The Daily Open Thread for 6/3/09: The Latest Embarrassment For The New York Times (Updated w/Sorkin Apology)

A world class train wreck if there ever was:

Now, it's already embarrassing for MSNBC's dummies in the morning (along with the already discredited and Jon Stewart whipping by Cramer) not knowing that the company who gives them their paycheck, GE, is a successful unionized company. Even worse however is the buffon that is the New York Times Andrew Sorkin not knowing this.

Sorkin is supposed to be of the paper's TOP BUSINESS WRITERS. I had to put that in caps, because it just shows how the Times have diminished over the years, how this idiot is the top business writer.

Josh Marshall tells more:

But what strikes me about this comment is that it's not some random chat show yakker like Hannity or Scarborough. This is one of the Times top business reporters. He runs their markets and finance blog -- Dealbook, which is actually quite good and a sign, I think, that the Times is very much in the new media, iterative journalism chase. So quite apart from the politics of it, this is just a jarring level of ignorance about corporate America from someone in that position.

But, as Media Matters' Jamison Foser reminds us, this is just the latest of horror from Sorkin:

If Andrew Ross Sorkin's name sounds familiar, that's probably because he's the reporter who started the myth about the average GM worker being paid $70 an hour. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann named him "Worst Person in the World" for that bit of blatantly false anti-union, anti-worker propaganda.

And I don't even think he apologized for that. I'll doubt he'll apologize for this new level of trash, as well.

After the next thread, I'll take a break. Peace for now.

Update at 6:28: Thanks to TPM's Brian Beutler, I was happily wrong about Sorkin giving an apology. Well, sort of wrong:

"Boy did I touch the third rail! My off-handed comment was admittedly flip. I apologize for that. It was meant to provoke a conversation."

But he continued:

I did not mean to suggest that there are literally no successful companies that employ union workers. Of course there are! Your readers have provided a good list (though I might quibble with some of the names.)

I made the unscripted comment with my financial columnist hat on in the context of the problems at GM. That's what the discussion was about on the program. And when you look at some of the once great iconic American industries that have faltered -- automobiles, airlines, steel, apparel, etc -- there is a fair question worth asking about whether those industries were helped or hurt by their unions. But let's leave that debate for another day.

Sigh. This fool would have almost vindicated himself, or deserve a slight reprieve from me and others, if he would have just said what was in that first quote.

Instead, Sorkin shows two more concerning things:
1) Sorkin said he made the comment as a financial columnist and not a reporter. Well, which one IS IT Sorkin, goodness? Are your a reporter or are you a columnist. That's a big problem here and a thing that is all the New York Times fault for letting Sorkin have double duty here.

2) And probably even more alarming than point one is the fact that Sorkin then shows a knee jerk reaction to slam unions again instead of adding any balance in the argument of blaming management for companies falling over the years. Yes, it is fair to question if unions have played a part in the demise of some industries, but the same can be easily said of the "higher ups" as well.

But Sorkin once again, even in his moment of penitence, still lacks the good journalism needed for the job he currently has.