Is anyone else not buying Bill Keller's insistence that the NYT he's not feeling "unbridled glee" about nailing Eliot Spitzer's "personal tragedy?" Though he maintains that he feels "there is a lot of satisfaction in reporting it," it's no secret he's more than a little excited that he gets to rub the paper's reporting in the faces of critics who see the Times as a liberal broadsheet. And while we won't snub the Times reporters' hard work in identifying Spitzer as Client 9, let's not forget it was actually the New York Sun, with a March 7 article, that identified the Emperors Club scandal and the involvement of the U.S. District Attorney's office, so maybe that's why the excitement is not "unbridled."

We spent all day yesterday waiting for The New Republic’s article on the Times’s article on John McCain.

And today we spent all day waiting for the New York Times to defend itself on the article.

If it weren’t for John McCain and the New York Times, we would just be thinking of the meaningless of life. If God exists, surely he’s behind this entertaining mini-scandal.

The Times answers are exactly what you’d expect. In short, they’re happy with the piece.

• Bill Keller goes first. The basic question was “What the fuck were you thinking publishing the story?” Keller’s response: Hey, it’s a legitimate story! It’s part of our Long Series! Jack Shafer agreed! Case closed.

CONTINUED »

It's a sign of our times that a 3,000 word article in the New York Times merits a 2,200 word post in the New Republic. But so it is.

The long of the short of it is that the Times had been chasing the story for months. Along with Marc Santora, who left the McCain beat due to the story, Marilyn Thompson, who is bylined on piece, left the Times altogether because of it.

As Drudge posts tend to do, news that the Times was working on this piece in December added more pressure to the story. Yet Bill Keller and other Times staffers insist they decided to run the story last night only because it was ready, and had no political motives. Considering this story will have no effect on the Republican nomination and just makes the Times look likes it stereotype–check out any of the 1764 comments on the piece–it's a legitimate defense.

And really, who cares why the Times ran the piece now? As Bill Keller wrote in an email to Gabe Sherman, the author of the piece, current Portfolio scribe and ex-Observer writer:

This sounds like a pointless exercise to me–speculating about reporting that may or may not result in an article. But if that's what Special Correspondents of The New Republic do, speculate away. When we have something to say, we'll say it in the paper.

Maybe the Times was wrong to run the piece. But here, Keller has a point.

Clark Hoyt found his story for next week.

Today, the New York Times ran a lengthy article on John McCain that has already inspired late night talk show debate and merits a column from the public editor.

Part of its “Long Run” series, the Times questions McCain’s history of pretending to be above the Washington lobbying scene.

The piece has a lot of legitimate reporting on McCain’s hypocritical relationship with corporations. But this reporting will probably get lost in the rumors that McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lady lobbyist.

But this obfuscation is the Times’s own fault. They lead with the smut:

CONTINUED »

Ten or 12 years ago, in his first editing job, “I’d have said, ‘Follow the traditional route [by starting out at small dailies], apprentice yourself to that mythical, grizzled editor … and build a body of work, and learn by doing it.’ But a lot of those local and regional papers no longer exist, a lot of those grizzled editors have been bought out, and along the way I’ve come to think of journalism schools as maybe the last resort in a lot of cases.”

-Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, on the new role of journalism school, from "Reviving the J-School," Andy Guess, Inside Higher Ed

Neocons, say what.

Sam Tanenhaus, New York Times Book Review editor, is taking his neocon editing skillz to the Week In Review. Can’t wait to see the thought pieces on how Iraq really was a good call. Bill Keller’s full memo after the jump. As Bill would say, Cheers!

CONTINUED »

Faced with paying the bill for their new Eighth Avenue building, or something, the New York Times' Bill Keller announced that "for the first time in recent memory" there will be newsroom cuts. No journalists!, though, who are apt to generate complaints from other media outlets, but rather clerical gigs are gonna be axed. "Fax that yourself," will be a common future complaint. [NYO]

• Problems at the Times' new offices include a leak coming from Bill Keller's office, toilets that "make catlike noises before they flush" and a "'big rat' scurrying around Metro editor Joe Sexton last week—'one so huge it made him turn pale.'”

• 'What if Conrad Black returns?' worries the Chicago Trib. Fortunately, that won't happen seeing as he's the Guiltiest Person Ever.

• Peter Braunstein to be sentenced today for acting out on that creepy faux-fireman/rape fetish.

• ABC's Charlie Gibson establishes a scholarship based on "compassion, honesty, fairness and trustworthiness," prompting undergraduate hopefuls to "lie their asses off" in droves.

