In Account of Huff Post Scoop, NYT Draws the Line at "Scumbag"

Apparently the great Gray Lady is still a bit modest. In its account of the Huffington Post scoop on Bill Clinton's tirade against Todd Purdum, The New York Times today quoted some of the ex-president's epithets, including "sleazy" and "slimy" but drew the line at "scumbag." Other leading news outlets were not so coy.

Clinton, of course, was responding to the quite negative profile about him written by Purdum for this month's Vanity's Fair. He apologized last night for some of his "inappropriate" language, captured by Huff Post's Mayhill Fowler.

I would argue that he would not have done that if he had not used the word "scumbag." But he realized that using that word made him look like a, well, "scumbag."

The Times' Michael Luo writes today:

"According to the Huffington Post Web site, Mr. Clinton, as he worked the rope line at an event here, called Mr. Purdum 'sleazy,' 'slimy' and 'dishonest.' Speaking to a reporter for the Web site, Mr. Clinton said the article was part of a pattern of media bias against Mrs. Clinton and in favor of her rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama."

But Shailagh Murray and Anne Kornblut of The Washington Post went the full monty, explaining that Clinton "called Purdum 'sleazy' and a 'scumbag' in comments to a reporter for the Huffington Post, a liberal Web site, leading a spokesman for the candidate to issue an apology." Newsday also cited "scumbag."

National Journal's "Hotline" site noted: "Dem strategist James Carville, on B. Clinton calling Purdum a 'scumbag': 'I think he subsequently said he shouldn't have used that language.'"

The Chicago Tribune's popular The Swamp blog: "Reminded that Purdum is married to Clinton's former press secretary Dee Dee Myers, Clinton responded in part: 'That's all right -- he's still a scumbag.'"

The CNN web site: "Calling Purdum a 'scumbag,' Clinton said 'he's one of the guys that propagated all those lies about Whitewater for Kenneth Starr. He's just a dishonest guy -- can't help it.'"

But USA Today followed the Times' policy, explaining online: "Three of the words Clinton used that we can repeat here are 'sleazy,' 'dishonest' and 'slimy.'"

The Times Caucus blog item also failed to mention the most loaded word.

Greg Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. His new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq.

Comments

[LeoMarvin]

The Times omitted arguably the one word that crossed the line of civility. Viewing Mr. Clinton's comments in their most charitable light, "sleazy," "slimy" and "dishonest," even though directed at Todd. Purdum, could be read to apply only to Purdum's writing about the Clintons, which would make them fair comment. "Scumbag," on the other hand, can't be rehabilitated into anything better than ad hominem. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to the Times intentions in cleaning up Mr. Clinton's remarks, but I can't fathom an excuse that holds up. Their omission changed the substance and meaning of what they reported.

[fedupcitizen]

Scumbag does roll right of the tongue of the ex-President with ease...

We already know the NYT omits, edits and misrepresents the news.

[crotairlogan]

fed
Face it you have used more "inappropriate language." If you haven't where in hell are you?
Rev. Write has used such language. I just did. Don't get all prissy now.

[hopeless277]

This 'man' has so devestated his legacy that no amount of PR, spin, or apology will restore what he has thrown away. I used to roll my eyes when people called him Slick Willey, well, now I can see why. I can only hope that someone tells him to go away for a looooooong rest out of the public eye. Lord knows Obama does NOT need his kind of 'help'.

[fedupcitizen]

Bill keeps making the case why Hillary Clinton cannot be V.P.
Under the most pragmatic view Hillary could have been considered; however, Hillary and Bill both prove at this late date that they are detrimental to electing Obama.