Global Journalism Review

Sullivan's savage revenge attack on NYT editor

An attack on Howell Raines, executive editor of the New York Times, by a columnist recently dropped by the paper, has stirred fierce controversy on both sides of the Atlantic (writes Walt Tyler in London). Within hours of its appearance in the Sunday Times here, it had been circulated in the US - probably with the assistance of its author.

In his column in the London paper, Andrew Sullivan appears to set about destroying the professional reputation of a man in one of the most important jobs in American journalism. He says he was barred from the paper after criticising the "new direction" on the NYT in the controversy over whether or not the US should launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

Raines was promoted to the job last September, and Sullivan, who has written regularly in support of the Bush administration, and uses "liberal" as a term of abuse, accuses him of changing the paper's policy: "Beginning in July, he used America's most authoritative front page to run inflammatory non-stories about the impending conflict..."

Sullivan's comments go beyond policy to personal denigration: "It was slowly becoming clear that Raines was intoxicated with the power of his position... A left-liberal idealogue..." And perhaps aimed at the paper's owners: "Why would the Times risk its reputation as a liberal but fair paper of record to lurch to the left of the Guardian ?"

Again: "Raines is also a white liberal from Alabama, eager to prove that he isn't a Southern bigot. He won a Pulitzer for a guilt-ridden memoir of his black nanny when he was a child. Se he overshoots..." Sullivan also attacks the paper's chief columnists: "Almost universally, they hate Bush ... They have entered the realm of conspiracy theorists, kneejerk suspicion and profound cynicism about an administration thrust into one of the most dangerous national security crises in decades..."

A touch of conspiracy theory of his own: "When you hear talk of a growing debate about the Iraq war in America, it's useful to know who exactly instigated it..." He adds: "The real opponents of the war in America, therefore, are outside the elected political branch and are threefold: the New York Times, the men who left Saddam Hussein in power in 1990, and gun-shy military brass... The three have worked together during the dog days of August to prevent a war, and they have made great headway, as polls have shown a slow decline in public support."

However, Sullivan ends his column on a triumphant note: "Soon, the real debate will take place. The president will speak. Congress will vote. And the war, despite Raines's hysteria will, barring unforeseen events, almost certainly follow."

Copyright 2002 Brennan Publications