Posted on 01/05/2008 5:54:41 PM PST by pa_dweller
Although we have been very critical of the New York Times over its journalistic and business failings, there have been interesting signs of change there lately. The paper announced that Bill Kristol will write one column per week on its op-ed page. And yesterday there was a sensible op-ed by William Dalrymple on the decidedly mixed legacy of Benazir Bhutto.
It is hard to know if there is a move back toward the center-left for the paper, but if there is one, it might well be in recognition of the looming crisis the paper faces as Rupert Murdoch begins fashioning the Wall Street Journal into a general interest daily capable of drawing more readers and advertisers away from the Times' national edition.
American Thinker will soon be publishing a major article by Ed Lasky on the Times-Journal strategic face-off, which promises to [be] a major event in media history.
But in the meantime, having cultivated a left wing readership, the Times is finding resistance in its efforts to move in from the left margin of politics. Jane Smiley, novelist and occasional writer for the Times, pens a bitter farewell to the paper. It seems that William Kristol is just too much for her to tolerate. This is a full-blown case of BDS rage, and it isn't very pretty:
If you think that the Iraq War is a crime, as I do, it is bad enough that he was one of the primary cheerleaders for it, even after every single one of the reasons that the Cheney/Bush/right wing gave for the attack was exposed. But he is worse than that. Until the NIE report, he was actively advocating bombing Iran, preferably with nuclear weapons, even though the civilians in Iran who would be bombed have nothing at all to do with whatever the Iranian government is doing, or as it turns out, not doing to develop nuclear weapons. In Iraq alone, Kristol has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands. He is unrepentant and eager for more. [....]Why would the Times hire such a person? Stockholm Syndrome? Some kind if inside-the-beltway joke? An attempt to lure that bloc of American newspaper readers who listen to Rush Limbaugh? Earth to Times! Maybe they can't read!
There's nothing quite like reasoned debate, is there?
Hat tips: Richard Baehr, Herb Meyer
It'll be interesting to watch. Can the gray lady come around? I hope so, the constant liberal drumbeat has built up a callous on me.
Leave the Wall St Journal alone....I just hope the excellant writing that paper has and its conservative perspective does not change with Ruppie.
You know, as crazy as this story sounds - it does have some popular support - I read several technology boards and more and more the New York Times is labeled as “neocon” by tech folk.
I
The NY Times and WaPost decided back in 1999 that the Age of the Newspaper was over, that they were dead, but that they could go out with a bang by pushing their personal ideologies in their final swan song of manipulating public opinion and elections.
Which is to say, they aren’t going to change. They aren’t going to move to the Center.
They are going to fight for every inch of ground, long after even the Bunker itself is captured, and the fall of their “Berlin” is sealed.
NYT moves to the center ? From Stalinist to Maoist ?
Actually, the Wall Street Journal is divided right down the middle. The editorial page is largely conservative, and has done some excellent work—although they are NOT conservative on the social issues, marriage and abortion.
But the WSJ news reporters are just as leftist as the rest of the MSM. Evidently they followed that pattern deliberately—liberal reporters, conservative editorialists.
Whether Murdoch will improve the situation, however, remains to be seen. Probably he will spice it up, if nothing else.
I don’t know where you have been, or what you have been reading, but the WSJ editorial section moved so far to the left that I cancelled my subscription long ago.
As did many, many others.
Perhaps compared to the rest of the MSM...also, it does offer better writing and on a variety of topics and has guest writers like Petreus, conservatives, Henninger, Noonan, etc.
Ping me when the Slimes hires Ann Coulter.
Its interesting that an allegedly unbiased news source is seen as having a “base” like a politician. Journalism is a flawed concept.
I did not know of that. Duranty had the chance to alter history and save millions. He blew a big chance to do good.
Don't forget illegal immigration, the WSJ is for open borders. Paul Gigot called those opposed to amnesty "not rational" others on his team were equally offended by those of us who think our borders should be secure, especially in a time of war.
True. They are big business conservatives. So I think they are also wrong on things like trade with China.
The NYT didn’t change, the “center” is now in hard left territory.
Ha
Funny... I hadn't noticed...
I just posted a dup of this article. I did a search for NYT and it came up empty. It still comes up empty. Can anyone tell me if they get the same?
It’s too late for the Times to regain readership and like you I’m more worried about tampering with the WSJ.
Adding one column per week from Kristol and a single article from Dalrymple constitutes a move to the center? Only for the NYT I suppose. I think they would rather go down with their sinking liberal ship than give Conservatives a fair shake.
While they are not forthrightly conservative on those issues, they are not liberal on them. For example, they are liberal on immigration. You don't see that staunch support of leftist positions on any other themes. They host columns written by people not on the staff that are socially conservative, moreso than social liberals.
So overall, I put the WSJ Editorial Page as strongly Economic and Defense conservative, and Socially slightly conservative.
Same with me. Don’t know why.
Bill Kristol...yeah, Mister Excitement.
Most tech folk I know can barely stand to live in the real world. Why care about what they think of newspaper?
Interestingly, if you use two words from the title, “NYT faces”, you find it...
I will support the NYT’s with money taken....... from my cold dead hands.
I fear you may be correct.
I thought I'd seen this somewhere. At the bottom of the search screen is this:
Limitations: Only article titles can be searched and words with three or fewer letters are not searched at all.
Thanks, I hadn’t noticed that before. Now I know!
Thanks. I read her [I can't find a proper pejorative to put here] article. Although it's gussied up with fancy words and such and she sounds real smart and all, I completely checked out at :
Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question.
How can the Bible be simultaneously contradictory and logical?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.