Andrew Sullivan must be smoking crack


He printed an email from a former Bragg intern who defends Bragg and discusses his normal working methods. (Surprise, Bragg did most of the reporting on his stories). Then she writes:


You've painted him as a low life, abusive jerk - allegations that couldn't be further from the truth. He never ripped me off or mistreated me. Yoder has never made such a claim. It was clear from the beginning that the internship was unpaid, and that the NY Times would not give bylines or credits to interns or stringers. It wasn't Rick's policy, it was the Times. If I had a problem with that I wouldn't have accepted the position. What I got out of it was valuable experience researching and doing interviews for a top reporter.

To which AS replies


In my defense, I haven't characterized Bragg's character in this way. I don't know him from Adam. I've merely characterised his reporting methods. They remain dubious, to my mind, however kind or supportive he was to young and impressionable interns.

AS called Bragg a "suck-up" and a "crony" who "ripped off unpaid stringers" and passed off their work as his own. That goes beyond discussing his reporting methods.

And wasn't that a nice dig-- "young and impressionable interns"-- when someone confronts him with first hand information which contradicts the picture he is trying to paint?

NB. Those who actually worked with Bragg on stories keep saying that he did reporting on his own and their contributions were usually only a small part of the final stories. They also describe the experience as a valuable opportunity to learn and deny that there was exploitation involved. Yet Sullivan, Kaus, et. al. keep writing as though Bragg was only a rewrite guy who held onto his position only because he and Raines were from Alabama.