Clark Hoyt hasn’t yet done an investigation of why the New York Times was so late in figuring out the shift of ground on Iraq. (Funny how they were also so delinquent on the other story most damaging to Barack Obama — Reverend Wright. Are they ever late on stories unhelpful to John McCain?). But he has gotten around to chastising Maureen Dowd for sexism where Hillary Clinton is concerned. He writes:

But the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton — in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1 — left many readers with the strong feeling that an impermissible line had been crossed, even though, as Dowd noted, she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective.

He concludes, “Even she, I think, by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season.” She of course is in good . . . er. . . bad company, but I would think she has a defense as an equal-opportunity candidate basher. Nevertheless, it’s nice to know that Hoyt is keeping an eagle eye out for sexism. When do you think will they get around to ageism? I’m sure once we get that done, he’ll get on the case about the Times’s Iraq coverage.

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link