The departure in ignominy of Helen Thomas has been commented on below, and I don't have much to add, except how pathetic is this?
The Hearst website is temporarily down, thanks to the traffic hitting the site.
Helen Thomas was an unreadable and unread columnist, and the only time she generates so much traffic that it crashes the site is the announcement that her career's self-destructed. That tells you a lot about American newspapering right there. Good thing two columnists didn't say something dumb or the site could have been out for weeks.
I believe that if you rely on the print version of the New York Times, the first time you will learn about the Thomas controversy will be in tomorrow's paper. Assuming they cover her resignation.
Think about this. Those of you who read this blog, know the story about Helen Thomas. But if you only read the "paper of record", you would not find out about the story until tomorrow (if it comes out tomorrow). If one doesn't think there's a MSM bias.... Here's another question: Do you think it was the MSM that uncovered this story?
In other words, whether through bias or institutional loss of news instincts, the Times fails yet again to recognize not only a story, but, more importantly (at least for their self-preservation), that the story doesn't require them to get it out. So, as usual, Times readers will only hear it about when it's over. That seems like a winning strategy.
Funny that you can get a video of Helen Thomas spewing her hate, but we can’t find one showing ugly names being shouted in a crowd at congressmen.
A guy with a flip camera just took out one of the most storied names in American journalism. Presumably US newspaper managements have been assured by Obama, Pelosi, Frank et al that that bailout's a-comin' any day now. The alternative is that they're inept timeserving mediocrities too dullwitted even to know they're going over the falls.