Ted Cruz Vs New York Times: Part Three

Ted Cruz has the turned his book feud with the New York Times into a campaign clip.

Ted Cruz Vs New York Times: Part Two

Via Politico:

On Thursday, a Times spokesperson said that the book was excluded because the paper had found its sales to be mostly “strategic bulk purchases” — a common practice among political authors, but a claim hotly disputed by Cruz’s campaign. “The Times is presumably embarrassed by having their obvious partisan bias called out. But their response — alleging ‘strategic bulk purchases’ — is a blatant falsehood,” Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler said in a statement Friday. “The evidence is directly to the contrary. In leveling this false charge, the Times has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher Harper Collins.” “We call on the Times, release your so-called ‘evidence.’ Demonstrate that your charge isn’t simply a naked fabrication, designed to cover up your own partisan agenda,” Tyler continued. “And, if you cannot do so, then issue a public apology to Senator Cruz and Harper Collins editor Adam Bellow for making false charges against them.”

Last night the Cruz camp happily retweeted the above piece by the Washington Post, which notes that publicity about the controversy will likely result in Cruz legitimately making the Times' bestsellers list.

New York Times: Cruz Is Off Bestsellers List Due To "Strategic Bulk Purchases"

Via Politico:

This week, HarperCollins, the book's publisher, sent a letter to The New York Times inquiring about Cruz's omission from the list, sources with knowledge of the situation said. The Times responded by telling HarperCollins that the book did not meet their criteria for inclusion. "We have uniform standards that we apply to our best seller list, which includes an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold," Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy explained when asked about the omission. "This book didn't meet that standard this week." Asked to specify those standards, Murphy replied: "Our goal is that the list reflect authentic best sellers, so we look at and analyze not just numbers, but patterns of sales for every book." Both HarperCollins and the Cruz campaign declined to comment on the matter.

In an update to the above-linked the story, the Times spokesman adds: "In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases." Such bulk purchases have long been used to buy one's way onto the list.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

Some same-sex marriage opponents argue that under state religious-freedom laws, a government employee’s beliefs should be accommodated so long as another official is available to carry out the task. But government employees do not have a constitutionally protected right to pick and choose which members of the public they will serve, no matter their religious beliefs. Not so long ago, of course, government officials invoked religious beliefs to justify all manner of racial segregation and discrimination, including laws banning interracial marriage. The Supreme Court struck down that marriage ban in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. It is impossible to imagine any county clerk or judge now claiming a right not to marry an interracial couple based on religious beliefs. And yet, that would be analogous to what these public employees are doing in refusing to serve same-sex couples. The Constitution’s protection of religious freedom simply does not include the right to discriminate against others in the public sphere.

Photo is mine.

Today's New York Times

Share your own hometown front pages in the comments.

Maggie Gallagher Vs Frank Bruni

"This week, Frank Bruni, fresh from asserting with approval that Mitchell Gold wants to make Christians take homosexuality off their sin list, decides to attack the Catholic Church for committing the primal sin of patriarchy. 'Catholicism Undervalues Women.' The pope is always a man! Listen, I get that growing up gay in the South was no picnic. I get that many people probably did and said mean things they should not have. But this is no longer about civility, or tolerance; it is about telling other people what their religion should be. If you do not believe in our God, Frank, of course you have a hard time understanding the holy war you are picking.

"Yes, you are a lovable human being, with rights, with feelings to be respected. We don’t have to agree to love or respect one another. So why pick on Catholics? Orthodox Jews, black Pentecostals, the LDS church, Southern Baptists, most versions of Islam, also have all-male clergies. What is it about Catholicism that inspires such rudeness in the New York Times? Oh, I know. Something to do with 2,000 years of hanging onto the teachings of Christ: We are born male and female. Our bodies have a meaning; they are not machines we occupy. Sexual desire was given to us for a purpose; we are to direct it, not let it rule us." - Maggie Gallagher, writing for the National Review.

Timelapse: A Walker In New York City

I thought this would be about zombies, but no: "A behind-the-scenes look at how the French artist JR created a large-scale pasting in the triangle below the Flatiron Building for the Walking New York issue of The New York Times Magazine." Pasting?

