Er, Rolling in the Dirt with the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/books/review/15TONERT.html?ex=1079067600&en=a7701af9830870f0&ei=5070

This is the original book review I wrote to the NY Times about. I took exception to the use of the word 'feminazi' to describe Hillary Clinton. Below is the email I sent, the response, my response, etc.

---------
My letter:

MoveOn.org has 2 out of 1500+ entries in an ad contest that compares Bush to Hitler and we heard the screaming from the right over that. But the NYT can use the word Feminazi to describe Hillary Clinton. A pure Rush speak word. And that's OK?
---------
Response received today:

Dear Ms. Morgan,

Although I can understand why you might be offended by the use of "feminazi" in Robin Toner's book review, I'm afraid I see it differently.
First, there is no denying that the "feminazi" usage, as repellent as it might be, was distributed widely during the late 1990's. Second, its use as a form of shorthand in a review does not bother me; whereas it might have been better (if clumsier) to write "...the feminazi image her enemies attached to her..." it is clear from the context that this is the case.
But third, and most important, the sentence itself immediately dismisses the characterization: "just as Hillary Rodham Clinton was more complicated than her feminazi image" establishes outright that the image was mistaken. As Robin Toner has herself written to a reader who had a complaint similar to yours, "I am sorry you were offended by the line in my review. In fact, I was trying to say that Mrs. Clinton was far more complicated than the caricature of her that appeared in so much of the popular culture."
I am sorry as well, and if the lesson in this is that we all need to be careful with how a word can leap out of its context to give an impression different from the one intended, it's one I take to heart.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
-------

My response:

"First, there is no denying that the "feminazi" usage, as repellent as it might be, was distributed widely during the late 1990's"

Daniel:

Yes, that is precisely my point. It was a term used over, and over, and over, and over again by Rush. So it is now a popular 'word' so it's OK for the NY Times to repeat it once again?

I don't find that word in any dictionary. I'm actually offended by the NY Times contributing to that description of Hillary Clinton being "widely distributed".

Also, to try to defend the use of the word by saying that, well gee, we dismissed the characterization, is not quite honest, is it? The sentence definitely implies that "well, Hillary IS a feminazi, but she's also more complicated than that". Isn't that called a 'back-handed' compliment? Maybe you could say something like, "President Bush is an Unelected Fraud (popular culture, don't you know) but he's more complicated than that."

It's also just a really cheap description. The NY Times should have considered the source.

Finally, please don't try to tell me that the use of that description was unintended...."can leap out of its context to give an impression different from the one intended". Of course it was intended. That was the whole point.

His reponse:

Dear Ms. XXX,
First, "we" did nothing. I don't have anything to do with the creation of Times content. I operate independently.
Second, you have much better psychic powers than I do, as I just can't seem to discern the intent of someone I've never met, spoken to, or otherwise engaged with. I salute you for your brilliance, your rectitude, and your close-mindedness.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Okrent

My final response:

Daniel: If you "didn't have anything to do with the creation of the Times content", then why was it YOU that responded to me? Why would an 'independent' operator be responding to an email I sent to the PUBLIC @NY Times address?

Secondly, your second statement makes no sense. READING an article gives me the awesome ability to discern the INTENT of the writer, by interpreting the WORDS they use. Uh, isn't that the point?

I salute you for your intent, which I used my psychic powers to discern, to insult me. I salute myself for my brilliance in determining that I was most certainly correct in my assessment of the article, of the NY Times running it, and of your probable response: Shabby and cheap.
-----

So, the question for DU'ers: Was I being too critical about the use of the word in the article? You tell me!

Edit: My bad. I was actually trying to make a joke since the Editor is a 'he' and I'm a BITCH (babes in total control of herself). Sorry if I offended anyone. But point well taken on the original title of the posting.

Isn't it amazing that some of the least facile people get those jobs?

Accidental?? Nope.. It's all part of the dumbing down efforts.. A race to the lowest common denominator.

You told him off well..he's too stupid to "get it "..

feminazi. i would have chosen a word other than brilliant.

I said nothing about the subject line :evilgrin:

Maybe she will edit it :)

but your point is also well taken.

a 'left-wing kook' which he can tell by your emails - surprise! he also has 'pyschic powers'

At the very least, the Times editors should have put the term in quotes. And, it is by no means clumsy to write: "...the feminazi image her enemies attached to her...". That is editor-speak for "we stand by the characterization, and won't issue a correction".

Glad you nailed them on this.

Martin

It is unbelievablle that a NY Times EDITOR would claim no responsibility for the content of his paper.

I canceled my subscription for reasons similar to your complaint.

The NY Times is an anti-democratic, pro-neoliberalism rag, and the Book Review is one of the worst perpetrators of that editorial agenda. Their reviews of liberal books are downright hostile, and incredibly dismissive, and Okrent's response does the opposite of what he intends -- to me, it proves that it's no accident that this happens.

