"I don't believe in journalists having 'responsibility.'"
-Seth Lipsky, October 16, 2003

Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll demanded on August 20, 2003, that Washington "finish the war" against "the Arabs."

Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll assembled their staff for a Champagne toast to mass death on the commencement of hostilities against Iraq. Stoll called it "my war." CNN maintains a running update here of Americans killed in Ira's war.

On February 6, 2003, Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll wrote, in all seriousness, of a pending anti-war demonstration that the "the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution."

The June 9, 1995 Wall Street Journal quoted an SEC complaint against New York Sun backer Bruce Kovner as saying Kovner had "altered and destroyed" subpoenaed evidence. We wish you'd do the same to the daily print run of your God-awful newspaper, Bruce.

Also, Professor G. Harlan Reynolds alleged on August 27, 2002 - when the Sun was several months in publication - that Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll had not yet paid him for a piece authored for their inaugural issue.

 
 
   
 
Friday, May 30, 2003
 
Timothy Starks writes: “[A] few Democratic presidential candidates are calling for a repeal of President [sic] Bush’s tax cuts, some of which have started to be put in place---in effect, critics say, calling for a tax increase.” Or, perhaps, they are suggesting that we not COMPLETELY FUCKING RUIN THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF OUR COUNTRY YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER.

Among those “critics” cited: the incomparable Grover Norquist.
 
kraplinology (n) -- the art of trying to discern, through subtle hints and signs, what could be going on behind the closed doors of Chambers Street's official chamberpot

In today's installment, interesting developments:

-- The Believer, Adam Daifallah, is filing from Washington again. This means, presumably, that he is no longer embedded with Pirate Chalabi in Baghdad. He has been left to scrounge in D.C., and the pickings are so slim that the young disciple will be lucky to make it to summer. Today T.B. offers up a scrawny, tick-infested dispatch about the amount of money the Saudi government has been spending on p.r. This might (might) be an interesting story, were it not for the fact that (a) the Sun has already reported on it numerous times and (b) the Sun has already pounded this non-story to death numerous times. Did Daifallah fall afoul of Chalabi, perhaps by actually asking him a question? Did The Pirate not like being asked questions, preferring T.B. to simply chew Chalabi's cud?

-- Ira Stool files a page one story on the "road map" agreement on the Middle East, a topic that is as interesting and timely as Ira is illiterate. The presence of Stool's byline on page one is nothing new or interesting -- everything he writes ends up "at page one," since he sees the paper as a reflection of his editorial genius. (He is right on this count, though not in the way he would hope.) And the "story" has all the trademarks of an Ira dispatch: it's mostly cut-and-pasted material he found on the Internet, interspersed with dull commentary and quotes from militant Zionists. But the increasing frequency of Stool on page one points to what rumors have been suggesting for some time. Ira may be on his way out as managing editor of the Sun. It is already known to Kraplinologists that Ira is totally loathed and disrespected by the Sun staff. The investors also consider Ira to be Lipsky's idiot son, a vestigial employee they had to take on to keep Seth happy. Could Ira soon become no more than another shat-upon reporter? We know he will do whatever Papa Seth tells him to do.

-- Along these lines, today's editorial page contains a monstrous gaffe. The accompanying editorial to Stool's story (also accompanied by most of page 7) contains the phrase "On Page 1." Now, as Kraplinologists know, the editors usually use the twisted phrase "at Page 1." This suggests the presence of someone on the editorial staff with a firm command of the English language, a strong reversal from the Stool era. Further, the editorial refers to the small one as "our Ira Stoll." Generally the voice of the editors implies Stool's immature sqeaking. Perhaps Ira will now be consigned to Washington permanently, where he and The Believer can play all-night games of "pin the turban on the Arab" followed by bouts of passive-aggressive spooning.

Thursday, May 29, 2003
 
A double dose of Wild Bill Mauldin today. First in the police blotter he tells how police fired at an armed suspect. The in a lengthier piece he relates the tale of Rosaura Beristani, a pregnant pedestrian injured when students flung a stool from a classroom window, striking her as she passed below. Mauldin exemplifies the sort of competent reportage that SethAndIra have been largely successful in purging from their pages. Gotta make room for reports on the doings of the "solons," I guess. Oh, and for Daifallah.

Young Adam Daifallah, the Sun's "man" "at Iraq" seems to have been pried at long last from Ahmad Chalabi's teat (don't worry Adam, we're sure he'll remember you come Valentine's Day). We see he stocked up on scare quotes at the duty free before boarding his flight back, scattering them liberally across his moronic offering. The subject of his piece - nominally - is Shithead Schumer's goose-stepping behind the Brownshirt Brownback legislation that the Sunnis hope will hasten an attack against Iran. In substance, the piece is a demonstration of how little he and his editors know about Iran. Does he know why Khatemi is having problems with the judiciary? Why Khatemi is considering resignation? Why Khatemi has not been able to push through his reformist agenda? His piece strongly suggested he does not. But why should Young Adam Daifallah bother to acquaint himself with Iran. A study of its history and a survey of the current scene would just be a waste of time. Better to concentrate on those Eastern Saudi oilfields, no?

Wednesday, May 28, 2003
 
The selective outrage shown by Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll continues to astound. Their miserable paper defines itself by its relationship to The New York Times, and the junior editorial partner made his name by taking pissy potshots at the paper. They recruited Andrew Sullivan to grieve publicly on their pages over his firing from the Times. They've chased every Times pseudo-scandal uphill and down dale, exhausting a score of young reporters who misfortune decreed would work under the Sun - to say nothing of the readers of the tiresome shitrag. Jayson Blair. Rick Bragg. Howell, Howell, Howell. Real news breaks all around them, yet SethAndIra remain happily sequestered in their stables, indulging their morbid passion for flogging dead horses.

