Will the Democrats Betray Us? (Rich Thinks This is 1975)

New York Times ^ | 16 September 2007 | Frank Rich

[goldstategop]

Frank Rich forgot to mention South Vietnam was being subverted by the North and the Soviet Bloc. Iraq is being subverted by Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. So its not exactly a civil war. The Left is hungering for another defeat so they can say "we told you so!" Little Pinch's rag that passes for a newspaper is beneath contempt.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Eagles6]

I thought that you forgot the barf alert but then I saw the author’s name. That will suffice.

[Mr. Silverback]

What’s funny is that if you really do look at this through the Vietnam prism, Petraeus is not Westmoreland, he’s Abrams, and Abrams is the one who had the war won when the Congress decided they’d rather lose it.

[BunkDetector]

Thanks for the “Hear hear!”, Godring.
Sounds like you’ve been on the front lines.
You’re right, some think news is like ice cream: “Give ‘em what they like and ring up the sale.”

[Gondring]

Sounds like you’ve been on the front lines.

Yep..both in conservatism (my efforts were noted in a NY Times best seller--which is why it's humorous when I get questioned about my conservatism), and in the newspaper business (I've been editor of two newspapers).

You’re right, some think news is like ice cream: “Give ‘em what they like and ring up the sale.”

In a market like the current one, that's a recipe for disaster, as entertainment will beat it out...and the folks looking for real news will not find your outlet trustworthy. (I say this having been out of the field directly for a while, but I do believe it's still true.)

Of the ice creamers, I'd ask: Why is a conservative lie better than a liberal one? Why be conservative if we don't believe the truth is on our side?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

When a new organization shapes itself with an eye toward ratings/circulation you get missing white girls, car chases, lip gloss and Bill O’Reilly.
IOW, let’s reject the Foxification of news anywhere in the political spectrum.

When a news organization shapes itself with an eye toward ratings/circulation, you get breaking news of OJ driving a white Bronco. Fundamentally, journalism is about self-promotion. Call yourself - or all your colleagues who will in turn call you - "objective," and you are promoting yourself. And that is the very opposite of objectivity.

What you do not get is boring details of what the public has known for some time but has not demanded appropriate action on. Just like we heard very little of Osama ben Laden before 9/11. And just as we hear very little, actually, about the history of Clinton scandals which the Hsu scandal is simply repeating.

What we do hear is that claim that some Democrat scandal is "old news." As if that defined the public interest. What it does tend to do is define what interests the public - which is at best unrelated to the public interest, and frequently inimicable to it. To claim that something isn't important because it is already known is to claim that the Associated Press with its magic telegraphic newswire is always the definition of the public interest. And that is about as subjective an opinion as you are likely to encounter.

[okie01]

...years hence someone will review the editorial policy of the NYT and at the same time its loss of ecoomic solvency and power. This book will become an instant best seller.

The NYT survived Walter Duranty.

But can they survive Frank Rich and Putz Sulzberger?

[ModelBreaker]

Will the Democrats betray us?

If they can.

[spookie]

Johnson and SecDef decided that U.S.S. Liberty should be written off and cancelled all efforts to go to their aid in 1967. They assumed it would sink but the crew of CTs and skipper sailed it backwards for 700 miles to port without any assistance from our Navy. Thanks Pres Johnson.