The Washington Post did a terrible thing, the New York Times reports. "Why is the WP so morally bankrupt?" the NYT wonders. The Post has issued a laughably weak apology for being a cheater loser paper, reports the NYT!
Yesterday, WP publisher Katharine Weymouth ran her own apology for the flier that went out to evil DC lobbyists last week offering to sell access to the newsroom at intimate dinners for the low low price of $25,000.
The apology was okay. Not poetic, or dramatic, but okay. Occam's Razor tells us that what probably happened here was one asshole in the marketing department got a little too gung-ho with this whole "intimate dinners with influencers" idea and sent out an idiotic flier. Politico broke the story last Thursday. If there had been any indication that the Washington Post was trying to defend this flier, then okay. Controversial. But from the very minute the story broke, the paper said that this offer was obviously against their own internal guidelines, and their own newsroom immediately disavowed it, so whatever.
The next day the NYT put it on the front page! Which was already more prominence than it deserved. The next day there was a column about it on the front of the business section, and now another story today on the Post's apology.
This is the New York Times' version of kicking the competition. The Times is generally too stiff to come right out and do a dance in print at the misfortune of their competitors, like the tabloids do. Instead the just decide to cover the hell out of a relatively minor media story! Perhaps the WP still strike back with a mildly disapproving mention in a Howard Kurtz column. Suck my hot type and die, motherfuckers! Journalistically!