As if you needed more proof of the NY Times' decline, check out today's top two headlines and particularly their associated summaries (see below for screen capture). The first is all woe for the Democrats, and in one broad brush stroke implies they're all faltering and are under heavy pressure to "correct course." President Bush is by contrast the bringer of "powerful themes."
The actual article on the
Democratic debate is a "news analysis" that parrots the CW; it's mediocre, but it strives for a neutral tone.
The article on Bush's appearance before the Conference of Mayors, by contrast, purrs approvingly of Bush's "strong" and "powerful" stance and his "relaxed... good humor," dotes on descriptions of applauding mayors who "signaled their agreement" with apparent uniformity, and is wholly uncritical of Bush's supposed proposal to provide more urban-directed homeland security funds directly to cities. Nowhere is it mentioned that Bush has consistently and continually denied funding for first responders, port security, and other key homeland security measures.
Our cheerleading scribe, David Stout, even quotes this distortion without correction: "Do you realize, prior to Sept. 11, 2001, the C.I.A. could not pass information to the F.B.I. or vice versa?" This comment comes during Bush's defense of the PATRIOT Act; Stout is all too happy to wave the back of his hand at those pesky civil libertarians who are concerned the act "is being used to trample people's rights."
Stout makes no attempt to quote any mayor to see what he or she thinks of the president and his proposals. In fact, no opposing figure is quoted whatsoever -- it's just all Bush, all the time, rendered in glowing, dulcet tones. No wonder Billmon refers to the Times as The New Pravda.
nytimes.com screen capture, 1/23/04: