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?