Freedom From Religion Foundation Runs Full-Page Anti-RFRA Message In NYT

The above message ran in Sunday's New York Times.

TRAILER: True Story

Writer David Carr Dies At Age 58

Via the New York Times:

David Carr, a writer who wriggled away from the demon of drug addiction to become a name-brand media columnist at The New York Times, and the star of “Page One,” a documentary about the newspaper, died on Thursday in Manhattan. He was 58. Mr. Carr collapsed in The Times newsroom, where he was found shortly before 9 p.m. He was taken to Roosevelt Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Earlier in the evening, he moderated a panel discussion about the film “Citizenfour” with its principal subject, Edward J. Snowden; the film’s director, Laura Poitras; and Glenn Greenwald, a journalist. Mr. Carr wrote about cultural subjects for The Times; he initiated the feature known as The Carpetbagger, a regular report on the news and nonsense from the red carpet during awards season. He championed offbeat movies like “Juno,” with Ellen Page, and he interviewed stars both enduring and evanescent — Woody Harrelson, Neil Young, Michael Cera. More recently, however, he was best known for The Media Equation, a Monday column in The Times that analyzed news and developments in publishing, television, social media — for which he was an early evangelist — and other mass communications platforms.

Accolades from fellow journalists have been pouring out on Twitter.

Evan Wolfson: Opposition To The Freedom To Marry Is The Dog That Didn't Bark

"America’s history tells us there will always be pockets of resistance to any civil rights advance. That is why your article about a few state officials proposing license to discriminate measures to limit existing civil rights laws they never liked anyway was not surprising. But despite a handful of apocalyptic pronouncements that marriage will be destroyed, as will America, all is pretty quiet amid much joy. No widespread resistance. No riots in the streets. The reality is that opposition to the freedom to marry is the dog that didn’t bark.

"In fact, as states issue marriage licenses to loving and committed gay couples, public support increases. In Wyoming, polls show that a majority now supports the freedom to marry, while even in ruby-red Utah, there is plurality support and the law has been followed. Fifty-nine percent of the American people and over 60 state and federal courts have embraced the freedom to marry, and we’ve ended marriage discrimination in 37 states. That is more support and more states than we had when the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage in the best-named case ever, Loving v. Virginia.

"What followed Loving in 1967 is precisely what we are seeing now, even in red states where we have won: The overwhelming majority moves on. Notwithstanding isolated grandstanding and sideshows, the majority of the country has again moved to the right side of history. As in 1967, America is ready for the freedom to marry." - Freedom To Marry founder Evan Wolfson, in a letter published today by the New York Times.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

Justice Antonin Scalia, who has voted against constitutional protections for gays and lesbians at every opportunity, foresaw this moment more than a decade ago, when the court reversed its own precedent and banned state anti-sodomy laws.

In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote that the Constitution protects “adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” The opinion said it was not deciding the question of same-sex marriage, but Mr. Scalia begged to differ. If states may not use laws to express moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, he wrote in dissent, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution?”

Precisely.

The 12 years since 2003 have seen enormous social change on this issue. Before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in November 2003, no state permitted such marriages. Today, 36 states do, along with the District of Columbia — representing more than 70 percent of all Americans. A solid and growing majority now believes in marriage equality; among those 18 to 29, support is at nearly 80 percent.

For same-sex couples and their families, friends and communities, this moment has been a long time coming. The justices have the power and the responsibility to give meaning to the promises embedded in the Constitution, and end the exclusion and inequality of gays and lesbians in America.

Brian Brown: The New York Times Has Declared War On All Christians

"The Times has just declared war on Christians and members of other faith communities that serve in government position. It is open season, according to the New York Times, to make sure that we lose our jobs. The new authoritarians now state openly that we can have our beliefs—we simply can’t talk about them. And then they are going to actually have the gall to say that 'this is not about free speech or religious freedom.' This is OUTRAGEOUS. And I know you are as concerned as I am about this, because of the many emails and phone calls we've received. Now it’s time to turn outrage to action to stop the New Authoritarians. NOM is supporting legislation at the state and federal level to stop the attack on marriage and religious liberty. I urge you immediately to contact your Congressman and urge him or her to pass the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act which will help protect religious liberty at the federal level." - Hate group leader Brian Brown, in an email which includes a money beg to (allegedly) buy more copies of Kelvin Cochran's book.

