Equal Time for The Post
Well, two reasons. First of all I didn't know about it. Second, the The Post's item--it appeared in the Page Six gossip column way back on June 30--isn't half as bad as the Times. Why? Because it is correctly sourced, albeit to "rival newsblues.com Web site," which quoted me, and not to me directly. It wasn't passed off by the Post as a Post exclusive, as the ethically-deprived Times people did.
If the Times had done what the Post did, I wouldn't have had much of a beef. What the Times did was borderline plagiarism.
Another difference: the Post item is accurate. It is not filled with about a half-dozen boo-boos in the space of two paragraphs. So there.
I'm actually on the Times's side, ironically, in their Judy Miller beef. But the arrogance they have shown in this is a good explanation as to why they are so widely despised, and why they are getting so little support on that very important issue.