NYT editor: Saving the Times “now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause”
posted at 4:07 pm on April 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
When I first saw the quote, I thought for sure he must have meant that it’s ridiculous that saving the Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a lefty pet cause. Surely he couldn’t be so callous, so solipsistic, so astoundingly egotistical as to equate the fate of his rag with genocide as a matter of pressing import.
Annnnnd … I was right.
New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, in an email to POLITICO, explained telling an audience at Stanford yesterday that “saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause.”
“I think it’s pretty obviously a reflection of my mild astonishment at the earnest fervor with which some people have suddenly embraced the cause of saving newspapers,” Keller wrote. “That’s matched only by my mild astonishment at the silly literal-mindedness with which some people read my occasional public comments.”
Just wanted to help set the record straight before the misinterpretation spreads too far. For a more justifiable shot of NYT loathing, see Media Blog’s post on Keller blaming Fox News for the outrage over his appalling hit piece on McCain and Vicki Iseman — even though all the cable nets, including MSNBC, were dumping on the story from the get-go. A new smear to spin the old one. Stay classy, Bill.
Update: Ah, forgot to link another of Keller’s newer greatest hits: Is there a way out of the recession through Nazi economics?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
How DARE you take me literally, silly peasants!
Snowed In on April 3, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Saving hundreds of thousands from tirture & death = saving the information equivolent of the horse & buggy?
jgapinoy on April 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM
So , he’s backpedaling …
the_nile on April 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM
tirturetorturejgapinoy on April 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM
The News Corpse
ballz2wallz on April 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM
…a buggy that always veers left, BTW.
jgapinoy on April 3, 2009 at 4:11 PM
They’re both kind of desolate.
Vashta.Nerada on April 3, 2009 at 4:12 PM
300,000 dead and this self-important prig compares himself to that. Anyway I am sure the world will do as much for time as they did Darfur.
rob verdi on April 3, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I don’t have time to read and invesitagate stories just the hte NY Times. How could the NY Times be so callous, so solipsistic, so astoundingly egotistical as to equate the fate of his rag with genocide. Now, spread the
rumorstory.WashJeff on April 3, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Although I’m loathe to defend him, it is possible his vocal inflection indicated his astonishment, and that would not have been picked up in print. Is there a video of his speech somewhere? Of course, leave it to the NYT editor to fail to realize that if he was misrepresented in the press, it may have happened to others, as well.
DrMagnolias on April 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Considering that we have been “saving” Darfur to death, it seems logical to expect the same of a like attempt with the NYT.
crosspatch on April 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM
is it official HA policy now that all posts much ‘age’ for a while in the headlines?
gatorboy on April 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM
From Jonah Goldberg:
Indeed, Michael Kinsley recounts an illuminating story. “A very distinguished New York Times writer” once told Kinsley that “if the Times ballet critic, heading home after assessing the day’s offerings of pliés and glissades, happens to witness a murder on her way to the Times Square subway, she has a First Amendment right and obligation to refuse to testify about what she saw.” Why? Because she’s a journalist!
The New York Times… Better and More Important Than You.
Realist on April 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Send me the death notice.
moxie_neanderthal on April 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Toilet Paper……
Seven Percent Solution on April 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Tone-deaf. This is too much. Oy, NYT.
lansing quaker on April 3, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Sounds to me like he’s hacking on the “Save the [insert pet cause here]” crowd more than advocating the preservation of his fish-wrapper.
i.e. The enthusiasm that some people have about saving the Times says more about the former than the latter.
landshark on April 3, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Well you guys should agree considering a sizable amount of your content comes from the NYT. Good luck doing your own reporting!
crr6 on April 3, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Please let me know when the NYT goes down in flames…I’ll bring the marshmallows.
milwife88 on April 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM
So they’re going to run ads with a sad Maureen Dowd holding an empty bowl?
“For just a few dollars a week, you can keep poor Maureen in vodka gimlets at Elaine’s.”
Wethal on April 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Whatevah.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 3, 2009 at 4:24 PM
For outhouses at state recreation beaches.
