February 05, 2004

Andrew Sullivan - Fact-checker of the NY Times Andrew Sullivan tore former New York Times editor Howell Raines and new asshole for the Jayson Blair's plagiarism. The only problem with that is he let Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass do the same thing on his watch when he was editing the New Republic. Charles Lane had to clean up his mess. The Sullen Man was also fired from the New York Times for his own sloppy reporting and then told the Washington Post he was fired because of his blog. Someone explain to me why people take this man seriously.
posted by Sullivan 20 years ago
  • A love divine indeed.
  • Someone explain to me why people take this man seriously. Because he's a smart mofo, writes mellifluously, and generally agrees with me on everything.
  • The writing is slick, the thinking behind it less so. The referencing is often downright deceptive. That said, $100K+ working from home? Holy hell, if only!
  • Perhaps. I certainly take Sullivan more seriously than the completely worthless Signorile.
  • Speaking of which, did anyone see the film Shattered Glass? Hayden Christiansen more than makes up for all that Star Wars crap. I highly recommend it.
  • Goetter, the Sullen Man is guilty of distorting facts, just like Michael Moore. Both these guys should not be taken seriously. The only reason they are is because people "agree" with them. That does not justify them lying.
  • That's an illuminating (not to mention amusing) comparison. Pity that he doesn't have an editor to hold his panties to the fire when the polemics get out of hand.
  • Goetter, explain how the Sullen Man can condem Howell Raines for Jayson Blair's bogus stories when he let Stephen Glass and Ruth Shalit get away with the same thing. Shalit was outed several times under his watch. The Sullen Man kept defending her. You still haven't answered this question.
  • Check on the Signorile. Sully, your brave attempt to stick a nic on the other Sully while sharing the same name is, er, odd. Not that I mean anything by it.
  • Shalit was a plagiarist, and Sullivan admits to coddling and mismanaging her. Glass was a fabricator who lasted through several editors at TNR. Sullivan can share responsibility with Kelly and Lane for him. (I remember several of Glass's jaw-dropping stories, all highly entertaining. Pity that they were invented.) Blair was both a fabricator and a plagiarist. Sullivan's beefs with Raines are certainly not limited to the Blair brouhaha; rather, he seems to see the scandal as reflecting some greater failing at the Times. (Synecdoche, sort of.) I hardly think that Sullivan's failings as a manager invalidate his criticisms. It must be really, really annoying for you to share a name with him. I feel your pain.
  • Synecdoche I got your pars pro toto right here.
  • Andrew Sullivan was fired by the New York Times for errors in his articles. As a reporter the Sullen Man sucks. Signorile used Jack Shafer's article in the Slate as the source. I have seen this article a long time ago. Signorile really hates Andrew Sullivan and Matt Drudge. That said, his source checks out. More on the Sullen Man from Katha Pollitt. Ruth Shalit, The New Republic's star plagiarizer, attacked the Washington Post in an error-strewn piece for pandering to racial sensitivities. (Her editor, Andrew Sullivan, is now enjoying himself at the Times's expense--but while the Times prostrated itself with a 14,000-word article detailing Blair's derelictions, The New Republic issued only pro forma regret.) Andrew Sullivan was fired from the New York Times for errors in his articles. He was Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass' editor at the New Republic. He knowingly let Shalit get away with plagiurism. I'm still waiting for a valid answer on why Andrew Sullivan should be taken seriously. And yes, I do share the same name as him. So I certainly don't have a bias against people with the name Sullivan.
  • Why do I read (Andrew) Sullivan? The same reason I read TPM, Instapundit, Volokh, OxBlog, Calpundit, Drezner, iraqnow, the Corner, kos, Atrios, Wonkette, Drudge, and many others. They are different viewpoints on topics that interest me. Occasionally--who am I kidding--usually, they argue back and forth about a topic and I end up getting all sides from different worldviews. Then, I contrast and compare and make my own decision.
  • You don't read me Scott? SHOCKING! I spend most of my online time reading Forky's stats counter. I haven't actually read the Forkster's blog, but the counter is kicking. I don't read Kos because he is a consultant for Howard Dean. He accused Kerry's people of calling registered Democrats in the wee hours of the morning to vote for Dean, without any facts. That's a talking points attack.
  • That was just the political blogs I read. I have read yours, most everyone here's blogs actually, but listing my entire daily read list is way too many manual links to enter.