A reader writes, regarding this post's reference to "publications I normally admire":
Can you share with us ... which publications have disgraced themselves in your eyes?
I normally have great admiration for the New York Times, which decided to run three above-the-fold stories about a seventeen-year-old girl's pregnancy yesterday (we all remember, of course, the zeal with which the Times pursued the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter scandal during his Presidential campaign), while publishing (and then retracting) the claim that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. I normally have great respect for the Washington Post, which trumpeted the claim that Palin - "the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant," in the words of the item - used her line-item veto to "slash funding" for a program "benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live." (This is true enough, if by "slash funding" you mean "reduce a sixfold increase in the program's funding to a fivefold increase.") I normally have great admiration for Slate, which decided to kick off a reader contest to "name Bristol's baby" after the news of her pregnancy broke.
I could go on, but I think you get where I'm coming from on this.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.