Wethal on April 3, 2009 at 4:25 PM
hahah, now he knows what it’s like to be misinterpreted. He’s still a pompous a$$, though. Maybe Obama will take over his rag and then fire him, too.
scalleywag on April 3, 2009 at 4:25 PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023240.php
Read this…
Keemo on April 3, 2009 at 4:26 PM
now that’s hilarious!
scalleywag on April 3, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Fixed.
NeighborhoodCatLady on April 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I have to laugh every time I hear or see the new NYT ads for weekend service during Rush, Hannity or any time on Fox. You know a paper is in trouble when they are trying to convince conservative listeners and viewers that they “have the best journalists in the world.”
Would those be the journalists that put an unresearched hit piece about McCain and an affair on page 1 but wouldn’t publish a story with legs about Obama and ACORN sharing campaign lists?
PastorJon on April 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Good Lord just die already.
BigWyo on April 3, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Oh, and one more thing. There’s all this talk of a bailout for these people….If they take the money, will they then be beholden to SmakTard leftist ideology?? Will their objectivity be called into question??? The Horror!!
*gag*
BigWyo on April 3, 2009 at 4:34 PM
But if the Times went bankrupt, what would we use for birdcage liner?
And how would Al Jazeera learn about our national security secrets?
Maybe we should all chip in and buy Bill Keller a one-way ticket to Darfur, if he thinks it’s a high-minded cause.
Steve Z on April 3, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Rinse and repeat. You’d think with today’s ‘information age’ and that we wouldn’t face these threats from within, but I suspect we have about the same amount of people ‘clued in’ and paying attention as germany did
gatorboy on April 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Thanks AP, I always want my disgust to be founded on the truth.
Maquis on April 3, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Proof that media people live in their own little bubble and are completely out of touch with reality. The comparison is insane.
sherry on April 3, 2009 at 4:41 PM
What would we use to housetrain puppies?
Wethal on April 3, 2009 at 4:43 PM
The NY Times… lying since the Stalin era and undermining U.S. national security whenever it suits the power needs of their political pals and demoralizing the troops and pandering to illegal immigrants.
May they be selling apples on Broadway by X-mas.
“Alms for the Sulzbergers! Alms for the Sulzbergers!”
profitsbeard on April 3, 2009 at 4:44 PM
F*** You, NYT
bluelightbrigade on April 3, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Just think of this as delayed revenge for Walter Duranty, the Times’ Moscow reporter in the ’30′s who mocked reports of the Ukrainian famine, and was Stalin’s most prominent Western journalist bootlicker.
A few years ago, there was a move to posthumously strip Duranty of the Pulitzer he won for his Soviet reporting. The Times blocked the effort to revoke the Pulitzer.
Realist on April 3, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Apparently there aren’t enough of those earnest, fervent supporters willing to plunk down money for the rags.
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 4:57 PM
That picture of him is a classic.
Just heh
Entelechy on April 3, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Suddenly I’m feeling quite low-minded…buh-bye NYTimes!
Sheerq on April 3, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Okay this should fall under the label of IRONY!
Imagine someone says something that isn’t understood, as the speaker meant it to be understood, and it like a bag of feathers of falsehood spreads throughout the world…
And that person is…New York Times executive editor Bill Keller…
How ironic that the phenomon he has perfected as a tool against those he disagrees with politicaly comes back to bite him…. Although the same effect on his reputation will not be felt because… people for some reason feel they should protect him from the consequences he never protects others from.
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 5:05 PM
gatorboy on April 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Well comrade, look at this chart:
American news coverage of Obama’s trip has been entirely positive, but it doesn’t appear to have done his stature with voters much good–so far, at least. Today’s Rasmussen survey has Obama’s “approval index”–the difference between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove of his performance–at only +3, the lowest of his Presidency:
obama_index_april_3_2009.jpg.jpeg
The MSM is drooling over this narcissist, but much of the rest of the country is running out of patience. Trillions of dollars later, and the unemployment is still getting worse by the week; the economy is getting worse rather than better. Remember when Geithner, Obama, and Biden all told us that with the porkulus package, the economy would immediately get better, and jobs would immediately be created. 650 thousand more jobs lost since that pork pig was rushed through without a single person reading the damn thing.
Obama is keeping score, and so are the people…
Keemo on April 3, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I’ll tell him how to get his paper back. Make your reputation by being the Paper that reports all the negative information about Obama.
