell asleep.

It's not that Feinleib's questions aren't valid. Often, by posing basic queries about the editorial process, she gives the subject the chance to give some insight into how journalists work. But too often, you get the feeling that NYT personnel pick Feinleib's questions because of how easy they are to answer, avoiding possibly more challenging queries that get left out.

Consider this yawner Feinleib lobbed at Marc Frons, the chief technology officer of the NYT's digital operations, in late July:

Are reporters and editors becoming more comfortable with technology? How do you see the news producing staff (for want of a better term) interacting with the IT staff as time goes by? Will this become a seamless operation or will there always be some difference between the two worlds?

"How do you see..." or "How does that work?" constructions come up alot in Feinleib's questions.

Therein may lie Feinleib's secret. There appears to be nothing a NYT staffer likes more than a long-winded "How does that work" question, because it offers a wonderful opportunity for a self-serving and long-winded "Here's how it works" answer!

Bill Keller: "Readers of The New York Times Do Not Need To Be Treated Like Fools."

Early this evening, after nearly 24 hours of radio silence, executive editor Bill Keller returned to the NYT website with an extended response to attacks on the paper's coverage of the Gaza War.

In a rambling, 1,560-word essay, Keller spoke eloquently and with force on the issue, as he has all week deflecting criticism on numerous fronts. As with most NYT editors, Keller carries some arrogance into the discussion. But he seemingly can't help but defend his noble correspondents against charges that they're playing favorites in the age-old conflict.

Keller opens with the kind of whiz-bang lede you'd expect from a Pulitzer winner:

"When the author of Proverbs wrote 15:1 ("a gentle answer turneth away wrath") he clearly didn't foresee the passions that would beset his neighborhood a couple of millennia later. Gentle — and thoughtful, and agonized, and heartfelt — answers have consistently failed to turn away the wrath of those who believe that The Times is a captive of one side or the other, that our reporters in the field march to some partisan tune, that the articles and photographs we publish are part of a campaign to demonize Israel or, alternatively, to do the bidding of some Jewish cabal."

From there, Keller then launches into a damning attack on the tabloid culture that uses scare headlines to inflame readers' emotions.

Words are the main tools of our craft. They can be used to inform and explain. They can also be used to inflame, or to pander. The tabloid press has a vocabulary of headline words — HERO, THUG, MADMAN — that are aimed not at the minds of readers, or even at their hearts, but at their viscera. Over time, the promiscuous use of such overheated language and adolescent name-calling cheapens both the language and the user. And it is insulting to readers. It tells you what you are supposed to think, implying you are too stupid or insensitive to make your own judgment. I prefer to think that readers of The New York Times do not need to be treated like fools.

Words can also be a litmus test, a password to establish your adherence to a particular point of view. To describe a politician as "liberal" or "conservative" (while almost always inexact) is generally neutral. To describe the same politician as "left-wing" or "right-wing" may say more about you than about your subject. It identifies you.

NYT stories don't do that. Nor will he allow the debate over the use of the word "terrorist" to weigh on him. He believes that more important issues remain. In the end, he challenges the paper's critics to stop sniping at his reporters:

Covering the Middle East is grueling work, emotionally taxing, intellectually challenging and sometimes physically perilous. The reporters who do it expect to be second-guessed, but they don't deserve to be vilified.

One consistent element of Keller's answers to questions this week has been his eagerness to point out the high-quality work of his staff. Yes, it may come off as arrogance, but it also demonstrates Keller's loyalty to his reporters and his passion for their work. As a former reporter himself, Keller brings a clear-minded and fair perspective to the Gaza issue that's hard not to admire.

Wonder why Keller waited until after the close of business on a Friday afternoon to put this out. It was the only admission of weakness all week by an editor who spent most of it passionately playing from a position of strength. He'll always argue, no matter what the topic, that the NYT covers it better than anyone else -- at one point this week he basically wrote off the Los Angeles Times as a second-rate paper, and had no nice words for the Washington Post.

And he's probably right.

Bill Keller Really Shouldn't Be Drinking Rolling Rock At The 10:00 A.M. Editors' Meeting.

NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller has just posted this bizarre attempt at humor in response to reader Devin Banerjee's serious question on the "Talk To The Newsroom" web feature this afternoon:

Q. I think a lot of young journalists and editors, myself included, are curious about what a day in the shoes of Bill Keller is like. Can you walk us through a normal work day for The Times's executive editor?
— Devin Banerjee, Stanford, Calif.

A. Really? You'd be interested in that? Well, I think my life is pretty much what you would imagine it to be.

I wake up most mornings to the telephone, invariably some world leader or international celebrity seeking my counsel. Lately it's been a lot of President Obama — again with the damn puppy? — but sometimes it's Richard Holbrooke to pick my brain about Afghanistan, or Bruce Springsteen asking if it isn't time for another Arts and Leisure cover story about Bruce Springsteen. The valet brings breakfast with the handful of newspapers that have not gone out of business. In the limo on the way to the office, I help Warren Buffett sort out his portfolio and give trading advice to George Steinbrenner, not that he ever listens.