Three New York Times journalist were arrested and detained in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, reports the Times. The journos were reportedly imprisoned for five days, interrogated at gunpoint and prevented from contacting the American Embassy, despite the fact that no charges were filed against them. After their eventual release, NYT' executive editor Bill Keller was quick to thank everyone who helped expedite the end of this ordeal and to lambaste those who failed to cooperate.

“Now we are looking for explanations,” Keller said. “Why were journalists on a legitimate newsgathering assignment arrested, imprisoned for five days, manhandled and threatened? Why were they denied a chance to communicate with the American embassy in Ethiopia, or with civilian officials of the Ethiopian government? Why were we unable to get accurate information about their whereabouts and condition?”

Keller said he hoped his stern words would help get across the message that this type of behavior is not acceptable. If all else fails, however, Jill Abramson has graciously offered to file a massive lawsuit against the entire population of Ethiopia.

• FCC can't fine CBS for Imus' comments, because the remarks—while racially insensitive—are still nowhere near as offensive as Janet Jackson's wayward nipple.

• The Virginia Tech massacre is the worst thing that could ever have happened to Larry King 's 50th anniversary party.

• Bill Keller tries not to sound ungrateful about the Pulitzers by sounding ungrateful about the Pulitzers.

• Cooking Light publisher discovers his sales assistand has "quite the voice." Naturally, "sing dancing and camera-phone snapping" ensue.

• Web to introduce new nerd-only tv programming; pseudo-intellectuals need not apply.

• Kurt Vonnegut: misunderstood genius or imbecilic failure?

Word has it Byron "Barney" Calame's term as NYT public editor will end when his contract is up in May, and exec editor Bill Keller has reportedly decided to appoint a replacement. Calame, described by the NYO as "not entirely unlike Snuffleupagus," already had substantial reason to suspect his contract was in danger of not being renewed when Keller spoke out publicly—in early January—about the need to reevaluate things as "Barney's term enters the home stretch."

And naturally, the Times broke the news to Calame gently, with a typical show of class and integrity:

Calame tells Irin Carmon he wrote executive editor Bill Keller asking him how to plan for continuity. Keller responded that he was weighing "the whether and the who," and invited suggestions from Calame. The public editor passed. His last day is May 8, and the final column will run April 22.

Ouch. No word yet on Snuffleupagus' next gig (or the identity of his successor) but we'll be interested to see how the next public editor holds up under media scrutiny and, of course, Bill Keller's watchful eye.

• Perez Hilton founder Mario Lavandeira to be sued for posting topless Jennifer Aniston pics. When reached for comment, an unfazed Perez drew fake cocaine over the lawsuit and described it as "shiteous."

• Meet Dean Baquet, the "Barack Obama" of the New York Times. But will he or Jill "Hillary" Abramson take over for retiring exec editor, Bill Keller?

• Boston Globe stands by its decision to run trashy tabloid fodder about how Tom Brady dumped his preggers girlfriend.

• Weatherman Chris Knowles is leaving Fox News Channel, less than a week after hottie wife, Kiran Chetry, departed. Current outlook: Hazy, with a 60% chance of CNN.

CONTINUED »

Marketwatch's Jon Friedman puts on his coherent cap for a few moments to chat with NYT exec editor Bill Keller who, 2.5 months after the 2006 elections, feels "a little vindication" for all the criticism he was facing. From bloggers, no less.

Instead, Keller is sticking his chest out a bit because his staff starred in reporting such crucial stories as the leaked memos by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and the administration's lack of progress in Afghanistan.

Also, his staff starred in reporting the calamities of porn in high-def. And that certainly deserves a billowed chest.

The New York Times is going a bit more Nicole Richie, a little less Britney Spears. April 2008 is the planned time frame for the paper's reduction of 1.5 inches to its overall size.

A slash in size will not only making it cheaper for the Times to produce their newspaper, but it will also make it a hell of a lot easier to fit your read in that fab Hermes tote featured in the Styles in section. So, what does this mean for the Times? Not too, too much. Just a cut of about 250 jobs in production and a slashing of 5 percent when it comes to news coverage.

The reduction in the size of The Times will mean a loss of 5 percent of the space the paper devotes to news. If the paper only reduced the size of its pages, it would lose 11 percent of that space, but Bill Keller, the paper’s executive editor, said such a loss would be too drastic, so the paper will add pages to make up for some of the loss.

If you think about it, it's actually makes sense. They Keep the Book reviews and Frank Bruni's column in tact and make the cuts when it comes to the news. It's the worst part of the paper, anyway.

