Monday, July 13, 2009


We have always enjoyed the ongoing series of NY Post editorials labeled, "TimesWatch"-and the website of the same name that keeps tabs on the foibles and hypocrisies of the Grey Lady. But, given the NY Post's shameless shilling for the Billionaire Bloomberg, perhaps someone should start a PostWatch.

Our trigger for this public service need, has been the ongoing serialization of Educator Bloomberg-a lachrymose, and fictionalized account of the great strides that our educator-in-chief has made in uplifting NYC's poor school children. The ongoing saga, titled Keep Mayoral Control, has been running for over a year with at least 100 episodes in both editorial and news formats; the latest episode ran Saturday (check that, today)-and far outpaces anything that the Times has fixated on-like, for instance, gay marriage.

What's disturbing about all of this hoohah is that, aside from the mendacity of the continually unrebutted school claims, is that Mike Bloomberg is the kind of elected official who should be considered as the antithesis of what the Post usually sees as worthy of approbation. You know, higher taxes, bigger government and a Nanny State philosophy.

So with all of the cheer leading going on for the liberal statist mayor, you really need to ask: "What's up with that? Is this some kind of devil's bargain? What else can explain the paper's silence over that past year-post term limits extension that the Post endorsed with enthusiasm?

In that period it's been all home, home, on the range-and nary a discouraging word for the mayor; even while he spends record amounts of money on his re-election campaign, drowning out any potential countervailing information. This spending orgy and media blitzing is the kind of environment in desperate need of critique. Instead, in Saturday's Post the story on the mayor's spending runs two scant paragraphs-buried on the bottom of the second page, beneath the bigger piece on mayoral control.

And the story on the mayor's finances, and his vast fortune? Not worthy of the Post's attention. Even this nugget: "Despite his stock market losses, Mr. Bloomberg’s charitable donations increased over the last year, the documents showed. In 2007, he gave $205 million to 1,135 groups. In 2008, he gave $235 million to 1,221 organizations." Do you think that tracking these funds isn't newsworthy? Is there any correlation perhaps, between the mayor's generosity and his own personal political aggrandizement?

So, in our view, the NY Post needs to get a restraining order on itself, go on an introspective retreat-and refrain from the snarky coverage of the foibles of its competitors. The stones are too large, and the glass house way too delicately constructed.