Not newsworthy: NY Times' two FEMALE star columnists ( Maureen Dowd & Gail Collins) take a pass on Jill Abramson's firing

Well, so much for the sisterhood..It seems that the “war on women” is being choreographed, by, well…women.

The biggest story in years about the MSM concerns the kerfluffle at the New York Times about executive editor Jill Abramson’s firing.

The “Old Grey Lady”  has two star columnists, Gail Collins ( who for a number of years was the editor of the editorial page) and the always annoying Maureen Dowd, who majored in snark at J-school.

FYI, Collins’ column appears on Thursday and Saturday; Dowd’s on Wednesday and Sunday.

Given the huge attention the story was receiving, it was natural to expect some comment from one, if not both, of the ladies.


Collin’s column this Saturday  was about Hillary Clinton, yet again, and as for Dowd, well, this Sunday’s opus was about what Condi Rice could have taught the students at Rutgers. Yup, ole Mo wanted Condi to have kept the commencement gig,  ostensibly to lecture the Rutgers nation about the virtues of academic freedom, but probably hoping that it would have created a scene, maybe a riot, and allowed Dowd to dust off an old column blaming everything on Bush.

So, did the two ladies both decide to “spike” their comments?  Were they acting in cahoots? Were they read the riot act by Pinch? Are their contracts up for renewal?

Surely, these two perspicacious purveyors of polemic had a thought, or two? For once, they were actually in a position to offer us some valuable, behind the scenes, on the front-lines insight as to what really happened; what’s actually going on at the Times,  and is Pinch really that big a putz.

Instead…nada, zilch, zip…

The  paper’s motto should be revised: