Ed Driscoll

Desperate New York Times Exploits Palin Controversy

As I said in the introduction to my interview with the folks from Breitbart.tv, when you suddenly find you’re the legacy media, you gotta do what you gotta to do to keep eyeballs. Or as Roger L. Simon writes:

These days the New York Times is resembling the Daily Mail more than ever in its pursuit of gossip, but, unlike the DM, the Times just doesn’t give us the juice. They can’t hack it as a gossip rag – weak sources and, even worse, tepid writing. First there was that phony nonsense about McCain’s affair, now they go after Palin for… wait for it…. “making missteps and ignoring advice”. [Couldn’t they come up with anything better than that?-ed. They also say she’s losing her hair. Who isn’t?] T

But don’t get me wrong – I sympathize with the Times up to a point. We all know that they have serious financial woes and, hey, Palin sells, unlike, say, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd.

Still I have some advice for the Times’ editors. If you continue to beat up Palin in such a dumb way, you might actually stimulate sympathy for her. Or even worse – your smears might work and you might not have her to kick around any more. Then where would you be? No newsstand sales. No online clicks generating ad revenue. Remember, there are only so many Sarah Palins and Michael Jacksons – and he’s, as we know, dead (at least sort of). You’d end up having to write exposés of John Murtha (not that you would violate the privacy of such a “good” man).

Actually, I’m beginning to think the Times is kind of funny in its desperation, as I hope will come out in my part 3 of “Burning Down the New York Times in Three Acts,” in which I put the NYT on the couch. That video is in post-production now and should be posted later this week. For those who missed parts 1 and 2 and might still be interested, they are here and here.

Tommy De Seno  of FOXNews.com sums it up in a headline: “Palin Proves The Problem With Journalism Is Maureen Dowd.”