She goes all Voltaire on her attackers: “There is no more fervent believer in the First Amendment than I am, and I will fight for those e-mailers’ right to call me a liar and Republican shill with salt for brains.”
“What I do know is that I have a tough hide, and a few curse words (which I use frequently) are not going to hurt my feelings.”
“Going forward, here’s my plan. I’ll watch every word. I’ll read every e-mail and answer as many legitimate complaints as I can. The vast majority of my work takes place outside this column. But I will reject abuse and all that it stands for.
“To all of those who wanted me fired, I’m afraid you’re out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.”
Why does it seem like today’s ombudsman/public editors, in theory the readers’ representatives inside a newspaper, hate nothing more than dealing with readers? And why are the high-profile ones so loathed by readers in return?
Case in point: The Times’ first Public Editor, Daniel Okrent, it appears, is writing a book of his columns. Now no one liked him while he was there, inside or outside the paper, so why would a publisher think someone would like to read his columns again?