The number of times I have agreed with GM can be counted on the thumbs of one hand but I have to agree with GM here. Tom Friedman of the NY Slimes wrote one of his snarkier and more insulting Op Eds and GM wanted to respond. The NY Times tried to make them shorten and water down their rebuttal letter until it became pointless. Once GM realized they apparently realized that arguing with the "impartial" press in their own corner was not something they needed to do anymore so the blogged it and we can all see (because they are publishing the whole correspondence as well as theletters they tried to write).
At least part of the problem is that it seems that the Times doesn't like having its columns described as "Rubbish" within its own pages:
Our letter opened with a paragraph that accurately summarized the most bizarre elements of Mr. Friedman’s attack, then reacted with this one-word sentence: “Rubbish.”
That word accurately portrays how we felt about the column. Personally, I felt a stronger word referring to male bovine excrement would have been more appropriate, but my boss tends to express himself more politely than I in these situations.
The Times suggested “rubbish” be changed first to, “We beg to differ.” We objected. The Times then suggested it be changed to, “Not so.” We stood our ground. In the end, the Times refused to let us call the column “rubbish.”
Why? “It’s not the tone we use in Letters,” wrote Mary Drohan, a letters editor.
Blog Home : June 2006 : Permalink