Times to Reduce Page Size and Close a Plant in 2008 [Katherine Q. Seeyle, New York Times]

• Top on the Magazine Publisher Association's agenda: figuring out how not to suck the life out of glossies. [FBNY]

• Should you trust President Bush or NYT exec editor Bill Keller? Well, it depends if we're talking facts or lives. [Slate]

• When delivering the news about Kenneth Lay's death, aren't the former Enron exec's ties to the Bush administration relevant? [Media Matters]

• Religion has no place in the classroom, the courtroom, or, for that matter, our subway stations. [Gawker]

• If coked up models can land lucrative contracts, why not homeless models? [FBNY]

• On Spring Street, a disavowed Murdoch son sells for nearly $15m. [NYO]

• It's easier to remember a list of celebrity fuck ups when they're put in a convenient list format. [AskMen]

Here we go again. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is encouraging the Bush administration to press charges against the New York Times. King is responding to an article last week which reported on a "secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists."

King is claiming the disclosure of these secret operations is an act of treason against the U.S. government, while the Times' executive editor Bill Keller stands by his belief that the government's financial monitoring program is of interest to the general public.

Of course, the republican administration can't just go around prosecuting people for no good reason, so King gives this insightful response to the Times and why they should fry.

He charged that the paper was “more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people.”

His argument, however, is not being supported by Senator Arlen Specter [R], Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bill Keller responds today in an editors letter,

Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough.

Really? And here we thought it was their job to write about trends in skinny jeans and beards.

Congressman wants newspapers investigated [MSNBC]
Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report [Bill Keller, New York Times]

• Journalists should just act like Al-Qaeda members. It makes sense, since according to our administration they already do. [Slate]

• Apparently you have to bash the president and call him impotent to be able to be the press secretary. Oh yeah, it doesn't hurt to be down with Fox News. [Think Progress]

• Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger gets a haircut in an attempt to fool people into thinking he knows what the fuck he's doing. The Times is just so good at insulting New Yorkers' intelligence. [NYO]

• The New York Times' Bill Keller seems to think the current administration doesn't like journalists. What would ever give anyone that impression? [National Journal]

• The next walk of shame is that of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia's editor Rebecca Thuss. Her resignation went conveniently unmentioned in Blueprint's PR campaign. [Memo Pad]

Now that the New York Times has their gem of a section on their site (natch, we are speaking of their New Jersey blog, Newark 06) they don't really need to devote that much time to the other tri-state dwellers.

Starting June 4, New Jersey, Long Island, Westchester, and even Connecticut will be lumped together into one hodge-podge of a section. It will all mash in under the guise of "central cover story of shared interest to suburban readers." We're thinking hair gel, fake Gucci bags, and plastic surgery, but apparently Bill Keller interprets our surrounding neighbors a bit differently.

The redesigned sections will "place greater emphasis on the reasons people choose to live outside this city," which frequently "revolve around their kids, their schools and their homes," the memo said.

Ha! We just love how Keller pretends that if people who have to live in New Jersey, actually made a conscious choice to do so.

Times change for the suburbs [Newsday]

• The seeds for the demise of Boldface Names were planted months ago when Bill Keller's wife Emma Gilbey was overheard spanking the un-gossip column. [WWD]

• New Out editor Aaron Hicklin promises that his magazine will, once and for all, be gay. [P6]

• At least Radar had the decency to credit its cover photo inspiration. Not so for Vanity Fair. [WWD]

• Giant, in the wake of its gigantic (groan) overhaul, has hired an A-team of vets to help out the mag. Vibe founding editor Scott Poulson-Bryant leads the charge of Maxim wannabes. [FBNY]

• Yet another thing about freedom that terrorists hate: Hugh Hefner. [Reuters]

• Ladies and gentleman the long and oftentimes, sad story of a Mr. Ron Burkle. [Daily Transom]

Judith Miller gives the power back to the blogs, opening up the arena for Jack Shafer to come in and spar a few rounds. Of course the resurgence of Millergate stems from that crucial court evidence, this month's Vanity Fair article "Lies and Consequences."

In the article/girl talk, Judy tells her BFF Marie Brenner that "the blogs" are responsible for destroying her relationship with the New York Times.

In Miller's mind, the bloggers not only poisoned her relationship with the Times brass but also with her colleagues, who, she says, "believed what they read on the blogs."

Judy also (according to Shafer) started fabricating comments about how executive editor Bill Keller possesses some East Village palm reader powers of predictability that allows him to "read the blogs."

In August, Bill Keller replaced Raines as executive editor, and according to Miller, he told her, "You are radioactive. … You can see it in the blogs."

Keller denies ever saying this — but remember, this is the guy who envisioned The Atlantic's imaginary masthead.

We've heard a few Times staffers admit to reading this blog. If any of you are working instead of drinking in the streets today, can you please tell Keller's assistant it's time for him and Cindy Adams to set up a lunch date?

Judith Miller's New Excuse [Jack Shafer, Slate]