A trip through Editorial Space(shiver!) Part 2/3

So we let things develop until 2/17 with the appearance of a Maureen Dowd editorial in which she discusses the story but not the problem with the story. To wit:

“Indeed, but the larger story now is why the MSM(mainstream media in blog-speak) has yet to run a real story on this. Your paper ran a deeply buried short piece last Friday and then dropped it. Kurtz's(Howie Kurtz in the Washinton Post) piece was, I understand, in the style section for God's sake. Though the bloggers and Air America have been talking about this non-stop for over a week and I have sent 3 notes to all the editors at your paper asking why they weren't running the story, it has yet to land anywhere near the front page. You can't believe that the papers are squeamish about the sexual side of it(BTW it's not just that we have a web designer saying he put up nude pictures of Gannon/Guckert, we have seen the pictures: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html). We all read about the semen stains on Lewinsky's dress. Indeed, we had to try not to read about it.
For whatever reason(disbelief, disgust, fear for democracy, fear of loss of access (Please! as if it matters when your news is being totally manufactured)) your paper is a tool for this administration's disinformation campaign by not covering this as news but as commentary on what others have reported. It's truly disgraceful. I have been recommending in the blogosphere and will recommend here that every White House correspondent except Helen Thomas(from whom neither Scott McClellan nor the President will take questions) start boycotting the press conferences. Then we can watch McClellan stand and stare at Helen Thomas, saying nothing and walking away. The net result would be no different than it is! Better yet, why don't all the correspondents start asking real questions so they will all be snubbed and we can watch McClellan or the President stare wordlessly at all of them. Again, the net result is the same only less CO2 being produced.”

That was meant to go to all the NYTimes editors, but I discovered later that it apparently only went to Ms. Dowd's box. Ahh, the joys of working with email clients that have their own rules about listing addresses and won't tell you before deleting your list. I love UNIX/Linux but not always. So, later that evening, it went to the editors with an extra tid bit:

“I have reason to believe that the attached didn't make it to you as it
should have this morning. And because I think you need to step up to the plate, check this out:”

As it happens a story appeared, in the News section, the next day:

“OK, getting it into the news section, but still behind the ball. Why was Gannon/Guckert spotted in the White House before Talon was even established as has been reported by Air America and Salon.com? If no strings were pulled to get Guckert into the press room, why did McClellan and Bush(I believe) call him "Jeff"? Are you implying that I can walk up there and get a daily pass without showing any sort of ID? That's absurd and you know it. Finally, why am I having to ask you about your incomplete reporting? You failed(or did you?) at reportage to help the administration get us into a needless war(yes, you are culpable) and now you decide to play it safe by under-reporting the White House disinformation campaign....Ugh, sometimes I wonder if there is any hope for your paper at all. If it wasn't for the fact that editors all over the country won't publish a story that the NYTimes won't publish ,(that power feels pretty good, uh?) I probably wouldn't care so much, but there are FACTS in this ongoing story that you still have yet to report even as 2 of your op-eders wrote about it yesterday(Dowd and Frank Rich). This smells like a whitewash and I would at least like to know what you have to gain from it.
You have to live with your own culpability in sabotaging democracy but I will never let you go quietly.”

And from the office of the Public Editor on 2/18:

“Dear (Sir),
Perhaps you missed the following articles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/politics/18gannon.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/politics/11gannon.html?ex=1108875600&en=6dc6b83cc1ac21d7&ei=5070
And the following two columns in yesterday's paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17dowd.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html
Sincerely,
(...)
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times “

To which I sent the last of this thread 2/19:

“Thank you for your reply. I have seen those articles, 2 of which are
opeds rather than news. I wrote the note you replied to on 2/17 so I
didn't know you guys were going to pick it up again on 2/18. I think I
included you in the To: list for my note of yesterday but if not it is
attached. I am still disappointed with the MSM coverage of the
administration's disinformation campaign which has been well covered
elsewhere. I, over the last few days, ran a small, non-scientific
survey here in San Francisco. I asked 4 or 5 people who live and work
in the City if they had heard of Jeff Gannon or James Guckert. In all 4
or 5 cases I got an absolutely blank stare. I understand that ABC
reported some on this yesterday and CNN has reportedly done another
interview with him(this according to Editor&Publisher who have been
digging at this story pretty well this last week or so). It seems to me
that these news media who were oh so eager to bring us Clinton's every
peccadillo and to froth over it beyond its natural life should at least
be seriously interested that the White House is actively and repeatedly
selling them "news" done up from whole cloth and employing tactics that
would seem to fly in the face of their so-called security. Perhaps you
are numb to it since the spin and dishonesty are the constant
state-of-affairs these days.”