The Times Extends Warm Wishes to Urielw.com

Dear Uriel,

We were pleased and impressed when we heard you'd be shifting gears and directing your keen analytical prowess to the realm of personal advice-giving.

We confess to a pang of guilt at the news — we fear we have not been as responsive to your many bracing critiques as we might have been, and we hope our negligence has not suggested your exegeses were having insufficient impact.

These are history-making times. We have belatedly come to share your stated view that "the democratic experiment" is in the process of failing; that mass deception is overpowering citizen sense; that our society's fundamental sense of itself is disintegrating.

And though the Board is not yet united on the radical reforms you have propounded as the only feasible means of preventing a total breakdown of our polity, you have persuaded many of us, and we continue to hold fervent discussions on the subject.

Your proposals go against the grain, to put it mildly. They contradict basic tenets many of us have spent careers defending. But we feel it's only a matter of time before the full Board endorses your stance: that our anything-goes information regime must end. Culture drives politics, and our society's ongoing free-for-all is a cultural assault that democratic institutions cannot withstand.

If America has any shared values at all that it is able to articulate, then it is time for us as a society to do so. Then it is imperative that we confront the powerful market forces that directly oppose those values and that are crippling the nation's moral and civic foundations.

Yes, as you say, Uriel, these things are "obvious"; and we can no longer afford to be blind to what is obvious. It is time for direct, legislative measures to curb the entertainment industry's cultural pollution.

It's hard for us to face this — we are The New York Times — but the time has come for censorship.

We're not there yet. But we will be. In the meantime, we have Op-Ed contributors, like Nick Chiles today, highlighting where our present path is leading:

Is street fiction some passing fad, or does it represent our future? It's depressing that the noble writing profession has been reduced by the greed of the publishing industry and the ways of the American marketplace to a tasteless collection of pornography.

I realize that publishing is a business, but publishers also have a responsibility to balance street lit with more quality writing. After all, how are we going to explain ourselves to the next generation of writers and readers who will wonder why they have so little to read of import and value produced in the early 21st century, why their founts of inspiration are so parched?

At times, I push myself away from the computer in anger. I don't want to compete with "Legit Baller." I retain very little of the hope and excitement and enthusiasm that I had when my first book was published eight years ago. I feel defeated, disrespected and troubled about the future of my community and my little subsection of this carnivorous, unforgiving industry.

[Edited excerpt from Their Eyes Were Reading Smut.]

We note here the crucial proviso of your proposal: No censorship of political speech. Regulation is to be limited to the cultural sphere (i.e., entertainment).

We wanted to convey our heartfelt best wishes for your new personal advice column, but we have an additional reason for writing. We noted that your inaugural column the other day, in a parenthetical remark recurring to public affairs, points out that the government's illegal spying on citizens, which we recently revealed to the world, continues without legal hindrance; but that a criminal investigation has been launched to find who leaked the secret to us. You then add:

This is easier to do now that the Times, with its loud defense of Judith Miller, has sown confusion over the whole idea of whistleblowing, so the public associates it with false propaganda to promote government agendas.

Uriel, that really hurt.

And yes, we know, we know, you have a point. We're doing our best to rectify our (many) lapses. We hope you're still taking an interest in the Times despite your new focus. You may have noticed our attempt to clear things up today:

[T]his seems a good moment to try to clear away the fog around this issue....

There is a world of difference between [the Judy Miller & Valerie Wilson] case and a current one in which the administration is trying to find the sources of a New York Times report that President Bush secretly authorized spying on American citizens without warrants. The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have. The Valerie Wilson case began with a cynical effort by the administration to deflect public attention from hyped prewar intelligence on Iraq. The leak inquiry in that case ended up targeting the press, and led to the jailing of a Times reporter [a.k.a. Judy Miller].

[Excerpted from Editorial: On the Subject of Leaks.]

Please be patient with us. We're a big institution; we have our habits; we're not as nimble as we'd like. And ... between us, there are potent forces — some visible, some not — intently watching our every move. They care — they care a helluva damned lot — what we publish.

We love urielw.com. Just the sheer, you know, wit of it. It makes us laugh and cry, and we can't go a day without it. We envy your ability to tell it like it is, "without fear or favor."

But please. Understand. We're not in that position.

Sincerely,

The New York Times Editorial Board