PrintReaction to Calame's rebuke
Common Sense Political Thought, a blog new to me, has a sensible and thoughtful reaction to the question I raised yesterday about the future job tenure of New York Times public editor Byron Calame, after his rebuke of the paper's failure to live up to its own editorial standards.
"...by taking a strong stand, Mr. Calame has put himself in the position of being very uncomfortable to fire for the Times. One can only hope."
There is also some interesting musing on the fate of the print pres, from one who formerly practiced the profession. This looks like a good site to keep current with.
Meanwhile, our friend at Mediacrity is less impressed with Calame's effort:
...to offset the sting of his rare, gentle criticism of the paper, Calame begins his item by taking a gratuitous, unecessary, and totally irrelevant swipe at Rivera: "One of the real tests of journalistic integrity is being fair to someone who might be best described by a four—letter word." The title of his column is also an unwarranted insult: "Even Geraldo Deserves a Fair Shake."
Well, I guess that is what you can expect from a management shill and Empty Suit. But really now. "Even Geraldo"? "Four—letter word"? The Empty Suit really doesn't like him. Here's why: He dared to complain publicly about being screwed by the Times.
Mediacrity has given up on Calame and wants him dumped.
On the other hand, our friend at Powerline, Scott Johnson, thinks Calame is "well north of worthless" though he, too, notes the gratuitous Heraldo—bashing, and the comparative burying of the most important criticism (of Gail Collins).
I have always been a glass is half full kinda guy. And as someone who briefly was a conservative faculty member in the Harvard Sociology Department, I have a lot of empathy for one who is viewed as a traitor (or worse) by those all around. Calame is in a tough spot. And Geraldo, a media figure I find amusing, infuriating, but never indifferent, is too easy a target. Implying that it's okay to slander someone who is disagreeable was the wrong way to go.
Thomas Lifson 9 25 05