At the office, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and I have our morning conference call with Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — plus Fidel Castro when he's compos mentis. Dictating the world's agenda entails a lot of conference calls. I've been encouraging the cabal to save some money by using iChat, but first we have to persuade Putin to wear a shirt.

Lunch at the Four Seasons is always a high point. Today it's my weekly tête-à-tête with Bill O'Reilly. He's really not the Neanderthal blowhard he plays on TV. He's totally in on the joke. After a couple of cosmopolitans, he does a wicked impression of Ann Coulter. We usually spend the lunch working up outlandish things he can say about The New York Times and making fun of Fox executives. (Once Rupert Murdoch showed up for a lunch date, and O'Reilly had to hide under the table for half an hour.)

I spend most of the afternoon writing all the stories for the front page. (You knew those were all pseudonyms, right?) I write Tom Friedman's column, too, but, I swear, Bill Kristol wrote all his own stuff.

By then it's time for drinks and dinner. If you're reading this, Julian, I think the duck tonight. I had the foie gras for lunch. And no time for dessert. The Secretary of State is coming by to give me a back rub.


[UPDATE: With the next "Talk To The Newsroom" question, about the expansion of the NYT index, Keller really starts to loosen up and let the comedy fly:

Reading over my previous answer, I recognize that it ill behooves the executive editor to attempt satire this early in the week. Friday, maybe Thursday, and only during Happy Hour. So let's get this trolley back on the sober track. What'll it be? The Middle East? Not yet. Liberal bias? Oh, please! The index? Now you're talking!

It's only Tuesday, folks. This is going to be fun.]

[ANOTHER UPDATE: The Nytpicker contacted Devin Banerjee, who asked Keller the question about how he spends his day, to see what he thought of the editor's comedy skills. Turns out Banerjee goes to Stanford and works as deputy editor of the Stanford Daily -- and surprisingly enough, the future NYT job applicant had only flattering things to say to the Nytpicker about Keller:

I was both surprised and entertained by Keller's response -- surprised because my question was entirely serious, and entertained because I did think his response was pretty funny. I always knew Keller had a great sense of humor, but I was expecting him to perhaps begin the response with something satirical and then actually address my question. I guess not. Based on the response to the question following mine, though, I think he has recognized that his response was not one readers were expecting: "Reading over my previous answer, I recognize that it ill behooves the executive editor to attempt satire this early in the week." Anyway, I'll be meeting him in early April at an event for The Stanford Daily, so rest assured that I'll get my response!

Brilliantly played, Banerjee. And remember, for that April meeting: Rolling Rock is the executive editor's brew of choice. Having a case on ice wouldn't hurt.]

John McCain's Lobbyist "Friend" Sues NYT For $27 Million Over Alleged Defamation.

If Washington lobbyist Vicki Iseman wins her lawsuit against the Times over its February 2008 story about her alleged relationship with John McCain, maybe the company should just give her the Boston Globe.

Iseman -- the focus of a blockbuster Times story that intimated the possibility of a romantic relationship between the Senator and the lobbyist -- has filed a $27 million defamation suit against the Times in U.S. District Court in Richmond. The suit names executive editor Bill Keller, Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet, and the four bylined reporters on the piece: Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, Stephen Labaton and David D. Kirkpatrick. (Thompson has since gone to work for The Washington Post.)

The 3,026-word story ran on February 21, and focused on the fact that McCain aides were troubled by the Senator's close ties to Iseman in 1999, when she was a telecommunications-industry lobbyist and McCain chaired the Senate Commerce Committee. The Times went so far as to publish this denial of any romantic relationship in the fourth paragraph:

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

But the damage was done, and considered so severe that it inspired much debate in the media community over the propriety of the investigation. Three days later, Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt weighed in with harsh criticism of the piece, and the Times's handling of the story:

A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

“In their attack on Senator McCain, the [defendants] were willing to sacrifice Ms. Iseman as acceptable collateral damage, recklessly indifferent to the avalanche of scorn, derision and ridicule Ms. Iseman would suffer,” the lawsuit charges.

The lawsuit includes this sordid depiction by Iseman's lawyers, of the damage done by the article to Iseman's reputation and mental health:

To be portrayed as someone who would engage in an inappropriate romantic relationship with a Senator before whom she conducted business on behalf of clients, was to cut to the heart of all that Ms. Iseman was, stood for, and believed in.

The external damage to Ms. Iseman's reputation led to a corresponding deterioration of her interior mental, emotional and physical health. As days and weeks went by, and the cruel gossip, whispers, blogs, rumors, confrontations, and innuendo about her continued, her despondency over the publication of the article and its impact on her life grew. Ms. Iseman suffered intense and severe emotional, psychological, and medical distress and damage as she experienced the destruction of her reputation, identity, and sense of self-worth.

