Sweetness & Light reminds us of the New York Times’ shifting position on fighting terrorism by routing out its finances with an op-ed written immediately after 9/11 that concludes, “If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one”.
That’s 180-degrees opposite from their current worldview, but then I guess if you flip-flop enough times, you become immune to the effects of whiplash. Meanwhile, Ranting Professors explains to Howard Kurtz why the Times has earned conservatives’ wrath on this issue:
People are angriest at the Times because the Times went first. They broke the story. At that point the decision was out of the hands of the other papers — it’s just that simple. In fact, as Patterico points out (indeed as the Kurtz story mentions) once the Times posted their story, there really was no decision to be made by the other papers.
A few years ago, Bernie Goldberg documented in Arrogance how much the rest of the legacy media takes its lead from the Times–and has for several decades. Nice to see that even in an age of demassified media, some things never change amongst the walking Jurassic.
Update: In a new City Journal essay, Nicole Gelinas writes:
One of the New York Times