While this may not be the most egregious example of the New York Times allowing a writer to "fail upwards" (see William Kristol), it's damn close.
Earlier this month, Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic penned a screed entitled, "The Case Against Sotomayor," an article based on anonymous sources that Rosen dutifully reported:
They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it.
It's probably just a coincidence that three days before Rosen's hit piece appeared, a talking points memo was distributed by a GOP operative that targeted potential nominees, including Sonia Sotomayor, that parroted the very criticisms that Rosen was peddling:
Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a "bully" who "does not have a very good temperament" and who "abuses lawyers" with "inappropriate outbursts."
Coincidence? Or confirmation that Rosen mindlessly played stenographer for his unnamed critics, given that in the article he admitted:
I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them ...
Naturally, Rosen's hatchet job was panned throughout the blogosphere, and naturally Republicans were on it like white on rice, which apparently has pleased Rosen to no end.
To recap: Rosen printed an attack on Sonia Sotomayor based completely on anonymous sources; he used the same attacks outlined in a Republican-generated memo; he admitted he hadn't bothered to read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to verify the veracity of the claims; and his article was widely refuted, even as conservatives latched onto it as a "basis for opposing" Sotomayor.
And despite all of this, Rosen is given a prominent platform in the New York Times to give his very serious thoughts ... from the liberal point of view ... on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Once again the traditional media rewards insiders and gives them legitimacy despite their previous blind or biased work.