I'm bookmarking this thread because you hit the nail right on the head.

That he is presented as a serious writer when he is nothing but a mouthpiece for the neo-cons, and that he is allowed to lie with impunity in his column, week after week, was the end for me.

They let the American Enterprise Institute use their Op-Ed page as if they were actually credible.

They treat him as if he is a normal conservative, instead of the barely disguised PNAC spokesperson that he is. Same for PBS and NPR.

Terrific kick ass on your part...

(1) pointing out that they weren't contrasting being a feminazi with not being one -- that they were implying that feminazi was a subset of her personal qualities. That's too obvious and it was incredibly lame for a person who works with words to treat you like a dolt who couldn't understand simple sentence construction.

and

(2) Nailing that asshole for acting like you were reading too much in reading. That's what reading is all about. Again, incredible for an EDITOR to accuse someone of reading too much into reading.

His nastiness in the last email just shows that you drew out these logical inconsistencies brilliantly.

Your first email was so simple and broad, but you roped in that sucker. If you had written a longer, more detailed first email, he probably would have totally ignored you because he would have known that he'd never win. But you drew him in and then effing pummeled him.

Sweet.

You need to distribute this exchange widely. Send it to FAIR.

Rush has made no bones about creating the word or explaining why he uses it. It was to draw a (invalid) comparison between women's groups' political tactics and the political tactics of the Nazi party during its rise in the 1930's.

And, to refer to a former First Lady and sitting US Senator in that context is so terribly wrong, it defies explanation, despite this dipshit Okrent's attempt to do so...

Excellent response! Please send it all to Hillary.

Jules Witcover spent his column today scolding Kerry for not "driving home" the reality of Bush's radical agenda.

I sent the Sun 3 cited sources FROM DECEMBER, 2003, in which Kerry stated that the first thing he would do in office would be to "get rid of Bush's radical agenda."

I've decided that most of these yahoos are socially-promoted "morans."

I had an exchange with a writer a couple of years ago...don't remember his name, the paper, or the context except that he referred to Clinton/Monica (ad infinitum), which set me off. We ended up "friends," and he complimented me on my use of his last line in his own story to turn the tables on him.

This is one reason why I think Okrent is acting in a juvenile fashion. Why purposefully alienate your readers when it can be so easily avoided with a little social grace. He'd probably received several negative responses to his piece and blew up at the next unsuspecting negative e-mail he'd opened.

other way to interpret his comments. It's something I would expect to see in a reply from one of our more "agressive" DU'ers, not from a paid employee of what is supposed to be the top (or used to be) Newspapers in the country.

Oh how low the NYT's and WaPo have sunk.

Glad to you had this interchange. They don't seem to have been to upset with the e-mail banks of the RW who spew them garbage and have them cowering in their offices, but when someone honestly challenges a "hate name" used against a former First Lady, they howl as if it's a shock that someone would complain.

Where are the professionals, today. Is everyone behaving like they are on an internet chat room? sigh......

You did the correct thing. Thanks. On Edit though: I have a little problem with the word "Bitch." ;-) It used to be viewed as badly by some of us as "feminazi."

The fact that you got a response means you hit a nerve. In fact your complaint is spot on. Feminazi is a mean-spirited term meant to demean assertive women.

Arthur:

LMAO! Whatever. Thanks for letting me know that when I respond to a specific article, that has a NY Times address, that my email isn't really going to the NY Times, but some other 'independent' entity. That's so clever! (You're not offshore, are you?)



At 11:55 AM 03/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Ms. Morgan,

An independent operator would be responding to an email you sent to public@nytimes.com because public@nytimes.com is Mr. Okrent's address, created specifically for his independent office of public editor of The New York Times.

If you're looking for a Times company response, this office is not where to get it.

Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor

bullshit that 's unfit to print, but that they print anyway?

??

Latest case of passing the buck:

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 12:45 PM
by Russell Mokhiber

Mokhiber: Scott, two questions. First about your predecessor, Ari Fleischer. There's a report in Roll Call --

Scott McClellan: He's a good man. I learned a lot from him.

Mokhiber: Well, there's a report in Roll Call this week saying that he has set up a consulting firm on K Street to help corporations navigate the political channels in Washington.

Scott McClellan: I thought you were going to ask about the book he's writing about the relationships with the media.

Mokhiber: The question I had, actually, this report says that he's charging corporations $30,000 a month, and he's demanding a two-year contract. And I'm wondering if you have ever been tempted to bail from this and attracted to the lucre that is available to you just a couple of blocks from here.

Scott McClellan: Have I ever been tempted to bail from this? Just about every day, Russell. (Laughter.) But I have no future plans, at this point.