Yet when something truly outrageous happens at the cross-town rival which they in no way rival, SethAndIra remain silent. First Judith Miller files some of the schlockiest reportage found outside of the Sun's mighty mighty 18 pages, asserting that a man "clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap" told her - via Army intermediaries - that Saddam's WMDs were just where Bush said they'd be. Insofar as this provided a fig leaf for Bush's aggression against Iraq, Lipsky and Stool registered no objection.

Next Judith Miller is revealed to advise the revolting Daniel Pipes' equally revolting Middle East Forum. She caught no grief as SethAndIra carry Pipes' brief. One can only imagine their outrage if, say, Nick Kristof was ever demonstrated to have shared an elevator with an Arab.

Subsequently we learned that the source of Miller's zany WMD filings was none other than the Pirate Chalabi, the man who stands to gain the most from Bush's "war to disarm Iraq". The Sun remained mum, with the SethAndIraqi Republican Guard's allegiance to the Pirate continuing without compromise.

Now the plot thickens and/or sickens. Sridhar Pappu today reveals that the person "who helped set up the [Times'] Kuwait bureau for the war" was none other than - get this shit - Pirate Chalabi's niece, Sarah Khalil. Ms. Khalil was allowed to operate until "Chalabi came into the news in the postwar period." The postwar period? As if the Republicunts of the Bush Regency didn't have plans all along to install the Pirate. Truly amazing. I guess it'd take something like Howell Raines tasking Yasser Arafat's niece with covering Sharon's marauding to exercise SethAndIra, distracted as they are with their jihad against the Jayson Blairs of the world.

I'm not expecting the above to make the Sun - though I wouldn't be in the least surprised to see Ms. Khalil's byline make an appearance.

Elsewhere in the Sun, SethAndIra, big fans of the above Daniel Pipes' crusade to rid the academy of free thought, discover that compiling lists of people whose opinions differ from yours can be less than groovy. When Pipes does it, compulsive masturbator Stoll and his henpecked buddy call it a demonstration of Pipes' fit for a seat on the United States Institute of Peace's board. When someone with a Middle Eastern surname does it, it's - of course - anti-Semitism.
 
The SethAndIra Revue take on the Jayson Blair scandal -- again -- typically making less and less sense as they wade further into the details of events they cannot possibly fathom. After all, that a major newspaper would get rid of a reporter for making stuff up must seem odd to a newspaper that seems to invent most of its stories out of ideological thin air. Further, Stool and the Fat Man stretch themselves even farther intellectually (their minds being as flexible as a 500 pound man with a torn hamstring) by trying to take on the issue of race and the Times.

On issues of race, SniderTimes-the-Newspaper is so tone-deaf that they don't even realize how bigoted their poorly-written prose come out. Note this sentence: "We’re not in the camp that believes that the Times’s diversity policies are to blame for Mr. Blair’s fabrications. After all, at other papers, white reporters have been caught in their own scandals." And there you have it folks, white people are doing it too, so it can't be all bad. Incidentally, the Sun is firmly in "the camp," if you consider the company they keep. After all, they gleefully publish the bloated bigot James Taranto.

Opposite the page, and really light years away, from the tortured illogic (more like "how do we beat this Blair story again for 1200 words?") of the idiotorial column is a fine example of what a reporter should aspire to be. Errol Louis, who incidentally is the only "diversity" the Sun practices, although this is a mere aside to the fact that he is by far the best reporter on their staff, writes an excellent column on why the City Council's move to bar Bloomberg from bankrolling non-partisan elections himself is a wise move. The Sun's idiotors, still clinging to the notion that money is speech -- how else to defend their financial fat cats soiling the good name of what was one of history's great newspapers? -- argue the opposite with whatever space they had left after their anti-black tirade.

Guess who wins the argument.

Elsewhere, it appears The Believer Adam Daifallah did not get enough crumbs from the Pirate Chalabi today to scrape together a "news" "story." America is weeping.

An addendum: The Sun has always been a big backer of Larry Silverstein. I guess you can judge a stupid man and a fat man by the company they keep.

Tuesday, May 27, 2003
 
IRA'S WAR

It was about... something.
 
SethAndIra occassionally have public fits of editorial sanity, thus page six in today's Sun (America is grateful, by the way, for three whole days without your putrid journalist-ish hash) has a reasonable, well-thought-out editorial on the importance of a robust immigration policy. So, true to form, the editors put it at the bottom of the page.

Elsewhere, Stool shows off his utter lack of journalistic skill with a puff piece/page one op-ed on Rahm Emanuel, a man that so many of us were dying to hear news of. Being an infantile shithead, Ira can't get through a single paragraph without (1) kissing the ass of the poor schmuck who was gracious enough to grant this hack an interview while (2) idiotorializing on everything said poor schmuck told said hack. Thus the piece opens, "One indicator of just how far the Democratic Party has fallen from the 1990s, when it controlled the White House, is what has happened to Rahm Emanuel." (What liberal media, indeed.)

Ira's masterwork also contains such gems as "With such legislation [a tax cut that would actually benefit non-billionaires], Democrats would be putting themselves on the side of tax cuts and tax simplification, even if the tax cuts are not necessarily on marginal income, where supply-side economists tend to prefer them." Cute of him to call proponents of ruining the federal fisc "supply-side economists," rather than the preferred "crank ideologues," and to use the phrase "marginal income," rather than the preferred "wad of hundred dollar bills used to light cigar."

Also on page one, in keeping with Adam Daifallah's inscrutable reporting standards, The Believer takes Ahmad Chalabi's every fleck of spittle as received wisdom, writing on for hundreds and hundreds of words about crap that nobody really cares about.

 

 
   
  This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.  

Home  |  Archives  |  E-mail Grady Olivier