Patterico's Pontifications

10/24/2006

Boston Herald’s Crittenden Cites Prominent Obscure Blogger on Calame

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:03 am



The Boston Herald‘s Jules Crittenden has an excellent column on Byron Calame’s admission that the New York Times should not have run the Swift story. Crittenden’s column, while perhaps a touch over-optimistic, shows an admirable sense of the importance of Calame’s column:

What do you call it when the ombudsman of the New York Times admits he made a mistake?

A good start.

New York Times ombudsman Byron Calame has initiated what we can only hope will be a trend in America’s holier-than-thou media — that overwhelming and influential part of our nation’s news business that feigns objectivity, fairness and interest in our national well-being while relentlessly pursuing partisan and destructively anti-American agendas.

Crittenden is not full of unbridled praise for Calame. He notes the diffidence of Calame’s mea culpa, as well as the criticism of Calame by bloggers:

Calame’s mea culpa has a bit of the dog-ate-my-homework about it. As blogger Don Surber noted, Calame blamed his opinion in part for his sympathy with the “underdog” — the New York Times — under the onslaught of vociferous reaction from the Bush administration to its reporting. On what planet the New York Times is underdog, I don’t know. And perhaps it was nagging embarrassment at his own excess enthusiasm for unwarranted victimhood that prompted Calame’s about-face. But that’s beside the point.

There has been at least one outraged and well-principled call for Calame’s resignation, at the prominent conservative blog www.patterico.com.

As an aside, I appreciate Mr. Crittenden’s description of my call for Calame’s resignation as “principled.” However, I chuckled at Mr. Crittenden’s description of this blog as “prominent.” Doesn’t he read Think Progress? Just last month, they said I am “obscure” — and we all know that if Think Progress said it, it must be true.

Maybe I have risen to prominence from obscurity in little over one month. (And Glenn Greenwald thought it was impressive to do so in nine! I bid you Good DAY, sir!)

Anyway. While acknowledging my call for Calame to resign, Crittenden appears to have high hopes for what Calame could do if he stayed:

But not so fast, Byron. Your work is not done. You may yet redeem yourself.

Prior to exiting, Byron, you may consider launching a soul-searching campaign at the New York Times. I’d encourage a look at the decision to report on the National Security Agency’s warrantless electronic monitoring of emails and phone calls between the United States and suspect individual[s] overseas. The outrage your paper and others stirred up over a program that falls well within the law and harms no law-abiding American citizen, and the notice you served to terrorists and their supporters of its existence, constitute aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.

Crittenden continues with a lofty vision for Calame’s taking on the breadth of the New York Times‘s misleading campaign of distortion against President Bush. He concludes:

[W]ith Byron Calame’s remarkable admission, we see what could be the beginnings of an awakening. I’m not holding my breath. But I’m an optimist. And I think I just saw a hairline crack in the arrogance of one of America’s most powerful media institutions.

I applaud Mr. Crittenden’s optimism — but as a realist, let me be the one to say: it’s not going to happen. Not with Byron Calame.

Somewhere out there, there may be a public editor who is really willing to take on his paper. Dan Okrent had the seeds of that spirit. But I’m not holding out much hope for Byron Calame, who buried his milquetoast change of heart halfway down a column about magazine journalism and perfume critics.

But hey, Mr. Crittenden, it’s a nice column you wrote anyway. Take it from this prominent obscure blogger!

18 Responses to “Boston Herald’s Crittenden Cites Prominent Obscure Blogger on Calame”

  1. Honestly, Patterico, you’re the go-to guy in blogging recently. Good job … and funny, too.

    DRJ (1be297)

  2. Ahh, well you went from obscure to prominent thanks to being Powerline’s Blog of the Month; you’ll need to send a check to John Hinderaker.

    Perhaps there’s an adjective that splits the difference between the two poles.

    Dana (3e4784)

  3. Wow Patterico. The Boston Herald no less. Next thing you know we’ll be watching you on CNN or being interviewed on Hradball. Or something.

    Congo-Rats! 🙂

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  4. Dwilkers:

    Was “Hradball” intentional? 🙂

    Dana (3e4784)

  5. Wow Patterico. The Boston Herald no less. Next thing you know we’ll be watching you on CNN or being interviewed on Hradball. Or something.

    Yet on the Web, it means little until the column gets a good link (which it now has gotten). When I checked my Site Meter this morning and saw that I was getting hits from Crittenden’s column, I thought to myself: Ah. Instapundit must have linked his piece. And sure enough, he has.

    Patterico (de0616)

  6. I’m bumping this post. Any post about me being a prominent blogger should be at the top of the site, don’t you think?

    Patterico (de0616)

  7. Bush called the revelations by the NYT of a useful tool to combat terrorism “disgraceful,” a term which can be used at least bi-weekly to describe the NYT’s factitious reporting and tendentious law-breaking—always to hinder what the possibly criminal cabal of Keller and Sulzberger consider the Bush Administration’s Global War on Terror.

    The Ombudsman would have a daily column if he actually took the NYT’s ethical, journalistic, and legal misdeeds seriously enough to truly investigate their depth and scope.

    The SWIFT affair was simply another example of the NYT’s war against the war on terrorism.

    daveinboca (65d1d2)

  8. Hey Patter-ee-co … we keep this up and maybe we’ll convince everyone else of our undeniable importance and prominence. Might work. Thank you for noting what I omitted. Calame’s burial of his remarkable admission under an item about the hinky relationship between the NYT, its perfume critic (perfume critic?) and the perfume advertisers who subsidize the NYT mag. “Let’s see, what to lead with, the boss’s perfume graft or treason? Perfume graft … treason. I’m going with perfume graft!”

    crittenden (f51265)

  9. #6,

    Yeah, it’s good to start the day with a little humor.

    HA! Gotcha!

    Leviticus (43095b)

  10. If the NYT really wants to atone for the mistake perhaps they should cough up their sources.

    ThomasD (21cdd1)

  11. Just remember all of us who liked you before it was cool. 😉

    AndrewGurn (8a0c5d)

  12. I have cruised your blog on occasion for a while now. I have always enjoyed the insights and good commentary (I don’t really care for the spitting matches with left wing bloggers, but I guess someone has to do it).

    In my opinion, the excellent Guantanamo/Stashiu series really raised your blog to prominence.

    Keep up the good work.

    opinionsarefree (7ea3a8)

  13. What is that ethnic group that wants to break away from Spain? Ah, yes. Bask! 😉

    nk (b57bfb)

  14. Well deserved recognition!

    Bill M (d9e4b2)

  15. I also think Calame should resign, but for a different reason. He actually admitted he did something wrong. That is unacceptable for an editor at a paper as prominant as the NYT. It sets a bad example. Off with his head! (I don’t really mean that literally, its just a figure of speach.)

    “I’ve never made a mistake in my life. I thought I did once, but I was wrong.”
    -Lucy Van Patten (Peanuts)

    OC Chuck (7c374c)

  16. The NYT surely thinks the battle is over, the left has won and it’s time to be… magnanimous and gentle in victory.

    Bob Roof (8c0efd)

  17. Leave him be, give him a prize. Are there any pulitzers available? I swear, Calme is not what the old grey had in mind.

    hangover (33e430)

  18. I take it back–you are now no longer obscure, but transcendent.

    Good day to YOU, sir!

    Chris (926a19)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0723 secs.