Once, in a galaxy long, long ago I subscribed to the New York Times. 5 days per week I would read their paper mainly because of the reputation and also because when I lived in Paris I read the International Herald Tribune to which the New York Times contributed stories.
Even though I discontinued my subscription many years ago, I still follow that paper’s fall into uselessness with interest. Current editor, Bill Keller, has been sacked and replaced with Jill Abramson who has been “overseeing the newsroom” according to the NY Times article.
Here’s why she’ll take up the “Fail” mantle from Kellor:
“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,” she said. “If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”
And her statement illustrates exactly why people involved with the NY Times make sure it will fail… it really is their religion and thus often blinds believers from reason.
The NY Times is losing money, losing subscribers, their business ventures have been failures, and they took out a loan from Carlos Slim, paying exorbitant interest just so they could stay in business.
When I was a subscriber to the NY Times I wouldn’t sit around all day with an International House cappuccino and take every word as gospel, but I would largely trust what I was reading.
Of course, anybody working for the NY Times is going to buy into the whole “paper of record” thing. And Ms. Abramson’s testimony about the NY Times taking the place of religion in her family’s house pretty much explains the entire problem with most journolists today… they accept their dogmas and don’t question everything (despite the Liberal bumper stickers urging people to “Question Authority”).
How can the New York Times be such an authority on everything if they never published a review for Atlas Shrugged Part 1? Every dinky art house film ever made can be found in their movie section but not Atlas Shrugged Part 1. Isn’t that odd?
Reader Joe Markowitz pointed out the Times did review Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 but we note it appeared two weeks after the film opened whereas every film they review appears either a few days before opening day or opening day itself.
Oh, wait, that movie was funded by Conservatives and was largely ignored by Liberal Hollywood (and the New York Times).
Isn’t that interesting?
We can say the Times doesn’t have any authority left and is an insignificant, soiled rag but there are still people who read it, take it as gospel, and reinforce their beliefs based upon what is printed on its pages.