November 8, 2004

New York Times to America: Drop Dead

It would seem the Gray Lady is taking her ball and going home.

In the lead editorial today, More Troops for Iraq , the paper's top "minds" that did their level worst to actually help the American people re-elect George Bush has their mind set on calling for "more boots on the ground in Iraq." Typical and not surprising. What is also not surprising, but far too typical is the lead sentence in the second paragraph:

But that is not where Mr. Bush, and the voters who returned him to office, are headed today.
It would seem the Times is still mired deep in the quagmire of the Two Americas meme and cannot bear, simply cannot bear, to align itself with the rest of America. It has elected to make it very, very clear that there is an US (New York Times editors and the loyal head-bobbing agreeable readers of said rag) and a Them (George W. Bush and all those homophobic, trailer trash, Bible thumping rednecks out thar in the Okie lands.)

Well, more power to them in their quest to curtail and eviscerate their circulation. So long and thanks for all the fish wrap.

During a conversation with an employee of the New York Times a year or so ago, I asked what the Times' game plan was. She said, "We want to be one of the two papers that are truly national papers. That's the whole goal driving this company."

"So how," I asked, "are you going to overcome USA Today?"

"USA Today's the 'other' paper," she said. "It goes to those who don't have a lot of time for newspapers to begin with. We're going to be the national newspaper of teachers and college professors stuck out in the boondocks. And, thank God, there are millions of those."

A nice encapsulation of the New York Time's plan, to be sure. One that, looking at the attitude of the paper and its columnists, is hard not to miss.

Today's editorial goes on to offer the very best of the Times' editors "wisdom" on how to run the war. My only question is why the Times' thinks that "Mr. Bush, and the voters who returned him to office" would spend one nanosecond listening to them?

Posted by Vanderleun at November 8, 2004 8:14 AM
Bookmark and Share

Comments:

HOME

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Remember, people pay for the privelege of being brain-washed by old york's finest. The old tar about you are what you eat never had greater meaning.

Posted by: Ron at November 8, 2004 9:33 AM

We're going to be the national newspaper of teachers and college professors stuck out in the boondocks.

It conjures up an image of all those genteel English ladies in 'fortified' Singapore of November 1941, waiting breathlessly for the papers from London.

Posted by: P.A. Breault at November 8, 2004 5:21 PM

The Old York Times ranting about how to run the battle in Fallujah reminds me of Arnold's recent gut-splitting comment, "Why should I listen to losers"?

Posted by: Buddha at November 9, 2004 9:24 AM