Tony Perkins Vs New York Times

"Just when you thought the media couldn't sink any lower, the Times takes on the same First Amendment that gives it the freedom to print these vicious attacks on Christians. In a stunning column, the newspaper argues that men and women of faith have no place in public management of any kind. The piece, which shows a remarkable disinterest in the facts, claims that Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran didn't have permission to publish his book on biblical morality. Not only did Cochran have permission from the city's ethics office to publish his book, but he only distributed it in his personal capacity at church -- where a handful of his coworkers attend. At no point did Kelvin Cochran 'foist his views on anyone. And if you follow the Times's suggestion to its natural conclusion, then there's no place in this country for Christians in any position of authority! It's time for the city of Atlanta to end its campaign of discrimination against Christians, whose only crime is exercising the same liberties our forefathers came to these shores to protect. The New York Times is calling for public servants to be held to a different standard when it comes to their freedom of speech and religion. But I think most Americans are quite happy with the standard that we've had for the last 226 years -- the First Amendment!" - Hate group leader Tony Perkins, ranting about this editorial.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

Until last week, Kelvin Cochran was the chief of the Atlanta fire department, where he oversaw a work force of more than 1,000 firefighters and staff. He was fired on Jan. 6 by Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, for homophobic language in the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”

Mr. Cochran had already been suspended for a month in November for distributing the book to staff members. Following an internal investigation, the mayor did the right thing and dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits.

It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. The First Amendment already protects religious freedom. Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe. If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.

Hate groups will rally at the Georgia Capitol Building this afternoon in support of Cochran's alleged right to proselytize at the workplace and hand out anti-gay rants to his subordinates.

Editorial Of The Day

From the New York Times:

The litany of brutality, lawlessness and lack of accountability serves as a reminder of what a horrible decision President Obama made at the outset of his administration to close the books on this chapter in our history, even as he repudiated the use of torture. The C.I.A. officials who destroyed videotapes of waterboarding were left unpunished, and all attempts at bringing these acts into a courtroom were blocked by claims of national secrets.

It is hard to believe that anything will be done now. Republicans, who will soon control the Senate and have the majority on the intelligence panel, denounced the report, acting as though it is the reporting of the torture and not the torture itself that is bad for the country. Maybe George Tenet, who ran the C.I.A. during this ignoble period, could make a tiny amends by returning the Presidential Medal of Freedom that President Bush gave him upon his retirement.

Hit the link and read the full piece.

Quote Of The Day - Dan Savage

"Let's take [Ross] Douthat at his word and just accept that it didn't occur to him the event was a fundraiser even after the MC began soliciting donations from the stage during the event. Let's focus on this this instead: Douthat isn't apologizing for crawling into bed with the ADF, an organization that wants to send Douthat's colleagues Frank Bruni (gay), Josh Barro (gay), Charles Blow (bi), and Jennifer Boylan (a trans woman married to another woman) to prison. He's not apologizing for speaking before the ADF. He's only apologizing for appearing at a fundraiser for the ADF. (Accidentally!)

"So... it's fine for writers at the NYT to speak before hate groups—rabidly anti-gay orgs like the ADF, anti-Semitic groups, the reconstituted KKK, White Citizen Councils—so long as the event isn't a fundraiser? So... it would've been fine for Douthat to have a 'conversation' with the organization that wants to send Frank Bruni and Josh Barro to prison but a line was crossed when Douthat helped raise money for the organization that wants to send Frank Bruni and Josh Barro to prison. And let's end with followup question for Ross Douthat: We know that your pals at the ADF want to send Josh and Frank to prison—along with all the other gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans folks who work at the New York Times—but do you? Do you believe that gay sex should be criminalized? And if you don't, Ross, what are you doing in bed with people who do?" - Dan Savage, writing for The Stranger.

