Over the past week, the New York Times has run an objectively stupid number of stories about lawyer and scumbag Alan Dershowitz, after Dershowitz complained that people on Martha’s Vineyard were being mean to him because of his support for Donald Trump.
Look at all this:
Interviews! Book reviews! Blogs! This is, by any measure, too many stories about Alan Dershowitz, a bad person whose existence should not be contemplated for more than a few seconds every six months or so. It was also just weird. Why the hell was the Times so into this guy?
Now, even Times editor Dean Baquet has admitted that the Dershocalypse was a bit much. Here’s what he told the Daily Beast:
“We are trying to increase our coverage of cranky white guys,” he joked. “Seriously, it’s a big place and different desks made their own plans. We should have coordinated better and done fewer.”
The rest of the piece contains the usual anonymous sniping from Times journalists, as well as what seems like the now-requisite comment from former Times editor Jill Abramson (“‘Six reporters!’ she said, laughing. ‘That’s the only comment this needs’”). But Baquet’s response is the most important, and revealing.
“Different desks made their own plans” says quite a lot about the priorities of the Times, doesn’t it? What kind of place is this that Alan Dershowitz floats some nonsense complaint about being snubbed by fellow zillionaires—or publishes a book whose real purpose is to get him more publicity—and multiple divisions of the New York Times spring into action independent of each other?What is it about this man and this story that rings such a loud alarm in the Times offices?
One would think there are quite a few people out there who would love such lavish attention from the paper of record. Maybe some of those people would even deserve that attention.