Et tu, NY Times ?
By the time I was ten (80 years ago) I was already an inveterate reader of the New York Times. It is hard now to say why I was drawn to it and why I became so trusting and loyal a reader. Perhaps its objectivity fascinated me, even though I could not then have clearly defined that concept. In any case, I do remain a loyal reader to this very day, although I am no longer as trusting as I used to be.
My first major disenchantment with the Times occurred when I was a student at NYU. While browsing in the Archives Section of the NY Public Library, I came across copies of the Times that were printed in the early 1860's. They startled me! To my surprise, its editorials were strongly opposed to Lincoln and the Civil War and strongly supportive of General McClellan, whose reluctance to fight eventually caused Lincoln to put General U.S. Grant in his place. And I also recall that I was equally struck by how even the State of NY was opposed to Lincoln and the Civil War. In retrospect, how could the Times and NY State have failed to grasp that Lincoln’s goal to preserve the Union and end Slavery was of such transcendent importance. In retrospect, who can dispute that the Times then, was clearly on the wrong side of history. Is it possible that this newspaper's current stands will be similarly judged as wrong, by history still to be written!
Whither goest thou, my falsely esteemed Gray Lady? Your stridently partisan editorial pages have become so divisive and so alienating, I now feel "disenfranchised" from you. So unalterably partisan have you become, it would not surprise me to see you endorse the Devil himself, if he were to decide to run against a Republican opponent. Your Letters to the Editor section, has morphed into your editorial writers' echo chamber. Indeed, it sometimes seems that many of its letters are ghost-written by them. Although you allot token space to one or two conservative columnists, your echo chamber has already shelved Safire and it has begun to do the same to David Brooks, one of the brightest young thinkers to grace your pages in decades. In the meantime, your choir unceasingly genuflects to your Liberal columnists Krugman, Kristof and Herbert and it has practically canonized Maureen Dowd, whose brand of venom properly belongs on a tabloid.
posted by Dom Gabriele @ 5:50 PM
5 Comments:
Dom, In terms of the 2nd debate, I think Bush regained the momentum. I’m sorry to say that, even though I thought Kerry did a fine job. But that Bush guy, simplistic as his answers may seem, blinking away into the lights, storming to cut off the moderator, practically frothing at the mouth, that Bush guy comes out ahead on this one, I think. Most of the after-debate editorials seem to be saying the same. I say "most," but certainly not the Times. I think the quote that will be replayed for decades will be the one where Bush counters with great astonishment: "Lumber Company! I own a Lumber Company! That’s news to me! Need lumber, anyone?" That won the hearts and minds of many. Kerry's research team really botched that one. But who knows? Maybe Bush had a mechanical device on his back with Rove feeding him answers. If so, then Bush may be done. On the other hand, Afghanistan had a free election a couple of days ago and millions of people voted with enthusiasm. This morning, on Today, Hamid Karzai praised America for its sacrifice and for bringing freedom to his homeland. That will have a large appeal to many Americans, including me, but especially to those whose sons and daughters have died there as American soldiers. I know it's a different situation, but can Iraq be far behind? Powerful stuff. Americans like winning. Right now, I think many Americans feel that if our sons and daughters are dying over there for freedom, we'll damn well win! I admit, that's probably a projection. But I'm one of those Americans, too and I don't believe we're at the Vietnam stage, yet. Bush performs like a rugged, no-nonsense football coach. Like Vincent Lombard, who once said, "...sooner or later the man who wins, is the man who thinks he can." Non-Yalie Americans, (and Bush has transformed himself into one), like that attitude especially when it is projected in the name of so transcendent a cause as liberty and freedom. So who knows? I'm voting for Kerry, primarily because the Democrats still represent values I most honor and because I think Bush should be fired for such inept planning after the invasion. But I don't actually hear Kerry giving us a substantially different plan on handling the war. I'm not sure there is one, except to immediately withdraw, which I think would be disastrous; to engage Europe, which I support, but have grave doubts it can happen. The hatred and alienation of European and Arab nations deeply concern me, and I like to think that Kerry is the better man for creating a healthier coalition, but who knows? War is messy and in recent weeks we have learned anew that "national self-interests" always take precedence. Indeed, I just learned from a sagacious old sailor-psychiatrist-friend of mine who I deeply respect and who at the age of 90 has decided to be an internet blogger, that in the 1860's the New York Times and New Yorkers in general were stridently opposed to Lincoln and the Civil War. Imagine that! When the chips are down and the voting booths open, I believe most people will see Bush as a man of his word, actually not unlike Lincoln. They will see him as viscerally and morally committed to winning the war against terror in the name of liberty and Democracy ("our last best hope for mankind"). And I fear they will see Kerry as the rich boy from the Northeastern elite who is windsurfing into the sunset and leading no one. I know that mentioning Lincoln and Bush favorably in the same sentence is not a statement I ever dreamed I would write. But there you have it. Jim Covington
I have been sensing the tilt to port of the New York Times and I have tried to interest my wife in subscribing to a different daily paper, but to no avail. I therefore look forward to getting the local paper while we are in Florida so that I can read other opinions and spins. Stan Zeller
The New York Times has been a great newspaper, but they are now on the wane. There are merits to both sides of any position and a truly great newspaper would report on both. What the New York Times provides now is a constant liberal slant in both editorial and straight news story positions, while ignoring valid conservative opinion. Oil is not problem. If it were we would recover the product from those places where it has been found outside the middle east. If it were a matter of energy we could follow the hollowed French and produce 90% of our energy requirements from nuclear generation. The problem is liberal elite who pontificate, like Zeus from Mt Olympus, on how they know what is best for the average American. They live in their multiple mansions across the world and fly about in their multi million dollar airplanes while complaining that our humble cars use too much gas. When John Kerry gives away his fortune and agrees to live on less than $200,000 a year then he will get my vote. Anybody interested in buying a bridge I'm selling on ebay. Tom Gabriele
Letters to the Editor, NY Times, Oct 11, 2004
Re: Okrent: Campaign Coverage
Your archives reveal that the NY Times, as well as NY City and NY State Governor Seymour, was strongly opposed to Lincoln and his determined effort to preserve the Union by engaging in Civil War. They also show that the NY Times was simultaneously supportive of General McClellan, whose policy it was to keep Union Forces inactive and indefinitely confined within their garrisons.
Is it possible that history will one day judge the NY Time’s current positions on the Iraq War and the Presidential elections as having been equally misguided?
D.J. Gabriele, MD
Come on Dom, it seems that your rabid Republicanism has destroyed your sense of fairness re: The New York Times.
Tony Correoso
Post a Comment
<< Home