 |
|
Pomfret: It was all tongue in cheek.
Uhuh, right.
His explanation is if possible even more insulting to readers' intelligence than his decision to run the original piece.
And frankly, it doesn't matter. The Post contributor who lost his job for offending Jewish groups with his Post piece didn't mean to offend Jewish groups, but he did and his editors apologized and took other steps to make amends.
If the piece Pomfret had the apparently deficient editorial skills to make satirical offended so many readers (and let's face it, Allen meant exactly what Pomfret understood her to mean), he and the paper still owe readers and frankly the paper's reporters an apology. They look bad too. And Pomfret looks particularly disingenuous. Which for a journalist is about the worst thing you can be judged to be.
Now we get to await the tsk tsking Deborah Howell piece.
Pomfret and the Post still owe readers an apology.
Posted by Laura at March 3, 2008 11:25 AM