Yesterday's five column, top of the front-page New York Times headline: "Tax Overhaul Would Aid Wealthiest."
Today's, also top of the front-page: "Trump's Plan Shifts Trillions To Wealthiest."
What are the chances they go for the same headline again at the top of tomorrow's front page? To me, it's starting to seem redundant, but I guess that is their story and they are sticking with it.
Page A3 of my New York Times this morning orders me around: "Follow this advice from The Times's Julia Moskin, a Dining reporter since 2004, to stock your kitchen the right way...To outfit your kitchen, go to the big-box store of your choice: Upscale places like Williams-Sonoma and Sur La Table are browse-worthy, but they often charge much more for the same basic tools."
It seems bossy and presumptuous of the Times to try to tell me where to shop. Maybe I want to support my locally owned, neighborhood kitchen supply store rather than driving to some suburban Walmart. Maybe I like the service better at the higher-end stores. Maybe I'm an Amazon Prime member or credit card holder and want to shop there. Why are those options not "the right way"?
The problem with the Times advice is not just that it may not be "right" for everyone, but that it's hypocritical. Other parts of the Times, including the Dining section, frequently highlight items from expensive stores. Much of the news that appears in the Times itself is available for free on other internet sites.
Amid a New York Times article about a set of quadruplets who were admitted to Harvard and Yale comes this sentence:
"Perhaps" the Times writer has never had a sibling or is not the parent of them, or has never read the book of Genesis, which is all about sibling rivalry. And "perhaps" the "fewer editors" policy of the New York Times Company is responsible for the lack of subject-verb agreement between the plural "interests" and the singular "is."
The number of local news articles appearing in a week's New York Times declined to 48 in 2017 from 102 in 2009 and 153 in 2001. The number of Times reporters covering New York has likewise declined, to about 42 now from 85 in 2001, the Daily Beast reports.
A New York Times article about the ride-sharing company Uber reports:
This is hypocritical, because the New York Times print edition is itself delivered by "independent contractors" and is full of articles written by freelance writers and images by freelance artists and photographers who are also "independent contractors." It's also inaccurate and alarmist.
From the New York Times Book Review on Sunday, March 12, under the headline, "The Troubling Appeal of Education at For-Profit Schools":
It's amazing how the Times manages to attack the for-profit colleges for enrolling students who are "disproportionately nonwhite and female." If the opposite were the case, and the students were disproportionately white and male, the Times would probably attack the colleges for racism, sexism, and exclusivity. For the colleges, it's a no-win situation; they get attacked for any deviation from the demographic norms, in any direction.
The Times arts section features a column with this note:
Well, yes, copies of books that are out of print are indeed "available from various online retailers." But they also may be available at your local library, or your local physical, in-real-life used book store. Why the Times is editorially pushing the "online retailer" option over the other two is a mystery.
From the lead, front-page news article in today's Times:
"A lack of international crises requiring immediate attention"?
From a news article on page A3 of the same newspaper, same day, under the headline "U.S. Forces Play Crucial Role Against ISIS in Mosul":
A Times interview with Lena Dunham and Michael Ryss about the latest episode of the HBO program "Girls" includes this rendering of a question by Times reporter Amanda Hess:
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."
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2017 FutureOfCapitalism LLC