FWIW, I’ve asked Ron Rosenbaum in a comment to his post today if he can clarify whether or not his original November 30 report of the rumored LA Times sex-scandal story (which got interpreted by lots of folks as a story about Hillary and Huma Abedin) was in fact the same rumor the New York Times published this morning (and which Rosenbaum thought about revealing in January, but didn’t). In which case there would be no potential Hillary-Huma scandal. Waaah.
We’ll see what he says. BigHeadDC’s reporting that just after the McCain scandal broke the number of Google searches on Huma Abedin went “volcanic” — so I think it’s safe to say I have lots of company.
What say ye, Ron?
Â
Fox News was reporting this morning that New Republic is about to hit the streets with an article detailing, in HIGH detail, just how corrupt and for sale the Editorial Board of the NYT is.
The story on Fox ended in speculation that the NYT pumped out the “October Surprise” to get ahead of the New Republic.
So, it seems that the Slimes is VERY worried about the NR article affecting it’s ability to shape politics.
On the face of it, the Slimes looks pretty stupid on this one: they just endorsed McCain, after all, and had to be working on the hit piece and the endorsement at the same time in the same editorial room!
The New York Times is out of control, and the present Editorial Board seems to be on their last legs.
Prediction: huge round of dismissals/resignations in the coming week, have to get them done NOW before the New Republic article comes out.
BTW, Rush Limbaugh is going on and on about the NYT stupidity this morning, but he doesn’t seem to have this news about the New Republic, which tends to explain it all.
The New Republic article is out, and it’s pretty amusing. See it here: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24
I don’t think that this is what the Fox reporter was referring to. Unless Fox was overblowing their own horn (which has happened before), they were talking about a NR article that was supposed to detail corruption on the Editorial Board, and a “position for sale” attitude at the top at the Gray Lady.
This piece on the origins of the McCain “sexpose” seems to have been in the works for a while, but it definitely does NOT detail any corruption of “for sale” attitude.
Fox led me to believe that convincing evidence of the Times’ involvement in political influence was forthcoming, but is isn’t here. What we see here is nothing more than internal editorial squabbles over what will appear to the hoi-palloi as an amorphous standard of reporting, but it is not anything that will keep us up at night waiting for the next bulletin.