The NY Times: Out of Touch
In what might be the most ironic accusation of all time, in an editorial today, The New York Times asserts that President Bush has become a President who "loses touch with the public and wanders around among small knots of people who agree with him." Actually, that's a pretty good description of the people wandering around the in Times buildling -- still thinking that they're the center of the universe, when the overwhelming majority of Americans neither reads them, nor puts much stock in the editorial board's opinion.
And indeed, why should anyone have confidence in the judgment of the NY Times -- home to Jayson Blair and Judith Miller? Why should anyone have confidence in the integrity of an organization that is famously (and arrogantly) unwilling to admit error, even when it's plain? Why should anyone trust the political judgment of a paper with a history like that recounted by Stanley Kurtz:
Back then, Tom Wicker, James Reston, and the other liberal voices at the New York Times seemed obsessed with the supposed irrationality and danger of Ronald Reagan's anti-Communism. I scanned their writings for any substantive discussion of the character of the Soviet regime. But somehow op-eds about the Soviets always turned into pieces about Ronald Reagan, about the madness of a man who dared to call our foes an evil empire.
The New York Times hasn't gotten it right yet. But even so, it apparently cherishes a grandiose delusion that its opinion should carry weight. And for those who still insist that Jimmy Carter was a better president than Ronald Reagan, it probably does.
Note even the op/ed's title: "Plan: We Win." Sounds like a pretty good plan to me -- and no doubt to the rest of America. Of course, the Times meant the headline to be sarcastic; that's because its staff doesn't believe we can win in Iraq. But then again, they don't believe the U.S. can (or perhaps even should) win anywhere.
And that's why the Times -- not President Bush -- is the one that's truly out of touch with America.
And indeed, why should anyone have confidence in the judgment of the NY Times -- home to Jayson Blair and Judith Miller? Why should anyone have confidence in the integrity of an organization that is famously (and arrogantly) unwilling to admit error, even when it's plain? Why should anyone trust the political judgment of a paper with a history like that recounted by Stanley Kurtz:
Back then, Tom Wicker, James Reston, and the other liberal voices at the New York Times seemed obsessed with the supposed irrationality and danger of Ronald Reagan's anti-Communism. I scanned their writings for any substantive discussion of the character of the Soviet regime. But somehow op-eds about the Soviets always turned into pieces about Ronald Reagan, about the madness of a man who dared to call our foes an evil empire.
The New York Times hasn't gotten it right yet. But even so, it apparently cherishes a grandiose delusion that its opinion should carry weight. And for those who still insist that Jimmy Carter was a better president than Ronald Reagan, it probably does.
Note even the op/ed's title: "Plan: We Win." Sounds like a pretty good plan to me -- and no doubt to the rest of America. Of course, the Times meant the headline to be sarcastic; that's because its staff doesn't believe we can win in Iraq. But then again, they don't believe the U.S. can (or perhaps even should) win anywhere.
And that's why the Times -- not President Bush -- is the one that's truly out of touch with America.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:37 AM
2 Comments:
Yes, the (Nancy) Reagan White House sure was on top of things. Aside from the fact that the ol' guy was so far gone that he insisted to his advisers that we already had the "Star Wars" defense program in place, he and his friend Rummy (yes, one and the same) gave immense help to one Saddam Hussein.
Check out the glad-handing here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
"Why should anyone have confidence in the integrity of an organization that is famously (and arrogantly) unwilling to admit error, even when it's plain?"
Replace "organization" with "administration." So true.
Post a Comment
<< Home