Dowd's Warped 'Analysis' - My Letter to The Times

Here is the letter I've just sent to the public editor of The New York Times and to its letter section:

Mr. Hoyt,

I am well aware that opinion columnists in The Times are granted  more leeway in their writing than reporters. Even so, tomorrow's Maureen Dowd column on the sexual roles of the major Democratic candidates for President is well beyond the pale for a family newspaper, and for any paper of national repute that claims to be a major voice of the republic.

Her explicit and wholly imagined "account" of the sexual motivation behind how the candidates behaved in a televised debate brings nothing but shame to the Times, and betrays the newspaper's long-held responsibility for public discourse. Her two-bit "analysis" of a specific sexual fetish as the reason for the candidates' lively give-and-take during the CNN debate coarsened that discourse and the reputation of The New York Times.

How can a paper like The Times continue to run these strange sexual imaginings week after week and refer to them as political coverage? What a disgrace.

Sincerely,

Tom Watson
Mount Vernon, NY

Comments

[Leah]

Brilliant. I do hope they print it.

I doubt it, though. It places the responsibility for the debased nature of our political discourse right where it belongs, in this case, Dowd's own warped notion of sexual politics. which takes over because of her total disinterest in the actual challenges of democratic governance, and the the NYTimes' endless patience with the crap, sorry, no other word comes to mind, produced by our corporate media.

[Leah]

Brilliant. I do hope they print it.

I doubt it, though. It places the responsibility for the debased nature of our political discourse right where it belongs, in this case, Dowd's own warped notion of sexual politics. which takes over because of her total disinterest in the actual challenges of democratic governance, and the the NYTimes' endless patience with the crap, sorry, no other word comes to mind, produced by our corporate media.

[FreakyBeaky]

Nitpick: you meant 'coarsened'.

[Tom K]

Oh, dear, Tom, your delicate little ears! How I fear for them!

Dowd is no more fit for the role of serious commentator than, say, Frank Rich, but spare me the New Puritanism . . . Hillary's camp reeks of it too much already.

[Bruce Bernstein]

TK, I agree with TW on this one. It was an insulting column and beneath what SHOULD BE the Times's standards.

TW is taking the "high road" on this. He deserves a pat on the back! He very well could have fired off some psycho-sexual answer to Dowd. Or even have interpreted this as a "pro Hillary" column.

There was also a racial overtone in Dowd's references to how Hillary is cowing Obama with withering, icy stares. Imagine, and he just wants to be her friend!

The column initially made me squirm. TW's response clarified for me how sordid a column it truly was.

[amparker]

Thank you for your analyses - I enjoy reading what you write! The letter to NYTimes re this article was excellent -- I enjoy coming to this blog because you are smart and you write well. Thanks!

[Ralph]

"Dowd is no more fit for the role of serious commentator than, say, Frank Rich"

HUH? You cannot compare them. The fact that Rich used to be a drama critic is something that righwing idiots like Mugger love to point out. But Rich has been one of the few columnists (like Krugman) who get it right over and over again. Dowd is a joke. Nobody bought her book because her ideas are stupid and she's not very funny. Getting rid of her would be great. Perhaps she'd be more at home at the NYPost.