Yes, it's time for another installment in the expanding file about media stories marked "Who the hell cares?".
In this case, the story - here's an extended discussion of it [1] - that David Paterson supposedly
described Mayor Bloomberg in private as a volatile, Spitzerian, untrustworthy, out-of-touch, self-destructive billionaire bully.
Even if true, who. The. Hell. Cares?
Seriously?
This is the kind of media circus that prompts voters to despair. It's not as if there's a war on, and maybe the economy isn't really collapsing, maybe we don't have over 4,000 dead Americans (and dead Iraqis in their thousands, but we don't even count them), a President who broke the laws of the land with impunity, global warming, 4,000 kids in Brooklyn who don't even know whether or where they'll be going to school next year, the list goes on.
Against that backdrop, the attention paid to what one politician may have privately said about another is not really all that important. I'd respectfully submit to my colleagues in the journalism profession, and their editors, that the reason people think so little of your profession is precisely this kind of high-school gossip dressed up as a matter of consequence.
And don't even get me started on 'Spitzerian'. Let it go, folks.
[2] | 
[3] | 
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10]