« OUR FRIENDS, THE SAUDIS • Main • THE POST-RAINES NYTIMES GOES TO THE PROM »

June 09, 2003

June 9, 2003
by Yale Kramer

FACT OR MORE NEW YORK TIMES FICTION: HORSEFEATHERS CALLS THEIR BLUFF

Now the New York Times wants us to believe that one of their star reporters, Sarah Lyall, took all her clothes off on a public street in Barcelona at dawn yesterday and allowed herself to be photographed by some nut-case artist along with 7000 other nude individuals of small brain who fell for the photographer’s line that they were engaging in “the dialogue of contemporary art.”

The Times editors must be kidding if they think that this time they can unpull the wool over our eyes. We remember Jason Blair, who made up fanciful stories, and used stringers. We remember Rick Bragg who wrote his stories in airports, fully clothed.

How do we know that Sarah Lyall wasn’t on her fifth Tio Pepe in the tapas bar around the corner when the event happened? How do we know that at the last minute she didn’t throw in a stringer rather than remove her bra and panties? How do we know she wasn’t snug in her bed on the upper East Side of Manhattan for that matter.

Come on guys, give us a break. Horsefeathers thinks that from now on you Timespeople have to win back our trust by showing your reporters participating in their participatory journalism—or at least showing their “underpants hitting the floor.”

Posted at 01:19 PM by

Comments

Pinch is the problem. He is responsible for the entire sordid mess. He still has a lot of power, and can make or break careers in journalism, so I don't hink we will see much in the way of change if the cowards don't gather the collective spine to force him out.

Posted by: William Johnson on June 9, 2003 02:06 PM

If it's OK to generalize from past lies at the New York Times, that this author must also be lying, then our President is in trouble, because we should be making the same generalizations from his pattern of lying, not just about himslef, but about everyone in his adminnistration. (Yes, he lied, look it up at Spinsanity — if Spinsanity was a good source to cite re MoDo, they're also fine here).

So what is it, do we discriminate about people's behaviors, or are they categorically unredeemable?

(I also look forward to your evidence that she didn't disrobe. I have an open mind on this, and know you do, too.)

Posted by: Frank on June 9, 2003 09:43 PM