Did Crackhead New York Times Editor Help Piers Morgan Spin Firing as Voluntary?

"Carr says CNN+Morgan made decision. No, it was Zucker."


It was a race between the New York Times and Politico to see who would have the first report of Piers Morgan's firing/departure from CNN.

David Carr of the New York Times, a self-confessed former crackhead, had the first piece, a long rambling article that suggested that Piers Morgan didn't work on CNN because of his access and reminded Americans of King George III. More significantly, the piece made the departure sound mutual. Politico, less so.

Carr blew up at Dylan Biers of Politico on Twitter because this is what journalism looks like now.



@carr2n did you read? do you see i am reporting something different? and do you note how, unlike your paper, i credit you in the 3rd graf?

— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) February 24, 2014



That's a rather significant difference between Piers Morgan working out a departure with CNN President Jeff Zucker and being told that he's the weakest link. It was a given that Piers Morgan would seek out someone who would help him spin the departure as semi-voluntary. David Carr didn't give Morgan that much, not as much as some British outlets did earlier this year when they made it sound like Morgan had accomplished everything he wanted in the US and might be thinking of heading home.

Carr appeared to offer no response, but Biers kept sniping away at him.


The whole thing is largely irrelevant. Piers Morgan, like Carr and Biers, are obscure outside of a small media world based mainly in New York. The difference is that the New York Times has yet to crater the way that CNN did. But now that it has sold off most of its properties, at some point Carlos Slim is going to go all HLN on it.