The final White House Correspondents dinner of the Bush administration is fast approaching, but The New York Times won't be there. They're taking the "high road". Oh, sure.
Missing, in any case, will be The New York Times, which bought two tables last year and counted among its guests Karl Rove. Times officials have said they will no longer take part in the dinner, citing the uncomfortable pairing of journalists with those they cover.
"These events can create a false perception that reporters and their sources are pals, and that perception could cloud our credibility," Spokeswoman Diane McNulty wrote. "It's not worth it."
That's a flimsy excuse - and that's all it is. The New York Times is bleeding to death, and the fact of the matter is that they couldn't afford to be there in any case. Not when they're facing the largest bloodbath in the history of the organization.
Executive Editor William Keller had said originally that he was looking to cut 100 people from the Times staff in response to the dismal newspaper advertising environment.
But then a week ago Assistant Managing Editor William Schmidt issued a memo saying it was almost certain that the company would be forced to make involuntary cuts, and he urged more volunteers to come forward.
Only 70 folks have opted out, so they'll be looking at firing another 30 in the next ten days or so. Keller has it completely wrong, as usual: there's nothing dismal about the advertising environment. What is dismal is the publication itself, which is why advertisers are staying away from it. If they were recognized for consistently producing a quality product, advertisers would be lining up. They aren't, and advertisers know it. Rather than blaming a nebulous, "dismal advertising environment", the editors should step up to the plate, acknowledge that they've run the paper into the ground, and fire themselves.
Of course, that's not going to happen. They're demanding shiny new shovels so that they can keep digging.
