Dear Dr. Bones,
Even when alma mommy does not happen to be involved, the particular sloppiness that Mr. Rosenberg here exhibits, with the same sloppiness exhibuted far worse by the Herr von Mondoweiss whom he quotes, makes me wonder if we donkeys are really any better than Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh.
WC and RL bark a dozen times a week, it seems, that "The New York Times thinks" or "says" so-and-so. All but invariably, it turns out that they are not referring to an unsigned corporate editorial, but to an opinion piece or news story with author’s or authors’ name plainly attached. Maybe everybody in the NYTC boardroom in fact agreed with Sam Scribbler, but a Dr. R. H. Limbaugh or a Governess S. L. Heath-Paling -- or indeed, anybody else -- can only guess at such unanimity. 
Even with The Wall Street Jingo, which is about as ideologically gleichgeschaltet an organ of agitprop as a hoper could hope to find, one really ought not say "The WSJ says" about some slice of factious tripe and baloney signed by Karl, Firstlord Rove, or by Party Neocomrade Prof. Dr. Fu’ád al-‘Ajamí of the Johns Hopkins Univesity, or by Miss Piggy Noonan formerly of the Reagan Demoncrats -- by whoever the wingnutette/wingnut du jour may chance to be.
"Every tub on its own bottom" used to be a H*rv*rd apophthegm. A genuinely corporate-H*rv*rd apophthegm, a plan that all the Vice-Presidents of Holyoke Centre had intelligently designed and then deliberately put into practice. ETOIOB was about fiscal responsibility, as I recall, but it seems to me to apply to op-ed responsibilty. I don’t say one may NEVER attribute Sam’s scribbling to some larger class of "people like Sam," but one should not do it often. Above all, one should never do so casually or witlessly, meaning: without discussing and defending the supposed likeness at least briefly.
The proposed rule does not apply to flat-out spoofery: "All’s fair in Love and Foxcuckooland." But Messrs. Rosenberg and Mondoweiss are not, in general, foxcuckoos, nor do they appear to be anything less than completely serious on this particular occasion, and so I fear we must subtract a few points from their score.
*** THIS JUST IN! ***
I sent out the pet google to dig around a little, and it looks as if the principal basis of the pathological "H*rv*rd says" is located at The Daily Beast, as follows:
|[T]he university sent the following statement to The Daily Beast:|
“As an institution of research and teaching, we are dedicated to the proposition that all people, regardless of color or creed, deserve equal opportunities, equal respect, and equal protection under the law. The recent assertions by Dr. Peretz are therefore distressing to many members of our community, and understandably so.
“It is central to the mission of a university to protect and affirm free speech, including the rights of Dr. Peretz, as well as those who disagree with him, to express their views.
“We are ultimately stronger as a university when we maintain our commitment to the most basic freedoms that enable the robust exchange of ideas. The undergraduate research fund donated by friends, former students, and colleagues of Dr. Peretz was established earlier this year to recognize his teaching and scholarship as well as his stewardship of the social studies program from its inception in the 1960s through the 1990s. The fund will enable undergraduates to undertake significant research experiences as part of the social sciences curriculum and strengthen our commitment to rigorous intellectual inquiry. ”
Presumably at least one beastly must know exactly with whom she was in contact when she was talking to "the university." Many, many points must be subtracted for not sharing that information with her publication’s victims/patients/customers/freeloaders. 
And I wish you, sir, as ever,
Happy days through affordable healthcare
 One time in 14,309, Sam Scribbler may have actually written "And furthermore, everybody here at the NYTC Twistatorial Bureau agrees with me." I’ll spot the kiddies that one.
Similarly, on one outin’ in 133,265, Limbaughs an’ Heath-Palings an’ such may be allowed to discuss the general ethos of the New York Times Company and drag in some formally unaffiliated sad Sam merely because his handiwork crops up on the NYTC op-ed page so frequently that the real perps can safely be assumed to approve of his views. That special exception is not quite as reliable as the other, but one would not want to spoil ALL the kiddies’ fun, now, would one?
 On proofreading, I find that this paragraph might be taken to have been pointing out that there exist (scattered individual) persons of H*rv*rd who zealously agree with M. le baron de Pèretz. Though that is not what I original-intented, yet ’tis nothing to apologize for on the factual side. Such neogentry are undeniably out there, and out there in considerable numbers.
The student of neocomradology used to be able to find ’em flockin’ together (to a certain extent) ar a webspa delightfully called ¡MESH!, the acronym having no doubt been carefully chosen to put one in mind of the application of barrier technology to problems of Native Management.
The formal expansion is "Middle East Strategy at H*rv*rd," which would be pretty bad even without any visions of razor wire, no?
(( Dr. Bones: please make sure to download the whole treasure trove , would you? ))
Having done so myself, I find that the good Herr [¿Prof.?] Dok. Martin von Peretsch is never so much as mentioned, implying there may be something to that business about "He didn’t go to H*rv*rd and he was never more than a TA there."
At the moment, we are not concerned with Master Marty’s exact credentialization, however, but with TNYTS, the "The-New-York-Times-Says Syndrome." Plainly it would be less outrageous to attribute the neoëxuberances of the Baní MESH to H*rv*rd pure and simple than to encourage the Peretzian neo-ego by pretending that it can be the Solo Voice of University Hall. There are a lot of Meshites, to begin with, and then, most of them DO possess scholarly qualifications, more or less.
Worse still, that monnicker that the PowerPointers of Cambridge Street picked for themselves and the URL really does rather tend to give the impression that they somehow speak for a broader institution, maybe the Law School, maybe the whole shebang.
Bein’ real smart cookies, they’d deny in a flash that they meant anythin’ of that kind, should anybody equally smart cookiewise ever raise the point. Yet I put it to you, sir, that the Little Friends of Marty Kramer would not at all mind if lesser breeds without were to infer that anybody in the immediate vicinity of 1737 who significantly disagrees with MESH about ‘strategy’ must be some kind of isolated oddball: "Wink, wink, nod, nod."
Nevertheless, MESH sure as Hell ain’t H*rv*rd simpliciter.
 Probably the passage is authentic, in the sense of having emanated from Holyoke Centre, possibly even from University Hall. It has an echt 02138 ring to it, nicht wahr?
That much provenance, however, does not even begin to eliminate the "Says who?" issue. Not as far as I am concerned. Let me know what you think, sir.