Oh, No — the Times, It Ain’t a Changin’
Wouldn’t it have been refreshing if the New York Times had admitted it had a big problem and brought in some “new blood” to solve it? Jill Abramson, just named the new executive editor of the paper, sounds like the “same old, same old.” (Also read Roger Kimball: "From Bad to Worse at the Times.")
June 3, 2011 - 8:44 am
Wouldn’t it have been refreshing if the New York Times had admitted it had a big problem and brought in some “new blood” to solve it? Someone who doesn’t represent yet another iteration of the brain-dead New York leftyism of its current boss Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, who’s been running it into the ground for almost two decades now?
Maybe I’m being unfair to Jill Abramson, and I actually hope I am. Maybe she only looks and sounds like the “same old, same old” and will bring a breath of fresh — and even politically incorrect — air to the Grey Lady. But what hope is there when she goes out of her way to tell us that, at her home on the Upper West Side when she was growing up, receiving their daily Times was like a religious experience, because her family believed that “if the Times said it, it was the absolute truth.” That was never true — witness the Stalin-coddling of Walter Duranty in the ‘30s and the Castro-sanitizing of the late ‘50s and early ‘60s, to name only a few flagrant examples — but it’s probably even less true now.
There was a time — I’m thinking of the A.M. Rosenthal era — when the Times wasn’t always totally in the bag for what I call “leftyism.” Rosenthal and his assistants probably rarely, if ever, voted for a Republican (except maybe John Lindsay, Jacob Javits, and Nelson Rockefeller, who epitomized “progressive” Northeast Republicanism), but they still retained some intellectual honesty. They could separate themselves enough from their beliefs to recognize — albeit perhaps grudgingly, at times — facts. The “Pinch” edition of the Times is almost totally at one with its pathetically parochial belief system and has been steadily changing itself from a news medium to a thought filter that enables liberals to avoid any contact with what they dread most — reality.
I remember so clearly the moment when my growing doubts about the reliability of the Times crystallized: It was the morning of the big “exposé” about the 2000 election. As everyone at the Times knew beyond question, and which it had appointed itself to prove, George W. Bush had “stolen” Florida and thus the presidency. The Times had been first among not-quite equals in a huge journalistic safari (perhaps the last gasp of the post-Watergate glory days of the American daily press) that went into deepest darkest Florida in the days after Gore conceded in order to bring back the pelt of the great infamy. Yet on that morning, in the form of a relatively smallish headline on page 1, it … didn’t. The head was a mealy-mouthed excuse for the huge, bold “J’accuse!” that Times readers had been so eagerly awaiting.
I read down the oddly oblique, sheepish paragraphs impatiently, until, at about the sixth or seventh one, I encountered the big news: The big expedition had found that Bush had actually won Florida by 537 votes. Not exactly a landslide, but according to the Times’ own parameters perhaps one of the biggest examples of “man bites dog” ever. Something they had known in their DNA to be true — something as obvious as the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow — had been shown to be false by their own hand! Not only that, but all the partisan caterwauling, all the nasty, deliberate poisoning of the W presidency by the Democrats and their allies on the left — all the threats of waving the bloody shirt of fraud forever and ever — had been utterly trashed. Like a crazed Samson, the Times had pulled down its temple of lies on its own head.