The New York Times ran an unusual editorial piece this weekend justifying why they ran the May 23rd story about the state of the Clinton marriage. After admitting that the front page article received "the most uniformly negative and partisan reader reactions to a Times article during the past year," they proceeded to defend the puff piece. Ironically, The Times insists the piece garnered a partisan reaction, but all they did was run letters saying how readers disapproved of such a "tawdry" and "non-newsworthy story" that "has nothing to do with anything." To be honest, those sound like reactions from supporters of Mrs. Clinton (the Times always, as usual, refers to Hillary as Ms. Clinton, even in a story about her marriage). In fact, The Times admitted that "the cautious editing occasionally left the story appearing too considerate to the Clintons; I’m actually surprised so little has been heard from their critics about that."
The self-flagellation continued when The Times confessed that the only part it really regretted running was a year-old tabloid photograph showing Hillary’s husband leaving a restaurant with Belinda Stronach, the attractive blonde Canadian politician, along with a few other people. Apparently innuendos about Bill’s private life are too lowbrow for this high-minded paper. The Times also claimed that the sentence describing Bill’s social life ("Nights out find him zipping around Los Angeles with his bachelor buddy, Ronald W. Burkle, or hitting parties and fund-raisers in Manhattan.") may have been a bit "too feisty," whatever that means.
What it likely means is that Hillary’s people complained to The Times and it resulted in this apologia, which is merely the latest in the string of strange corrections and clarifications the The Times has run regarding Hillary-related stories.