I cover the wingnut front

Clark Hoyt of the New York Times announces to the world that you can slap him around, call him a bitch, and he’ll still go make you a sandwich and then blow you while you eat it:

Dean Baquet, the Washington bureau chief, said, “We did not ignore the Acorn story, so I don’t think it’s fair for people to say we blew it off.” The paper’s follow-up coverage has included a profile of O’Keefe, a report on a House vote to deny funds to Acorn, and an article on the Internal Revenue Service’s decision to drop Acorn from its volunteer tax assistance program. Baquet said people need to keep Acorn in perspective with other Washington stories: health care, two wars and the deep recession.

Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.”

Because there was no story more important than a couple of kids getting some staffers at Acorn to chat with them about their plans to open a whorehouse. And it was awesome when the plucky little citizen journalists filmed the Acorn people writing them a check for one billion taxpayers dollars to fulfill David Vitter’s dream. Except that that last part didn’t happen.

In light of this, the Times has now conceded that they are going to assign an editor to make sure that important breaking stories such as Rachel Ray selling Jihadonuts, or poor people blowing their welfare checks on granite countertops, or 9/11 memorial architectural criticism gets the coverage they so richly deserve.

And what kind of thanks can the Times expect? This kind:

Even when the Fishwrap of Record is admitting how out of touch it is, its editors still can’t get the story right.

Hapless ombudsman Clark Hoyt writes in his Sunday column that his paper was guilty of unnecessarily politicizing a legitimate breaking story and suffering “slow reflexes:”

[...]

So, get this: The Times has now assigned an anonymous editor to “monitor opinion media” so the effete journalists don’t get caught flat-footed again. But they won’t identify the editor because they don’t him or her getting e-mails from the public (heaven forfend) and they don’t want him or her getting feedback, criticism, or tips from the blogosphere (the MSM must be shielded from the angry mob). Snort:

Who could have anticipated that Michelle Malkin would not graciously accept an offer to listen to her bugfuck ravings?

Not me.

Memo to Hoyt & Bill Keller & Abramson: They hate you. I mean they really fucking hate you a lot. They will always hate you. You work for the Times and are therefore tainted. They only read your paper looking for things to bitch about. So assigning an editor to spelunk the dank caverns of their conspiracy theories and the twisted logic of their misfiring synapses is not going to gain you any credibility or additional readers.

So, anonymous NY Times Editor Covering Special Needs Bloggers, whoever you are, meet your new assignment editor

Hop to it. Wingnuttia awaits…