Mokhiber: My second question is, on public corruption. There seems to be an uptick in public corruption cases. These are public officials who are charged with wrongdoing -- Governor Rowland and a bunch of public officials in Connecticut. And in Austin, Texas, there's a grand jury that, for a number of months now, has been issuing subpoenas. They're looking at corporate money that went from a PAC controlled by Tom DeLay to state legislative house races in Texas. And according to press reports it's implicating the Speaker of the Texas House, Tom Craddick, and it might - they're also looking at the money coming from Tom DeLay. The question is - is this on the President's radar screen, public corruption? And what is he doing about it?

Scott McClellan: I think it's evidenced by his actions, in terms of what we're doing to crack down on corporate wrongdoing, and --

Mokhiber: That's corporate wrongdoing. This is a separate thing - public corruption.

Scott McClellan: - what we're doing with other nations to fight corruption. This President is strongly committed to fighting corruption. But in terms of a specific case in the state of Texas, I mean, that's a legal matter going on in the state of Texas. You need to direct your questions elsewhere. I don't know the specifics of that case.


http://www.commondreams.org/scottie.htm


Past passings of the buck quotes from "Scottie" McClellan and Ari Fleischer:

"you can refer those questions to the Vice President's office"

"Talk to the Department of Justice."

"You need to address your question to the Republican Party."

"that is a question you should address to the Pentagon."

"That's a question you need to ask to Israel."

"you need to address those somewhere other than this White House."


*It's a sign of desperation.*

To the Times company, letting them know how serious complaints by their subscribers are being dealt with by the "public editor of The New York Times" - Mr. Okrent.

eom

another 'creative use of the language and defining words'???????

Your letters were perfect and you point is very valid. The Times is hiding and won't take responsibility for it's own review.

The last response from him reveals him for what he is and your final response was excellent.

Really good job! :toast:

how about some HUMILITY, Daniel.

I know people see it as shameful & weak, but decent folks would find it respectable.

way the could appologize would be to fold up shop.

You can't appologize for this. It wasn't an accident.

Read their reviews of any book lauding liberals.

The Clinton Wars is one that I remember as being particularly egregious.

what is going on at the NYTimes lately? have they been infiltrated? the quality just doesn't seem to be there any more.

I'm still wondering why Mr Okrent carries the title of "Editor" yet had nothing to do with "the creation of Times content". Isn't that what editors do??

But I guess the NYT is too cool to use that word, so they call him the public editor.

that term...

om.....chanting??
budsman.....pot??

and editor is easier to spell and pronounce :)

or perhaps you can read (and comprehend) what the other person wrote. Wow, puts other psychic powers to shame. Good job.

Certainly, he's a poor loser. His behavior is evidence of the current political desperation within the ranks of the GOP NYTs.

corner.

Our DU'er gave him enough rope to hang himself with stupid illogical arguments that NOBODY WHO WORKS WITH WORDS would make unless they were trying to cover up some very deliberat and evil propagandizing.

of the word was wrong, and that the Left SHOULD be screeching about this. He should have said "we made a mistake, thank you for letter" or something...Sheesh! Stupid conservative media.

You have made my day! You are ten feet tall! I am now no longer feeling low.

Galley_Queen you were right on target (and brilliant). Not too long ago someone who wrote to NPR got a really nasty reply back from the NPR ombudsman about what a bad choice it was to have the Faux news crew Mara Liasson and Juan Williams report on the Democratic campaign. So this person posted their exchange to Mediawhoresonline.com and then lots of MWO readers emailed the ombudsman about his replies. Maybe we should do that here?

is out to pasture again. :(

I would like someone though, to know that it's pretty damned sneaky for people to respond to a NY Times email address that's not (supposedly) GETTING to the NY Times.

I really can imagine this guy sitting on a stump somewhere in some offshore location though. Wouldn't it be totally something if these replies WERE outsourced????

First of all, kudos on your emails to him. :thumbsup:

Here is the story on Okrent's job:

As public editor, or ombudsman, Mr. Okrent, 55, will operate outside the management structure of the newspaper's newsroom and its editorial page, Mr. Keller said. He will be given an unfettered opportunity to address readers' comments about The Times's coverage, to raise questions of his own and to write about such matters, in commentaries that will be published in the newspaper as often as he sees fit.

...

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the newspaper and chairman of The New York Times Company, said in an interview that the creation of the public editor's job and the installation of Mr. Okrent in it were "stepping stones" toward the goal of "making The New York Times less opaque as an institution."

More at link. . .

Thank you for that information! Now I'm going to find out who is watching the watcher. The article claims that "He has no ax to grind here," Mr. Huey added. "He loves The Times. He loves journalists. He loves telling stories. And he loves fairness and accuracy."

Ha.

doing this. I found the casual use of the term feminazi in the NYT to be just *incredibly* offensive. Good on you for calling them on it!