Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (12959)	5/14/2002 12:37:44 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

From Howard Kurtz today. Columnist Andrew Sullivan Bites Paper; Paper Bites Back By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 14, 2002; Page C01 Andrew Sullivan, the confrontational conservative columnist, has been attempting the high-wire act of writing for the New York Times while frequently whacking the Times for liberal bias on his Web site. Now the tightrope has snapped. Sullivan, who once wrote a biweekly column for the New York Times Magazine, says he has been "barred indefinitely from writing any more" for the magazine. The popular Weblog writer says the directive came from Executive Editor Howell Raines. "Not writing for the New York Times is a better fate than not writing what I believe on my blog," Sullivan says by e-mail. A Times spokesman had no comment despite repeated requests, and Times Magazine Editor Adam Moss did not return a phone call. Sullivan, perhaps the country's most prominent gay journalist, delivers strong opinions each day on his Andrewsullivan.com site. A major theme is what he sees as the liberal tilt of the mainstream press, and he regularly accuses the Times of being unfair to President Bush or favoring the Democrats. After one front-page story referred to "rising criticism" of Bush's Middle East policy, Sullivan wrote: "Where's the rising tide of criticism? Are the Times' reporters referring to their own editorial pages? This line has been peddled now for weeks in the Times' 'news' columns." In another posting, while calling the Times "the best paper in the world," he said of its coverage of the media's Florida recount project: "If it keeps blaring non-stories like this to appease its leftist Manhattan base, and maintains its close to unanimous chorus of editorial and op-ed hostility to President Bush, it will become less authoritative. People like me who care about it and groan about some of its obvious news bias will simply stop reading it." Sullivan also mounted something of a crusade against liberal Times columnist Paul Krugman for accepting consulting fees from Enron before joining the newspaper. A contributor to the Times since his days as the New Republic's editor in the early 1990s, Sullivan eventually got a contract and his work was prominently featured by the magazine, at least in one case on the cover. The contract had lapsed recently, but Sullivan had finished one essay and had another one assigned when the paper told him that his services were no longer required. "If, like me, you both write for the mainstream media and also snarl at it on a regular basis, some editors can take revenge and cut you off," he wrote on his Web site. "Most of the time, people in big media, being journalists, don't mind criticism, especially from a piddling one-man blog. But others take offense, and you get canned." As for Raines, Sullivan wrote: "My presence in the Times, I'm told, makes him 'uncomfortable,' and I am off limits for the indefinite future. A great sadness to me, but completely his editorial prerogative and, given the sharpness of some of my broadsides, understandable." Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, calls the decision "a loss for the Times," saying: "I thought Andrew's stuff really brightened up the magazine. I don't always agree with him but he's always interesting." While the paper's move is "understandable in human terms," Lowry says, "the Times is such a huge institution that you'd think they'd be above that." Sullivan's opinions also cost him his weekly "TRB" column in the New Republic, where he is still listed as a contributor. During the 2000 campaign he assailed Al Gore, a longtime friend of owner Martin Peretz, who at one point complained about Sullivan's "fevered" and "absurd" attacks. Sullivan also wrote on his Web site that the New Republic "has now sadly all but surrendered to the left of the party." Editor Peter Beinart began writing the TRB column last fall. In disclosing the Times's decision, Sullivan told his readers: "When you bite the hand that feeds you, sometimes you'll get a good slapping. But don't worry. I'll keep biting." © 2002 The Washington Post Company

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (12959)	5/14/2002 12:39:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Also from Howard Kurtz today, it looks like Noonan is trying to topple Krugman in the partisanship race. <<Marshall Wittmann's Bull Moose column hits Bush's free-spending ways: "The Moose muses that, up until this point, the previous presidency may be viewed as more conservative than the current one. "Politics moves in mysterious ways. President Bush has already signed into law a dramatic expansion of the federal role in education. He has violated free trade principles by signing on to increasing trade tariffs (taxes) for steel and lumber. W is about to put his John Hancock on a monstrous farm bill that reverses the conservative reform farm legislation passed a few years ago. After a period of surpluses, we now have deficits as far as the eye can see. "Contrast that with the Clinton years. President Clinton bucked his party and supported free trade and helped pass NAFTA. He signed an historic welfare reform bill that ended the federal entitlement to welfare. He signed the soon to be reversed Freedom to Farm Act which reformed agricultural subsidies. Along with a Republican Congress, he agreed to a balanced budget that helped eliminate the deficit and create surpluses. "Of course, the Moose acknowledges that Clinton only acceded to Republican pressure to sign some of these measures. Sometimes, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Moreover, in his first two years, he unsuccessfully advanced a massive government health care plan. However, given all of the aforementioned, who can deny that there were some significant conservative advances under his presidency?" Peggy Noonan provides a far rosier view on OpinionJournal.com: "What is the key to Mr. Bush's popularity? . . . It is that he does not need the job. He did not lust for it and does not hunger for it. He does not need the presidency to fulfill a romantic sense of personal destiny. He does not have a neurotic fixation on the office. He does not love having or wielding its power. He views the presidency as a responsibility, and sometimes a burden. But he tries each day to meet it. Sometimes it is pleasurable for him, sometimes not. "There is with Mr. Bush an almost palpable sense that he would rather be at the ranch. He would rather be enjoying life and having fun with baseball teams, he would rather have privacy, he would rather go for a drive. He radiates a sense that he has given up a lot to be president. He radiates a sense that he will enjoy it when he gets back what he gave up. But right now he has work to do. "I do not mean to suggest that Mr. Bush is or seems ambivalent about the presidency. I don't think he is or does. He means to be a good president, that is obvious. He works hard, is committed, ambitious and serious. He means to win the war. He is capable of wielding the power he has to wield, and one senses he has enough vanity to believe he is as good a wielder of it as any, and maybe better than most. But . . . he doesn't need it. "He doesn't love celebrity, doesn't gravitate to the glamorous, doesn't seem to think fame can bestow magic, gladness, personal contentment. I watched him sitting on the dais Saturday night [at the White House Correspondents dinner]; he looked like he was thinking about whether the jeep needs tires. He was not excited to be surrounded by the glittering prizewinners of Washington, who were arrayed in tuxedoes and gowns before him. His wife, also on the dais, smiled pleasingly at everyone, but her smile is unvarying, almost inexpressive, and still seems to hide more than it reveals." Future bumper sticker: "Joe Smith – He'd Rather Not Be President.">>