Is Life Better in Red States? The NYT is Not Exactly an Objective Arbiter

Is life better in Red States? Ask the American people, not the New York Times,” Moe Lane writes:

(H/T: Real Clear Politics) You know what the single most entertaining part of this NYT article (“Is Life Better in America’s Red States?”) is?  It’s that nowhere in it is it acknowledged that people have been voting with their feet for the last two decades or so.  Depending on how you score Florida and Nevada, blue states lost between 8 and 11 net Electoral votes* (and, hence, seats) in the last Census – and everybody really expects that trend to continue.

* * * * * * *

And, let’s be honest: it’s infinitely easier to write code in Salt Lake City than it is to open up a firearms factory in Schenectady these days. So unless you’re there to make the scene, I’m not exactly sure why you’d want to live in the Northeast…


Of course, this is the Times we’re talking about here. One of its most prominent journalist referred to the Midwest as “the dance of the low-sloping foreheads” on Time-Warner-CNN-HBO’s Bill Maher Show in 2011 and the previous year, a NYT press release claimed that Kansas City is a wasteland for “vegetarian food.” (“Outside of Manhattan, ‘vegetarian food’ is widely available at things called ‘supermarkets,’” Kathy Shaidle quipped in response.) So expecting this particular clan of Democrat operatives with bylines to be an objective arbiter on this issue is a bit like expecting National Review or Reason to effusively espouse on the joys of socialism. And hopefully by now, everyone knows it.

“In New York, Scrappy Local Newspaper Struggles For Survival,” Iowahawk memorably quipped in 2003. One of the reasons why the Times also struggles mightily as a national newspaper is because of their Pauline Kael-level biases against most of their potential subscribers outside of the Northeast Corridor.




Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member