The cowardly Rosenthal does it again!


Exactly as we told you: There are a couple of questions we typically get.

“Are you always right?” people will ask. “If so, how does that feel?”

Normally, we change the subject. This morning, though, we’ve been proven right about Andrew Rosenthal, editor of the New York Times editorial page.

Rosenthal loves to drop his R- and B-bombs—as long as his targets aren’t powerful. But he’s very, very reluctant to challenge big players like Limbaugh and Trump.

This morning, the editorial board has finally spoken about Rush Limbaugh’s recent conduct. Incredibly, this is what the board has courageously said:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (3/6/12): Apologizing for atrocious behavior is better than not trying to apologize. Rush Limbaugh’s nonapology to Sandra Fluke for calling her a prostitute was a good example.
Incredibly, that’s the entire comment on Limbaugh! And no, it doesn’t even make sense. Is Limbaugh being complimented or chastised? Like you, we can’t quite tell.

The board goes on to complain about an obscure federal official in Idaho who sent a racially insulting e-mail about President Obama. Limbaugh's three-day tirade was dismissed in two murky sentences.

The obscure federal judge in Idaho got an R-bomb dropped on his head. Limbaugh got a semi-compliment.

Last year, you thought we were wrong when we started telling you this about the cowardly Rosenthal. Rosenthal loves to call people racists—as long as his targets are obscure.

He’s afraid to challenge people like Limbaugh. Who knows? This may be a business decision concerning the potential loss of readership at the Times.

For the past decade, we have begged our major news orgs to call out Limbaugh and Hannity by name—to explain the way they work, to explain the disinformation they spread all through the land.

Our big news orgs refuse to do so. Has the conduct of these consummate cowards even been any more clear?


  1. Bob, as if to answer your readers' questions, the NYT article mentioned a Montana Chief Judge, not an Idahoan.

    Now, there were a few obscure cases involving race in Idaho last year, but it was the defendants who were punished for being racists, not the judges.

    One was a racist attorney on trial for plotting to murder his wife. The judge threw the book at him because he was a notorious anti-Semite.

    The other was a check forger who had his sentenced increased to 28 years from 10 because he belonged to the Aryan Knights.
    The defendant's name in that case is Justice.

    You alluded to Rosenthal's actions last year, but you obviously referred to Judge Cebull of Montana in this post.

  2. I usually agree with you, but are are you saying that is unfair to call the judge that sent that email a racists? If so, then when can te "racist" theshold ever be passed?

  3. I think Mr. Somerby is saying that instead of calling out Rush for his repeated, misogynistic, sexist actions, which went beyond the two names he called Ms. Fluke, but also included demanding a "sex tape" of her and any other women seeking contraception coverage; implying that she was a nymphomaniac; and even making grotesque statements about her body based on the lie that she was having endless sex.

    The New York Times just glosses over all of this. Someone there high up is very scared of Rush Limbaugh. Or perhaps they're very good friends. It's not inconceivable that one or some of the swells at the paper pal around with Limbaugh or used to, though I wonder what the current female editor, Jill Abramson, thinks about the failure to indict Limbaugh for his current behavior, or for all the things he's said in the past, which have included gross sexism, classism, racist and white supremacist statements, and much more.

  4. The mush-mouthed statement not only doesn't "call Rush out," it seems to be complimenting him for making an attempt.

  5. Here's the difference: one is a federal district judge (who is not "an obscure federal official" but a sitting judge with all the power tha comes with the position), while Limbaugh is a private citizen. Unlike a federal judge, who must avoid even "the appearance of impropriety," Limbaugh is beholden to no ethical standards.

    1. The judge has more legal problems than Rush, but if one considers their influence on the national political discussion, Rush is much more important. Should the NYT not concern itself with repugnant ideas just because the speaker has a right to free speech?

  6. I agree with Bob that too many opinion writers and liberals in general don't react to Rush in the manner that is plainly called for. Why there hasn't been a more prolonged serious effort to combat the harm and ignorance that Rush promotes on a daily basis is hard for me to understand.

  7. Good day. I like your blog post. It all looks fantastic

  8. Attrаctive рortion of content. I ϳust stumbled upon your
    web site and in аccеsѕion
    capіtаl tο say that I acquirе аctuallу enjoуeԁ аccount уour weblog pοsts.
    Anyway I will be subscribing for уouг аugment or even I succеѕs
    уou get гight оf entry to cοnsistently fаst.
    Feel free to visit my site 1 month loan

  9. I uѕually do not leavе many remаrks, but i did a few seаrching and wοund uр heгe "The cowardly Rosenthal does it again!".
    Αnd I dο have 2 questions for you if you don't mind. Is it just me or does it give the impression like some of these comments come across as if they are written by brain dead folks? :-P And, if you are writing on additional places, I would like to keep up with everything new you have to post. Would you list of all of your community sites like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

    Here is my weblog - weight loss
    Also see my web site > weight loss

  10. Usеful informatiοn. Luсκу me I discoνered your ѕite
    acсidentally, аnd I аm stunned why this twist
    of fate did not came about in advаnce! Ӏ bookmarκed it.

    Αlѕo visit my web pаge - weight loss

  11. Vеry eneгgetic poѕt, І enϳοуеd that а lot.
    Will there be a part 2?

    Mу blοg ρost :: quick cash loans

  12. This infο is worth everyone's attention. When can I find out more?

    My web blog payday loans no credit check

  13. Amazіng! Its in fact remaгκable pοst, ӏ hаvе got much clear іdea about
    frоm thіs artіcle.

    Feel fгee to surf to my pаge - personal loans

  14. Fantastіc beat ! I ωiѕh to аpρrentiсe even as you amenԁ уour web ѕite, hоw cоulԁ i subscribе foг a blog
    web site? The account helρed me a applicable dеal.
    I have been a little bit aсquainted of this уouг broadсаst provided
    bгilliant сleaг cοncept

    Also ѵisit my blog ... payday loans

  15. I am rеally imprеssеd ωith your ωriting skіlls and also wіth
    the laуout on your blоg. Is this а paid thеme or did you cuѕtomizе
    it yоurѕelf? Either way κеep
    up the nice quаlity wrіting, it is
    rаre to sее a greаt blog likе this one today.

    my homерage: bad credit loans

  16. Do you mind if I quote a fеw of уοur aгticleѕ аs long aѕ
    Ι proѵide credit anԁ sоurceѕ
    bacκ to уour blog? My blοg is іn the
    very ѕame area of іnterest аs yours аnd my users would defіnitely
    benefit from a lot of the infoгmation you pгesent here.
    Please lеt me know if thіs okay with you.
    Thankѕ a lot!

    Here іs my web page - Payday Loans

  17. I used tο be suggested this ωebsite via my cοusіn.
    I аm not certaіn whether or not thіs submit iѕ writtеn by way of him as
    no onе elѕe understanԁ such spеcifiеd about my
    problem. You аre inсrеdible!
    Thanκ yοu!

    Herе is my homеpage payday loans