I apparently offended a reader for commenting on the NY Times because I, in fact, don't read the rag.
Well, it looks like I'm not alone. From looking at the company's stock price, they're are plenty of hypocrites out there who have an opinion on a paper they don't read; and it's really not that favorable.
Today it closed at 3.51 or the price of one of their Sunday papers. In other words, overpriced.
Article you won't read in the NY Times right here.....
2 comments:
The NYT probably qualifies under Porkulus as "shovel ready".
The NYT used to be a good "news" paper, back when it reported news. It is no longer a news paper. It has gone from reporting what *has* happened, to reporting what it thinks *will* happen, to reporting what it wants *to* happen.
So for people like Jill, who agree with The Times, its a great paper, but more as an affirmation of beliefs than as an exchange of information. But it has absolutely zero value in terms of news.
You can read the paper, cover to cover; and I have on occasion and only learn what one myopic view of what the world *should* be, not what the world is. If I wanted to hear complaining about how rest of the world doesn't meet their expectations, why pay the NYT? A simple call to my ex-wife would accomplish the same thing?
Here's a clue to you, NYT, that would surely double your subscribership. Instead of cheering the Obama Porkulus and reporting on your own speculation that it's the greatest gift to mankind, how about reporting facts---on a past stimulus.
Yeah, that's right, Porkulus Mini-me that we got less than a year ago. The American people would love to hear all the success stories that came from that. Like the financial collapse that immediately followed in September. I'm sure that America, and dare I say Obama himself, would be dying to hear your analysis of that success story.
Fact is that that was just one more big government program that flopped, and like all the others that flopped (welfare, medicare, medicade, etc) their history will never be told by the NYT, only the bright future that has yet to actually happen will be reported today as fact.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Gordon, feel free to post this link:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/915066.html
It's an AP story which is copied verbatim on thousands of news papers. The headline is rediculous:
"Official: Obama plans to slash deficit in half"
Yes, maybe the fact that he has plans are a fact, but this article does little to verify whether these plans are realistic. Again, that Obama will cut the deficit in half is simply what the AP wants the future news to be, and is reporting it as if it is fact today.
Moreover, buried in the story are some "minor" details.
1) That the deficit, currently $1.3 trillion is Bush's. Well technically yes. But for 7.5 of the 8 Bush years the deficit was under $500B, and ridiculed by the same AP as too high. (A point where I happened to agree with the AP.) His outgoing deficit was that of a lame duck president, laden with bailout money, after strong arming from democratically led congeress, with Senator Obama fully in support. Cutting the current deficit in half only brings the figure about 10% higher that what it was during most of the Bush term.
2) That Obama's proposed $533B deficit is fiscally responsible because it is half. But that still means that the debt will grow by $2 trillion in his four years. This is still irriesponsible!! The blame goes on all politicians, not just Obama. But when will the press do it's job? When will it question cronic deficit spending which is the one true fact that needs no interpretation? When will it question whether the federal deficit is what got us into this crisis in the first place? Half of an irresponsible amount is still irresponsible. Why don't I take my son's college savings and buy a brand new corvette that is 25% off nowadays? I could just say to my son, "Hey, I saved 25% of your college money?".
3) But wait!! One has to read artcles other that this one to realise that the proposed deficit cut to $533B only takes place in 2012. The first 3 years of the Obama administration, there are still plans to run a $1.3T deficit and independant sources put the figure at $1.5T. Why is the AP only focusing on the "Bush" budget this year and the halved budget 4 years out and not the ones in the heart of the Obama term? Answer: Because the AP and most of the subscriber papers to not want to publish facts that could lead to the questioning of their "Dear Leader".
AP, NYT, Washingtom Post...please stop cheerleading for Obama. It's over, your man won. Now it's time to get back to news. It would serve everyone better if you did, including yourselves.
Post a Comment