'The Hiring Hypocrisy at the New York Times'
Gray Lady Down, writes Brent Bozell:
Mark Thompson, a former director-general of the British Broadcasting Corporation, began his new job Monday as president and CEO of The New York Times. The lack of embarrassment was remarkable. Thompson claimed he was the worst kind of ignorant buffoon, knowing nothing about the massive sex-abuse scandal – and then its censorship – that’s rocking the BBC.
Scotland Yard has been conducting a criminal investigation into allegations of child sex abuse by the late disc jockey and TV personality Jimmy Savile over six decades, describing him as a "predatory sex offender.” In mid-October, the metropolitian police stated they were pursuing over 400 lines of inquiry based on the testimony of 300 potential victims. Chris Patten, the head of the BBC’s government body called it “this great tsunami of filth.” BBC’s “Newsnight” was about to broadcast an expose last December – but BBC bosses spiked it, and incredibly, aired Christmas tributes to Savile instead.
The New York Times has routinely found it implausible that a Pope, or a Republican president, or a Rupert Murdoch could ever be unaware of grave scandals or allegations of scandals beneath them. The paper consistently telegraphs that someone so unaware of such a scandal must be the worst kind of knave or dolt. So its hiring of Mark Thompson is the height of corporate hypocrisy.
And that’s the best that can be said. What if Thompson was not unaware, as common sense dictates?
Pinch Sulzberger tells Bloomberg News:
“The British stuff hasn’t made things easy,” Sulzberger said in a brief interview last night at an event held by the Committee to Protect Journalists. “But Mark is a good man.”
Of course, consider Pinch's worldview to place that comment into perspective. As Ben Shapiro writes at Big Journalism, "Only the Times would fill a year-long editorial vacancy with a disgraced former editor involved in a sex abuse cover-up. "