Under the headline, "Bookstores Stoke Trump Resistance With Action, Not Just Words," the New York Times has a 1,300-word article, accompanied by four photographs, about how bookstores are taking action against President Trump.
Do the editors of the New York Times and the art critics even read their own newspaper?
Forgive the question, but it's prompted by this juxtaposition:
The New York Times, January 26, 2017, "Federal Agencies Told to Halt External Communications":
A column by David Brooks about Ronald Reagan includes this passage: "When he erred it was often on the utopian side of things, believing that tax cuts could pay for themselves, believing that he and Mikhail Gorbachev could shed history and eliminate all nuclear weapons."
The two big Reagan tax cuts were enacted in 1981 and 1986.
Here are the federal revenue receipts numbers for the relevant years, according to the Office of Management and Budget historical tables archived from the Obama administration:
In "current dollars":
Here it is in what the OMB calls "constant (FY 2009) dollars," which is a way of adjusting for inflation:
Jim Dwyer gets an entire New York Times column out of condemning Nike for slashing sneakers and clothing and trashing it rather than donating it, un-damaged, to the poor. He writes:
The lead, front-page news article in today's New York Times begins:
The headline over the continuation of the article inside the paper is "Upending Bipartisan Trade Policy, Trump Abandons Trans-Pacific Deal."
The New York Times editorial responding to President Trump's inaugural address makes one wonder if the editorial writers at the Times ever actually read the news articles that appear in their own newspaper.
The Times writes:
A news article in the New York Times the other day claimed that the newspaper is "trying to forge a stronger connection to the large bloc of voters who swept Mr. Trump to the presidency." I wrote that it was "an open question" whether the paper, or its editors, were actually even trying to do that.
A public memo issued yesterday by the top two editors at the New York Times promised "fewer editors at The Times."
To judge by this morning's newspaper, the plan has already been implemented.
At least two Times articles could have benefited from some more editing.
The first appears atop the arts section. Online, the headline is "Museum Trustee, a Trump Donor, Supports Groups That Deny Climate Change." It's a long, one-sided attack on the American Museum of Natural History for the sin of allowing a conservative donor. Rebekah Mercer, to serve as one of 49 members of the board of trustees.
The Times article includes this sentence about the museum's president, Ellen V. Futter: "Ms. Futter would not comment on the calls for Ms. Mercer to step down or what brought her to the board, declining to discuss the activities of a specific trustee."
The New York Times has an editorial condemning President-elect Trump for naming his son in law, Jared Kushner, as a senior White House adviser. It cites "the real dangers posed by nepotism." (The Times, of all people, should know.)
"There's a good reason for anti-nepotism laws," the Times editorial says, warning that when relatives are hired, "they undermine the public's faith that important posts are being filled with the best possible candidates."
Also, "it upends delicate dynamics, as senior staff members keep their mouths shut rather than contradict a trusted relative of their boss."
The concerns the Times editorial raises about nepotism in government might well also apply to, say, a publicly traded company. The Times editorial draws no distinction between nepotism in government and in corporate America.
In an egregious example of bad journalism, the New York Times kicks Judith Rodin on her way out as president of the Rockefeller Foundation.
A news article by David Gelles of the Times reports:
New York Times columnist David Brooks writes:
To say that Mr. Trump "has no experience being accountable to anybody" is a falsehood so blatant that if Mr. Trump himself had uttered it the Times itself would probably have inserted the words "falsely," as it has taken to doing in an unusually aggressive attempt to fact-check the president-elect.
As a television personality, Mr. Trump has had to be accountable to network executives; if his show did not get ratings, it would be canceled.
A Times business section story about what prosecutors allege was fraud at a New York-based hedge fund, Platinum Partners, reports, "Located a few blocks from Central Park, Platinum, founded in 2003, made a splash early on with some of its investments."
Central Park is a big place. The Times formulation "located a few blocks from Central Park" is maddeningly imprecise. As writing, it fails to convey much useful information about this business. Was the office of the business located in Harlem? On the Upper East Side? On the Upper West Side? If the Times is going to bother to tell us where the hedge fund was situated, it would be more helpful to readers if it actually told us where the office was, rather than give vague indications about how far it is from a large park.
The lead article in this week's Times food section is by Julia Moskin and reports on adjustments made by restaurants that have stopped tipping and have instead included the full cost of service in the prices listed on the menu. The article includes this paragraph:
It stopped me in my tracks, because, as a paying home-delivery subscriber to the New York Times, about every four weeks my newspaper is accompanied by a plea for tips, along with an envelope, from my home-delivery service provider. Does Ms. Moskin subscribe to the Times? Does her editor? Do they tip the person who delivers the newspaper to them?
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2017 FutureOfCapitalism LLC