And as for the Times:

Liberals may live to love The new York Times, and conservatives may live to hate it, but all must admit that it has been among a handful of American media outlets that occupy a unique niche of authority and respect within American and world culture. The very position that The New York Times occupies in American society, its reputation as a "newspaper of record," as "The Grey Lady," underscores both the damage caused by such reckless reporting and the egregious fault of The New York Times Defendants in publishing the defamatory article....

Readers read The New York Times in the belief that the paper neither states nor implies a fact unless it has the evidence to back it up. In publishing an article clearly implying that Ms. Iseman had an unethical, illicit romantic relationship with Senator McCain, The New York Times defendants betrayed that trust.

The Times issued a statement this afternoon standing by its story. It better have the facts on its side, because it sure doesn't have the money.

Clark Hoyt's "Blog" Needs Some Updating. So Does His Thinking, For That Matter.

Readers of nytimes.com have become happily accustomed to daily -- if not hourly -- updates from its excellent blogs. Even those checking now, on the Saturday night after a national holiday, will find new posts to supplement the print edition.

All except Clark Hoyt's "Public Editor's Journal," which hasn't been updated with fresh material (other than reader letters and the posting of a document) since October 3, when he posted a roundup of investigative stories on the two campaigns that offered readers the chance to do a side-by-side comparison.

Before that, Hoyt hadn't posted since August 21, when he addressed a reference to author Brigitte Gabriel, in the Times Magazine, as a "radical Islamophobe." That post prompted 92 comments, a fairly strong piece of evidence that demand outweighs supply.

Is it really accurate to call "The Public Editor's Journal" a "blog" if its chief blogger only updates it once every two months? There are kids who write letters to their parents from college more frequently than Hoyt posts commentaries on the Times website. Virtually all other Times blogs update several times a week, and some several times a day.

Okay, to be fair: Hoyt's primary job is to write columns that appear in the Sunday Week In Review section. Those columns get published twice a month, sometimes more, and include Hoyt's reporting and opinion about internal Times decision-making as it pertains to the paper's coverage.

Recent columns have included a look at a reporter who used Facebook to reach minors for a story on Cindy McCain, an examination of hot-button religious issues in arts coverage, and, tomorrow, the danger of publishing opinion pieces by news reporters. (More on that later.)

But would it hurt Hoyt to weigh in more often, and more quickly, than his current anemic rate? Frankly, the reporters and editors he judges work a hell of a lot harder than he does, and deliver a significantly greater bang for the buck. That doesn't seem right.

And besides, let's face it, it's not exactly a tough job. The guy rarely even has to press for an outside line, let alone do the sort of thorough reporting he demands of his subjects.

Even by the standards of Hoyt's predecessors, there's a lot to be desired of the current public editor, both in the quality and quantity of his efforts. Daniel Okrent inaugurated the position with a tenacity and intelligence yet to be matched. He never failed to ask the tough question or take on the top targets -- including no less an adversary than Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who Okrent accused of cooking numbers to suit his arguments. His successor, Byron Calame, never measured up, preferring to go after reporters on weak ethical issues like their acceptance of discounts.

Hoyt has failed to return the column to Okrent's heights. He obsesses with issues of bias and fairness that seem mired in an old-school sensibility; he seems less interested in elevating the Times than in spot-checking its adherence to outmoded demands for propriety. By the time Hoyt gets around to raising real questions, it's too late; the only concrete change in Times policy to result from his column is the revised signature line on Deborah Solomon's Sunday magazine interview, after he criticized her methods last fall. That's not going to get Hoyt a book deal when his two-year stint ends when he leaves the paper next May.

Tomorrow's column captures the essence of Hoyt's weakness. He slaps the wrists of reporters Joe Nocera, Andrew Ross Sorkin and Gretchen Morgenson for allowing opinions into their recent columns on the economic crisis; in particular, he objects to Sorkin's demand for the ouster of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner and for the auto maker to declare bankruptcy, while his colleague Nocera advocated caution.

But does it even matter what Hoyt thinks? For one thing, we learn from his column that the question has already been raised and resolved in the newsroom, and that executive editor Bill Keller had already ruled that Sorkin's column "stepped over the line." But Hoyt's column goes on to say that Nocera's column did, too -- simply by expressing an opinion on a topic he covers. In Hoyt's "perfect world," as he refers to it, "I would not have reporters writing opinion about the subjects they cover."

What a waste of time to have a 65-year-old public editor pushing the Times backwards, while its reporters and editors correctly see the need for a blurring of boundaries as the print world struggles to keep itself relevant. The times we live in call for fairness and accuracy, but also for informed opinion and commentary; the best reporters, like Nocera, Morgenson and Sorkin, offer both. Their coverage of the current economic crisis has been astonishing both in its depth and insight, and their columns have guided readers to form their own opinions about topics that warrant opinions from all of us.

Hoyt needs to spend less time reliving internal Times disputes that have been properly considered and resolved, and more on matters that his bosses Keller & Co. overlook. There's plenty in the Times's methods and content to report on each day. With only six months left on his contract, it's about time for Hoyt to step up his game, and start keeping his blog up to date.