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.