Even Liberals Are Giving Up On The Times

For awhile, it was a staple argument of the right that the New York Times was a liberal mouthpiece. My grandfather the Admiral used to say that, back in the sixties. But I guess forty years of being criticized for being too reality-based eventually drove the Times to start hiring some right-wing partisan hacks. And now, in addition to the disdain of the right, the NYT has earned the disdain of the left by publishing David Brooks. For the reaction of right-thinking, well-meaning, intelligent individuals, we have only to look to Brad Delong, who says:

Everybody like me has a big problem with Brooks…. Has he just not done his homework, and does he not know that his program doesn’t add up–is he just lazy? Or does he know very well that his proposals are b—s— and not care because he is not in the informing-the-public business but is instead playing some deep political game to try to get White House mess privileges for his friends? Or both?

And everybody like me has a big problem with an organization–like the New York Times–that gives a platform to Brooks. Don’t they have any ethics? Don’t they think they ought to be in the inform-the-public business? Yet there is not even a single phone call from an editor saying, “David, it’s your column, but this just doesn’t add up…”

My local Times subsidiary, the Boston Globe, is at least as much in thrall to right-wing idiocy and at least as deserving of scorn from those on both the right and left sides of the political spectrum. Why else would they publish Jeff Jacoby? This week he’s arguing, more or less, that Barack Obama is a communist dictator in waiting, and you can tell because one volunteer in Texas thinks Cuba’s flag looks pretty cool.

I assume the lone moderate at any party loves both the Times and the Globe; this would explain their circulation numbers.

3 thoughts on “Even Liberals Are Giving Up On The Times”

  1. Maria Isabel, the volunteer who opened a volunteer office to support Barack Obama is Cuban born. She knows exactly who Che Guevara was and what he did. She doesn’t have the excuse that she thought a desecrated Cuban flag with that murderer’s face emblazoned on it was “cool”.

    There are at least 14 user generated web pages on Obama’s web site that either favorably quote or sport pictures of Guevara.

    If a Republican candidate had a volunteer as co-chair of a local volunteer committee running the operation under a KKK, you can bet your ass the candidate would disassociate himself from it in short order. And rightfully so. Obama’s mealy mouthed statement shows it’s more important to keep the moonbats on the reservation than tell the truth about that Argentine thug.


  2. I think it’s a little facile to equate Guevara with the KKK. To most people who know who he is, he represents idealism and social justice rather than violence and thuggery. Perhaps you could go so far as to equate Che’s image with, say, the Confederate flag– a controversial symbol, but one a lot of people disagree about.


  3. I’ve long thought that the Globe employing Jacoby was a sign of their Democrat bias. Instead of hiring a smart, articulate, and conservative columnist, they hired Jacoby, who makes even the most defensible differing point of view look pretty dumb.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: