The New York Times is the establishment. It has endorsed both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Some liberal media. The Times's conscious self-importance completely pollutes its political coverage with Elisabeth Bumiller, William Kristol, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd, and the ever useless David Brooks. Friedman used to have a reputation for insight, but that was all bullshit, too.
Still, the Times does publish Paul Krugman. It got more than it expected in that bargain. An economist? How interesting could he be? It's not called the dismal science for nothing. The fact that as an amateur journalist, he is the smartest opinion writer in the whole damn world ought to be a reproach to all those others who fancy themselves to be professionals when they're really just schmoozing hacks. But they're too busy with cocktail parties and getting on TV to blush.
Even so, I come to praise NYT, not to bury it. The Times gets newspapering, at least at other desks. It wants readers, not semi-literate TV viewers who are looking for the latest drama of Dr. Phil checking out Britney's panty lines - or her lack of them.
NYT's science coverage is a clear case in point. Here's a sampling of stories from the past two weeks:
- "Scientists Take New Step Toward Man-Made Life", by Andrew Pollack
- "Political Animals (Yes, Animals)", by Natalie Angier
- "The Moral Instinct", by Steven Pinker
No comments:
Post a Comment