I guarrentee that will get readers. And subscribing readers at that.
You gotta admire his devotion to doing the wrong thing and allowing the paper to die for the wrong thing.
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Through the re-canvassing process, Democrat Scott Murphy’s lead has been erased and Republican Jim Tedisco now leads in the NY-20 special election by 12 votes. The final result won’t be known for at least a couple of weeks, as counting of absentee ballots won’t begin until April 13.
This is another sign of how the people really see Obama, rather than the media’s vision of how the people see Obama. Obama pushed pretty hard for the Democrat running in NY. If Obama was viewed in a positive light, this race would have been a slam dunk for the Libtard.
Keemo on April 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Not possible without a complete fire & rehire program. Liberals see life through a completely different pair of glasses than the rest of us. This is why they are so completely out of the mainstream, and have not a clue that they are.
Keemo on April 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Austrian Economics is forecasting a war at the end of this Depression as well.
Tim Burton on April 3, 2009 at 5:26 PM
If there ever was a newspaper that deserved to be hit by a fast moving train, it’s the New York Slimes. Throughout the years, they have been a traitorous, hate America, eyes for the enemy bunch of bastards. When they hit bottom, I hope they splatter big time.
byteshredder on April 3, 2009 at 5:43 PM
I got a big old bottle of champagne ready to pop the day The New York Times goes under. Good riddance.
RobCon on April 3, 2009 at 5:56 PM
The dirty little secret is that the Libs care more about the paper than they do about Darfur. Thus the mention of both.
What’s the over/under on the Times closing?
EMD on April 3, 2009 at 5:56 PM
If the NYT were an automobile company, they would be wondering why they have fewer and fewer customers. Could it be because everyone recognizes that their product is a ‘bunch of unreliable junk’? An outdated horseless carriage which can only make left turns?
If they would return to ‘objective’ reporting of facts, actual investigative reporting of ‘both’ sides, truly uncovering and reporting on the numerous Democratic scandals in Congress, then they could keep their left wing leanings strictly confined to their Editorial Page. The rest of the paper, with truly balanced news, would then be able to restore them to a healthy readership.
Uniblogger on April 3, 2009 at 6:14 PM
It’s just satire!
WisCon on April 3, 2009 at 6:15 PM
The New York Legend-In-Their-Minds should be rescued because it is too important to fail? Bailing out the this dreadful rag and the liars and misfits who ran it is equivalent to buying the Titanic AFTER it hit the iceberg.
MaiDee on April 3, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Why would anybody want to save the New York
SlimesTimes? Is there a shortage of fishwrap?Rusty Bill on April 3, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Exactly!!! He got caught with his golden boot in his mouth and now he’s trying to pry it out. Its obvious the the left does feel this way about saving the Obama media.
JeffVader on April 4, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Oh yes, because we all know that presenting “All the news that’s fit to spin” is morally and ethically equivalent to saving thousands of lives. Or is it that this editor feels saving his job is worth thousands of human lives?
Hawthorne on April 4, 2009 at 4:53 AM
Too big
mouthed,left of centerto failDr. ZhivBlago on April 4, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Too liberal to fail?
Too elitist to fail?
roninacreage on April 4, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Sounds like Murdoch himself.
Because Murdoch wants to kill it.
sethstorm on April 4, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Seems that the Murdoch-fed press can’t do that – except that they’re right-wing shills.
sethstorm on April 4, 2009 at 6:26 PM
I have never read the New York Times, so I have no opinion about the worth of it or if it’s possible demise would matter to anyone beyond NYT employees and paper and ink salesmen. I don’t know who first described that daily as the “paper of record”. I’m guessing it was a NYT editor.
I would like to know, seriously, what makes that paper sacrosanct? The number of Pulitzers it’s won? Is the Pulitzer any different than the Oscar or the Nobel peace prize; purely political? Somebody please tell me what hole in the universe will open up if that newspaper ceases to exist. I admit that I’m dense and I just don’t get it. Economics tells me that if there is a demand for anything (like news) a provider will come along to fill it. If one provider fails, and the demand still exists, another will fill the void. So what’s the problem? I think some people are just too hung up on the brand.
We’re not talking about a bible here, are we?
SKYFOX on April 4, 2009 at 9:06 PM