The Gray Lady is Red Faced.

Keith J. Kelly & Andy Sattis, "Times They Are A-Lyin'," in The New York Post, December 29, 2011, at p. 5.

Something has been seriously amiss at The New York Times for a while.

I have reason to believe that Times reporters may have assisted in censorship and cybercrime efforts aimed against my blogs and me. No doubt this assistance from Times writers was provided in exchange for a small fee, possibly from persons in New Jersey. Does Jay Romano still "write" for the Times? ("Jay Romano and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "North Bergen, New Jersey is the Home of 'La Cosa Nostra.'")

Naturally, there is no worse offense for journalists than censorship. To help government officials or their unofficial employees to censor dissidents on-line amounts to a betrayal of everything the print media and all journalists should stand for in a free society -- especially in America during the post-Watergate and post-Lewinsky era.

Journalists risk their lives in many countries in the world to report the facts of corruption in their governments. My experiences in New York -- including public cybercrime and censorship -- are ignored by U.S. media. ("What is it like to be censored in America?" and "How censorship works in America" then "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")

A critical and independent media is all that working men and women, or the poor, can count on to guard their interests in a society where government -- including the judicary -- has been coopted or bought by corporate power. The same corporations now own 98% of all media as well as 99% of politicians in the United States. ("Is Menendez For Sale?")

Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger is alleged to be a rabid Republican who has allowed -- or been compelled to grant -- Right-wingers access to the pages of The New York Times.

This once family-owned (I am sure the Times is now a publicly-traded company) and much-esteemed newspaper which is and has been for some time in sharp decline -- in order to compensate, I guess, for a so-called "liberal bias" in the media -- has decided to permit a "Right-wing bias" in the articles of some dubiously-styled "reporters." ("Justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal.")

These alleged "reporters" are obviously front-persons for various Conservative politicians, as I and many others believe, who not only disseminate the usual Right-wing drivel, but do so in dismal prose unworthy of a great newspaper. I cannot abide wretched writing in the pages of a newspaper I have read with respect and admiration for decades. ("Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!" and "'The Reader': A Movie Review.")

Boundaries between journalists and government officials are necessary to the media's independence -- to the extent that there is such a thing as "independence" in the press anymore -- even as these boundaries are transgressed or violated all the time.

It boggles the mind that the U.S. lectures to other nations about a "free and independent media" when politicians are writing newscopy through hired goons or corrupt journalists using transparent aliases. Politicians -- like Iliana Ros-Leghtinen -- are responsible for news stories, ostensibly written by journalists, accountable for objective and neutral coverage of the actions of the very same government officials telling them what to write, allegedly, or how to slant coverage to benefit Republican positions. This is propaganda, not journalism.

This development is even more frightening than the emergence of something called "The Fox News Channel." The dishonesty and unethical nature of such developments, along with the betrayal of the First Amendment and journalistic ethics, as I say, is a sad and ominous twist on the growing corruption of power in our National Security State:

"It's another black eye for New York Times [sic.] publisher Arthur 'Pinch' Sulzberger. The Paper [sic.] of record yesterday sent out a deluge of 8.6 million e-mails begging people not to cancel their subscriptions, and first blamed spammers -- before finally fessing up to the 'mishap.' ..." (Post, p. 1.)

Not only was the Times caught engaging in these shameful shenanigans worthy of New Jersey's crooked politicians, but they LIED about it (again, like New Jersey's bosses), then tried to conceal the truth (coverup and stonewall), rather than reveal the truth, which is their job as journalists. ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

Is there a New Jersey aspect to this fiasco at the Times? Are Jill Abramson and Debbie Poritz or Stuart Rabner "friends"? Mr. Sulzberger? Mr. Remnick at The New Yorker? Mr. Wieseltier at The New Republic? ("No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!" and, again, "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")

The obligation to be forthright and candid in revealing ALL the facts is especially great when the newspaper of record itself is the "story," Mr. Sulzberger. ("An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey, Terry Tuchin and Diana Lisa Riccioli" and "Herbert Klitzner's Greed and New Jersey's Hypocrisy.")

Continuing to ignore the decomposition of this crucial American institution, our free press, is dangerous because it undermines the U.S.'s faltering democracy. Newsmen and -women are not and should never be spear-carriers for government policy makers.

The Times is being beaten to this "scoop" by the Post. Perhaps "Manohla Dargis" or "Carlotta Gall" bears some responsibility for this latest catastrophe. Miguel Perez? "Jean-Paul Rathbone"? ("'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review.")

According to the Times, the newspaper did not lie: " ... the newspaper had 'initially mischaracterized the mishap as spam.' ..." (Post, p. 5.)

Menendez-like weasel words notwithstanding, such a lie is unworthy of the Times. If you are going to lie, Mr. Sulzberger or (more likely) Jill Abramson, please have the decency to, as it were, "fess up" to your sin after you are caught. A creative explanation by way of mitigation may then be appropriate. Confession is not only good for the soul, but it may help with your circulation problems.

Allowing half-wits and illiterates, such as "Manohla Dargis" -- whatever name she/he is using this week -- or any other morons to review movies and/or world events damages a newspaper I happen to love that, for some mysterious reason, I still read on a daily basis.

We expect more from The New York Times, sir. If you do not attend to this matter soon, you may find yourself writing obituaries for the next ten years at The Daily News.

By the way, the Arts section is still barely readable while the Sunday Book Review is in extremis. You do not want the Times to become The New York Post. What could be worse than that? Nothing. Hint: Book reviews should be written by persons capable of reading books.

"The Gray Lady is red faced."