The New York Times received a body blow this morning. Peter Bart, the editor of Variety, former film industry executive, former New York Times staffer, and co—host of a weekly television program, very popular in Hollywood, covering the movie industry ('Sunday Morning Shootout' on the AMC cable network), denounces the Gray Lady for its propaganda campaign against Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ.

It is one thing when a Bill O'Reilly or some obscure political website denounces the Times. It is quite another when a Hollywood journalism institution such as Peter Bart guts and fillets the relentless anti—Gibson polemics of the New York Times, on both its editorial and news pages. The former emperor of American journalism is increasing perceived as wearing no clothes, and, even worse, out of shape, with a paunch and cottage cheese thighs.

Here are just a few of Bart's choice words for the once—great New York Times:

It is not my intent here to indulge in Times—bashing. I spent eight very happy years on the Times staff, and I respect that paper's unique role in our journalistic establishment.
Still, the Times has vastly stepped up its coverage of pop culture and, in doing so, seems to be bending its normal rules of journalistic fairness. "The Passion" is a prime example.
He zeroes in on the start of the campaign long before the movie was even completed:

First came a rather bizarre piece in a March 2003 issue of the Times' magazine profiling Hutton Gibson, Mel's obscure father. Depicted as clearly a nut, the 84—year—old Gibson disdains Vatican (news — web sites) doctrine, denies the Holocaust, and connects every political assassination to a conspiracy theory. To be sure, he has no involvement in the activities of his son; indeed, Mel often confides to friends his utter exasperation with these flights of paternal weirdness.

Why did this man merit a major magazine profile? Stay tuned. Publication of the magazine piece was followed by a fusillade of columns by Frank Rich, the brilliant critic—turned—polemicist, who clobbered the younger Gibson week after week for acts against humanity. Clearly, the star's biggest transgression was his failure to invite Rich to an advance screening of "The Passion." Indeed, Rich claimed no one had been invited except for right—wing weirdos (I was invited, though I may not qualify on either count).

The neglect on the Times to report on the doubly astonishing (given the coverage of the Times) box office success of the The Passion of the Christ, also comes in for cricism:

While other newspapers chronicled the astonishing box office performance of "The Passion" worldwide, the Times largely ignored it —— until, that is, the April 12 article, detailing the frenzy that built up to Good Friday encompassing books, CDs and even jewelry tied to the film. That was also the story that marveled at Gibson's ability to "deploy partisan news media pundits like Bill O'Reilly."

The rambunctious O'Reilly didn't appreciate being "deployed." He also didn't like the Times' habit of describing him as either partisan or conservative, pointing out that pundits like Bill Moyers weren't described as partisan or liberal.

Perhaps most devastating of all is Bart's conclusion:

What is beyond dispute, however, is that "The Passion" is a true phenomenon in the history of motion pictures. As such, it is "news" and deserving of objective reporting by the media. Even by the Times.

'Even by the Times.' We could not have said it better.

Posted by Thomas  04 26 04