hometown paper drives me crazy.
read The New York Times because it often has good coverage. The
newspaper pays to send reporters to dangerous places all around the
weekend, the Times Magazine did a surprisingly fair profile of Sean
Hannity, although they chose photos that make him look evil.
mostly I read the Times because my neighbors read it, and I need to
understand what they think.
many think dumb things because most every day the Times runs
deceitful, biased stories and headlines that mislead.
columns have license to do that, but these days, Times' smears
extend to "news" stories.
recent headline said that President Trump's tweets had "united
Britain in outrage." Wow. Really? The whole country?
if you read the entire story would you learn that the outraged
people include "the opposition Labour party," "several"
Conservatives and comedian John Cleese.
a whole country "united in Trump outrage"? Please.
headline said ending President Obama's net neutrality bureaucracy
would be "hastening the Internet's death."
I understand that many statists like the regulation, but all the net
neutrality repeal really will do is restore some of the
permission-less innovation that allowed the Internet to blossom in
the first place.
the continuation of the Times story carried the headline "So long to
me a break. That's just irresponsible scaremongering.
that the Republicans' tax bill passed the House and Senate, some
legislators say they will try to reform entitlements.
Finally! This is a responsible thing to do. But Times reporters hate
Republicans so much that they twisted this new effort at reform into
a headline that said: "Next objective -- cut the safety net."
is just a smear.
in entitlement dollars go to relatively rich people. The Times once
applauded entitlement reform. But if Republicans support
it, then it's bad. Apparently, Republicans' "objective" is not
delaying America's bankruptcy; it's "cutting the safety net."
wonder President Trump keeps shouting, "Fake news!"
Trump gets plenty wrong, too. He often talks about "the failing New
the Times isn't failing. In fact, they gained readers
since he was elected -- 300,000 new subscriptions last quarter.
Times also makes money selling ads. I find it funny that so much of
that money comes from glitzy ads directed at the rich people who
Times reporters constantly criticize. The newspaper's magazines are
filled with expensive ads for lavish apartments, $2,000 purses and
dubious beauty treatments that many people could never afford.
weekend's fluff included a worshipful feature on Jay-Z by Times'
executive editor Dean Baquet. Baquet didn't criticize the rapper for
living in an $80 million mansion but instead asked him penetrating
questions like, "Would you rather be a trend? Or Ralph Lauren?"
this week's most disgusting feature was a nearly full-page "Style"
section profile of black-clad antifa thugs. The Times made them
sound fashionable and fun as they punch people who aren't looking
for any physical fight, just spouting their beliefs.
headline: "What to Wear to Smash the State."
Times explained what a stylish vandal wears: "Black work or military
boots, pants, balaclavas or ski masks, gloves and jackets, North
Face brand ... makes it easier for saboteurs to take the offensive
thanks, New York Times. I doubt that you'd be so enthusiastic about
property destruction if the "saboteurs ... take the offensive
against" your storefront.
Times readership is relatively small -- probably less than 1 percent
of Americans. Unfortunately, that readership matters because many of
those readers work for other media, so what the Times prints gets
that's good. Much of what's in the "paper of record" is important
much of it is mean-spirited and absurdly biased.
keep reading it, hoping to separate the good from the bad.