Sully to Roger Ailes: Drop Dead Not surprisingly, Sully has quickly rejected Roger Ailes' call for openness and integrity at his website. And demonstrated his ignorance of the term "intramural" to boot. Sully excerpts one hand-picked letter which is marginally critical of him (on the crucial issue of whether Tim Noah has a sense of humor) and another from a law school student who (partially) disagrees with him on the Defense of Marriage Act, then pats himself on his glutes for his "intra-mural" integrity. It seems all those other critical e-mails got accidentally deleted by "Reihan Salam."

Meanwhile, today's Times publishes several letters in which the correspondents disagree with the views of recent opinions on the paper's op-ed page, as well as many from readers who agree.

A Reader Wipes So why does the Times alone need an ombudsman? Here's the "devastating critique" from a Sully bootlicker ... er ... reader:

The newspaper that more than any other influences coverage in every other paper, whose copy is often picked up and run in local papers around the country, has a special trust and responsibility by virtue of its authority.

Now there's some right good logic-in': By virtue of its success and influence, the Times "has a special trust and responsibility" to readers. What Sully's reader cannot fathom is that the people who buy the paper do so because they like and trust its editorial judgments; the same goes for the editors who pick up the Times' syndicated stories. Those people create the Times' influence, not the other way around. No one forces them to buy the paper or, in the case of other publishers, the paper's articles. Readers aren't idiots, and they don't throw down a dollar each day to have their intelligence insulted. Editors and publishers of other papers are, or at least should be, even more savvy on news content. The Times' "responsibility to the readers," if there was any, would seem to be to keep doing what makes the paper successful among its readers.

Mystery Date Sully's correspondent describes him or herself as a reporter "at a very large Times rival," one with a "vey [sic] conservative line." (I wonder which one that could be.) He/she compares the (percieved) "church and state" position of the Times to those at the four unnamed papers he/she's worked for. He/she then goes on to slam the Times for liberal bias on the news pages, using such content-neutral phrasing as "Clintonian" and "maddening liberal self-righteousness."

It's clear the writer's own integrity can't be questioned. Literally. Because our fearless correspondent has forgotten to leave a name -- even while trying to impress us with his/her personal integrity and assuring us that what the Times does never happens at any other paper. To be fair, Sully claims he reprints the e-mail without names, "because the point is the debate itself." But the writer's entire point is based on his personal observations as "a reporter" and not "the debate itself." So "the reporter" should either stand behind his/her observations, and his/her own work, or not allow it to be published anonymously.