Miguel,
I have no idea who you are or what, for that matter, your agenda might be. But if it's this, then you can certainly skip posting to me.
There is definitely a serious analysis to be made of the NYTimes. It's a bundle of goods and bads.
In fact, a reasonably serious one was written in the past couple of years which focused on the Jayson Blair affair and the larger issue of Howell Raines stewardship. It's clear you are not interested in such a serious work.
Also, Gay Talese wrote one of the great newspaper analysis books of all times about the Times which I recommend.
As for this one, it's simply a screed, built out of the proposition that a newspaper that does its duty in unearthing misdeeds of any administration, is, in some sense, a traitor.
The Tiimes, in fact, has been fairly consistent on this score. You may recall, but then again you probably won't, that the Clinton administration was furious with the Times over its revelations. They, the Clinton folk, however, had sufficient appreciation for the role of the press to avoid the kinds of name calling we see from the friends of the present administration. As well as some official spokesfolk, like the VP.
Some evidence the Times is/was doing its job.
If you are interested in a serious discussion of the plusses and minuses of the Times, come back. If you only wish to post screeds like this one, I, for one, would prefer you post them elsewhere. |
