We missed Byron Calame's white wash of the NY Times' coverage of the Duke3. The public editor, reminiscent of the performance of Richard Nixon's press secretaries (Ron Nessen any one?), lamely defended the paper's performance over the past year in regards to this explosive case. We're not going to go into great detail on this because little that we say could improve on the wrap-up done by Durham-in-Wonderland's KC Johnson.
All we know is that it is now day eleven of the Times' editorial silence and that glaring failure merely compounds the paper's biased and unprofessional coverage of the case. Imagine if the feeble minded Calame was brought before a Senate committee hearing to explain these failures? A real newspaper would be raking him over the coals for his pitiful performance in rationalizing his employer's egregious mistakes, mistakes that enabled the slandering of innocent kids to continue.
Oh yes, we missed the calumny from Calame because we can't seem to find any way to justify wasting $3.50 on pulp fiction. The Times actions reminds us of the story of the man who fell out of the twelfth story window. When he passed the third floor someone looked out and asked: "How are you doing?" His reply: "So far, so good."