God, I hate the NYT! Episode XXXIV

Hi, my name is Dan and I'm a recovering Times addict.

OK, I can report that it's been a few weeks since I gave up buying the Sunday Times. A lifelong habit done in by their incompetence and kowtowing to the Boy King. So at least  they no longer get any of my money. But it's too easy to peruse their Web site, and I almost always regret it. Just two examples of their foolishness this morning:

After doing decent (let's rate it a B-) work on the Swiftboat Liars earlier this week, Jim Rutenberg and Kate Zernike produce a droning thumbsucker on negative campaign ads. (News flash! They work, even though people say they don't like them!)

Needless to say, a photo of the Swift Boat ad is paired with an image from F9/11, as if the two were equivalent in factual accuracy. Needless to say again, the Swift Boat attacks are discussed without any mention of the lies contained within. The authors even throw in a general comment from ubiquitous bozo Kathleen Hall Jamieson about distortions: "Unless people think [an ad] is untruthful, you're not going to get a backlash out of it."

Why yes, Ms. Jamieson, but people won't think an ad is untruthful unless somebody (say, the media!) points out the untruths in the ad.

Then, Jason Zengerle in "The State of the George W. Bush Joke" in the Arts section, claims without any evidence that the left's jokes on W are "much harsher" than anything faced by Clinton. Yeah, I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's continuous onslaught contained nothing as vicious -- oh! so vicious -- as that old meanie Will Ferrell.

Worse is Zengerle's attempt to explain a shift in popular comedy with regard to Shrub: where once most of the jokes were about the Boy King's syntax and stupidity, now they are about his ideology and his lies.  Why? "In part, this change is due to an increasingly unpopular war and an unsteady  economy. It also may be that all comedy has become harsher in recent years. But partly it is because, since Mr. Bush took office, the left has belatedly rediscovered humor as a political tool."

Um. No, Jason. It's because Bush has revealed himself to more and more people as a duplicitous ideologue. Simple as that. (Not that I would expect an Arts section writer to say that, necessarily. But he could have written a phrase like, "As Bush has governed from the hard right and been caught in a number of scandals raising questions about his credibility . . . .")

Is obtuseness a job requirement among these people? Jesus freaking' Christ!

•  I agree:

  It's really frustrating to watch the Times serve not the interests of its' readers, but the powerful interest groups whom the Times sucks up to. Is it my imagination, or did they used to be better? I imagine that what happened is that a few too many Manhattan neocon cocktail parties were attended my too many Timesfolk over the last 15 years. You can see that they bought into that Israeli tough guy stick-to-your-guns imperialism that has now turned so bad. It was one thing to pontificate about Arabs and the War of Civilizations and another thing to turn arrogant ignorance into policy on the ground. Now we're in a huge mess and the TImes is just crossing its fingers that we'll somehow muddle through with dumb American luck. To admit their role as accomplice in this disastrous war is too much for the Old Gray Lady. Plus, they're hedging their bets because it's just possible that BUSH MIGHT WIN AGAIN - in which case, they will want to be its' mouthpiece once again. When push comes to shove, the TImes can be counted on to always side with those in power.

  Oh, how I wish there was a progressive equivalent to the Times. I sure miss having an intelligent newspaper to read every morning.

  by CheeseMoose on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 07:43:08 AM PDT