Subject: Margaret, per our conversation
From: Brent Budowsky <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:38:54 -0400

Margaret, far be it from me what the public editor of the NY Times should focus on,
but:

Per our recent conversation and my recent column about "Clinton Cash Con" and
the appropriate role of the NY Times, take another look at the Sid Blumenthal story
in the Tuesday paper.  I make no defense for Blumenthal.  But that story involved
New York Times doing stenography for the House Benghazi committee, sans legitimate reporting, replete with an email obviously leaked (without disclosure from the Times) by one of the most partisan committees in my memory.

Should the NY Times reporters be stenographers for a partisan committee, taking
dictation and writing stories? And if the committee unethically leaks an email shouldn't  the NY Times give some general indication of the partisan nature of the source?  And
shouldn't the NYT reporters do some legitimate reporting rather than repeating from
partisan committee handouts?

As we discussed, I respect you and what you are trying to do.  And I do not envy
your position.  We live in an age when political reporting is not what it used to be,
and sadly, when political reporting in the New York Times is not what it used to be.

The NYT should not be not having exclusive arrangements with Peter Schweizer or
writing stenography-handout stories from a partisan committee.  In sorrow rather
than anger, Margaret, I find it sad this happens because the NYT should be different
and better.  Your foreign correspondents are.  Your political reporting is not.  Too bad.

Best, Brent
  
Sent from my iPad