Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Coming to a Supermarket Checkout Stand Near You

Along with just about everyone else, I was pretty disgusted yesterday that The New York Times saw fit to print atop their front page an insinuation-filled 3000-word story about the status of Clintons' marriage.

It seems almost unnecessary to analyze this sort of tripe, but Greg Sargent opens a sensible post slamming the writer, Patrick Healy, and his editors with this salvo:
The news in the piece is...well, there is none, except that the Clintons are a very, very busy couple, and they don't always get to see each other. Who woulda thunk it?
Likewise, Matthew Yglesias questions why the reporter bothers beating around the (ahem) Bush:
Frankly, I'd like to know why Healy can't just drop the silly insinuations and faux investigative methods. Both Clintons have official spokespersons, just ask them how often Bill and Hillary have sex.
Yet honorable mention goes to Jane Hamsher, who looked far and wide while shopping for Fritos and Pepsi in Oklahoma and found a very similar story in another paper, "while my mom and I were in line at the grocery store."

The story was about George and Laura Bush,

It claims, "For all practical purposes, they've broken up."

And it was on the cover of The Globe.

Look--if that's what the New York Times feels they need to do to attract readers, more power to them. They can even change their trim size, go glossy, and publish photographs of aliens kissing Katie Holmes. As a letter writer in Wednesday's paper confesses,
I'll be looking forward to the same thorough reporting into the marriages of other presidential hopefuls, like John McCain and Rudolph W. Giuliani, including "interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities."
Maybe we'll finally find out what Giuliani was doing when he was living with that gay couple.