Sunday, March 06, 2005

Plan for this morning's discussion on the Times

Redoing it because apparently that's the way it's going to be today. (The original version of this post failed to post and was lost in the posting stage.)

The plan for this morning regarding the New York Times (quickly) is to address Douglas Jehl & David Johnston's front page article, Laura M. Holson's front page article and an article on A15. Of Holson's article, it goes to the image of the paper and it's not good news.

My phone started ringing this morning with friends laughing at Holson's article. I hadn't even taken the paper out of the bag when the first call came in (a non-stop series of sentences roughly revolving around "how the mighty have fallen"). It would be easy to get lost in that entry, so I'll save it for last.

In addition, I'm planning to do a brief entry on The Laura Flanders Show. Tonight Danny Schechter is on. If I get pressed for time (or if I lose another post as I just lost the original version of this), I may forget so consider that the heads up.

We're not covering everything in the paper. If you see something worth highlighting, e-mail about it and will note it. (We don't go backwards and link to articles from a day or more before. They're only available for seven days.) If you want something commented on, you can take the lead and write your own comments that can be shared with the community. (I'm not someone who has a comment for everything. Members know I've done private e-mails to them before saying, "I really have nothing to offer on that, can you come up with something.")

The site e-mail address is I'll also note that I was wrong to post an entry yesterday morning and say we'd get replies up that evening. My apologies on that. No one complained about that but three members did ask for time. (Which was given, I worked on e-mails to the site -- got a few replies out as well -- for five hours last night instead.) No one wrote in to complain, but if anyone had done so, they would have been right. We're not instapundits here, and it was wrong of me to expect instant replies. (We did have 75 members who had replied by eight last night. If you're one of them, I'm not calling you an instapundit. Obviously, you had a background in the issue and were able to make your call. But it was wrong of me to assume that everyone did.)

If there is something on A3 worthy of highlighting, please e-mail me. That's a blank page in my edition of the paper. ("Blank" may be the wrong word. "Ghost page" might be more appropriate. At any rate, I can't read it.)

The point in noting the plan is because a few members (especially Sonia) have been requesting more notes and also because if I post this, I'm more inclined to stick to it and not be tempted to play hookey.

For Maria, Carl and Martha who wrote in asking about Folding Star's Saturday Book Chat, before I could e-mail FS, I found FS had e-mailed. The book chat's been postponed until today and there's a note up about that on A Winding Road.

For those e-mailing re: Rebecca's site Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, if you request that your e-mail be forwarded to her, it is. Her e-mail address is and I take full responsibilty for it not being displayed at her site because I helped talk her through setting it up and obviously I screwed something up.
For some who want me to get into some "blog war" (to note a term that popped up in five e-mails yesterday) with her, don't hold your breath. She's a valued voice.

I'm not in the mood to navigate the Times website, so I'll provide (as always) the bylines and the title of the article (in this case, the print edition's titles only) and expect that we are all big boys and girls and certainly able to find the article via a search at the Times web site if you don't have the print edition of the paper.

(And that's not a slam to those who don't subscribe or purchase the paper. You're probably much smarter than I am. You certainly spend your money more wisely.)

Lastly, for those who enjoy the puzzles in the Sunday version of the Times and can't get enough of puzzles, I'll offer one for you now in the tradition of Where's Waldo?: on page A28 an inside joke (intended or not) appears, inside joke for the Suzlberger family. See if you can find it.

[Note: This post has been corrected. David Johnston, not "Johnson." My apologies and thanks for pointing it out to he who wanted to remain unnamed.]