NOTE: Savage is referring to Alliance Defending Freedom's opposition to the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence V Texas, which struck down sodomy laws nationwide. Here's what the ADF wrote in March of that year.

Plaintiff’s arguments have serious problems, explained Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona. "They are asking the court to convert itself into a national legislature and to determine state policy regarding marriage, family, and sexual conduct outside of marriage. They are asking the court to judge a case that has no court record on which to rule. The plaintiffs are asking the court to suddenly declare as unconstitutional certain laws which have existed in unbroken succession since before the founding of the country." The ultimate goal of this case is not simply to end sodomy laws, Lorence explained. "Advocates of homosexual behavior would like to use a win in this case to advance their ambitious agenda. They want a court win to change the definition of marriage, because the real goal is to legalize same-sex ‘marriage.’ They want a win that will lift restrictions on homosexual conduct in the military, to legalize adoption by same sex couples, and to restrict free speech rights of individuals who have faith-based objections to endorsing, funding, or supporting homosexual behavior," Lorence said.

NOT incidentally, quoted in that post is the ADF's archenemy, then Houston City Councilwoman Annise Parker.

NYT Writer Ross Douthat Apologizes For Speaking At Hate Group Fundraiser

"I was not aware in advance that this event was a fundraiser and had I known, I would not have agreed to participate. I was invited by an events organizing group, not by ADF directly. I understood this to be a public conversation about religious liberty. This is my fault for not doing my due diligence, and I will be declining the honorarium." - New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, in a statement to Media Matters. Earlier this year Douthat expressed support for Arizona's attempt to legalize anti-gay discrimination, a campaign that was partly organized by Alliance Defending Freedom.

Pew Ranks "Trusted" News Outlets

From the Pew Research report:

Those with consistently conservative political values are oriented around a single outlet—Fox News—to a much greater degree than those in any other ideological group: Nearly half (47%) of those who are consistently conservative name Fox News as their main source for government and political news. Far fewer choose any other single source: Local radio ranks second, named by 11%, with no other individual source named by more than 5% of consistent conservatives. Those with mostly conservative views also gravitate strongly toward Fox News – 31% name it as their main source, several times the share who name the next most popular sources, including CNN (9%), local television (6%) and radio (6%) and Yahoo News (6%).

On the left of the political spectrum, no single outlet predominates. Among consistent liberals, CNN (15%), NPR (13%), MSNBC (12%) and the New York Times (10%) all rank near the top of the list. CNN is named by just 20% of those with mostly liberal views, but still tops their list, followed by local television (11%) and NPR (9%). Both MSNBC and Fox News are mentioned by 5% of those who are mostly liberal. Those in other ideological groups name the New York Times, NPR and MSNBC less frequently as top news sources.

Respondents with a roughly equal mix of liberal and conservative values also have a diffuse mix of news providers. CNN (20%) and local television (16%) are the most frequently-named top sources, with a long list of other news sources named by fewer than one-in-ten. Fox News (8%) is among the most-named sources in this “long tail,” along with Yahoo News (7%) and Google News (6%), both of which primarily aggregate and highlight news produced by other outlets.

For the record, I highly trust last place Buzzfeed's Chris Geidner.

NYT To SCOTUS: Why Are You Waiting?

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

The forces against marriage equality are not going down without a fight. In nearly half the country, gay and lesbian couples are still treated as second-class citizens, denied the respect and dignity — as well as the tangible financial benefits — that come with the ability to marry.

In a speech last month, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who last year became the first justice to officiate at a same-sex wedding, said that the court is keeping an eye on developments in the lower courts, but that there is “no need for us to rush.” Why not?

Every day that the justices do not declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, a child in San Antonio feels confusion and shame that her fathers cannot get married; a woman in Atlanta is prohibited from making emergency medical decisions for her life partner; a man in Biloxi, Miss., is denied veteran’s survivor benefits after his husband dies. The consequences of being treated as inferior under the law are real, immediate and devastating.

Same-sex marriage is among the most important civil-rights issues of our time, and the country is ready to resolve it once and for all. The justices have all the information they need to rule that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. What are they waiting for?