The Times was somewhat late in beginning to cover the latest development about the lost emails. My office had begun to field several days’ worth of reader protests on the lack of attention when the first story finally went online. Despite that slow start and the quiet display of the subsequent stories (an analytical piece might have been a good choice for the front page), The Times has given its readers insightful coverage of a situation heavily clouded by partisan politics.
The Times refused to even call it a scandal for months. And when it did begin its shallow, back of the book coverage, it devoted most of its ink to portraying it as nothing more than a partisan dustup fomented by conservative partisans with an agenda (the tone it is still using today).
But I see that you still managed to dodge the primary contention: That if this outrageous scandal had occurred under a Republican administration, you would have made it front page headline news for months – and, in fact, would still be doing so.
I don’t know why you call yourself the “public” editor. You seem more like the Saddam Hussein public spokesman editor from where I sit.