That piece made me very uncomfortable. For instance they refer constantly to his personal problems that were used to justify some of the instances -- yet what these problems are are never stated -- did the Times staff even know? If the information is being kept from us, surely a sentence to that effect with its reason should be stated -- otherwise it looks (as it does) as a weird effort to make this person who got away with all this shit look as bad as possible -- not as a journalist (that much is clear), but as a human being.
I felt there was a lot of coded language in the piece, allusions to mental instalibty in the form of his being messy and disorganized that don't speak to the layers of deception or the utter shoddiness of the New York Times in paying attention to any of it.
I mean, the fellow didn't go to particular pains to hide what he was doing (note the receipts and reimbursements section).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2003-05-10 02:52 pm (UTC)I felt there was a lot of coded language in the piece, allusions to mental instalibty in the form of his being messy and disorganized that don't speak to the layers of deception or the utter shoddiness of the New York Times in paying attention to any of it.
I mean, the fellow didn't go to particular pains to hide what he was doing (note the receipts and reimbursements section).