The New York Times’ April 13 headline, reading much like one in Rupert’s New York Post, screamed “Bond Girl Talk and Groping: Albany’s Toxic Culture for Women.” It featured numerous claims of survivorhood by New York State Senator Julia Salazar, the self-anointed “Bond Girl, since her allegations were not accompanied by the name of the alleged sexual assailant. The column was written by a trio of “alleged” reporters, an homage to Gene Shalit, the wonderful cinema critic of blessed memory, who referred to cinematic stinkers as “alleged movies.” But the Times’ article was not merely a credulous and poorly researched piece, it was one so badly written that we, and believe you, will read it many times just to experience the superlative negative in Times or perhaps any newspaper’s articles.
In it, Senator Salazar recounts a Senate colleague telling her that she looked “like a Bond Girl” but declined to identify her colleague”. Salazar also recalled another colleague’s staffer (neither one named) at a fundraiser tell her “you should be on a calendar.” A pattern emerges in these shocking assaults “that so embarrassed [the Senator] that [she] left” the fundraiser. Salazar also reported that the now retired Republican Senator who compared her to a “Bond Girl” was “known to turn around in his chair and openly stare at women.” But in this page of the three-author exposé, apparently patched together with Lepage, the harasser goes unnamed. Not as previously reported, because Salazar “declined to identify her colleague” this time because “she asked that he not be identified”.
Beyond the apparent lack of communication among the three Times’ reporters was their failure to research the truthfulness of their poster child. During Salazar’s 2018 senatorial campaign she claimed to be an immigrant, despite her birth in Miami with both parents being U.S. citizens. She also claimed to be “a Jew of color” though she was raised Christian and scored a free college trip to Israel with “Christians for Israel” while juggling another gig as head of an antichoice advocacy group. Her pretension to working class status was exposed by revelation of her trust fund truth. Citizens Union, that initially endorsed her candidacy revoked the endorsement citing Salazar’s falsification of her academic credentials.
It’s pretty clear, at least here, the Times motivation for permitting this astoundingly execrable piece to run. It is part of the paper’s campaign to bypass impeachment and oust Andrew Cuomo by aggregating and rallying his political opponents and disregarding the voters who elected him and do not want him to quit.
There’s much more to savor in this horrible journalism, so here it is. Enjoy.
 We used to make references such as “Prognosis Negative” without explanation in an arrogant expression of “if they get it great, but if not it’s their loss”, but now realize the inefficiency of that attitude. “Prognosis Negative” is the movie so bad that the Seinfeld cast is constantly drawn to see it over and over again.