Politico catches the New York Times keeping Senator Ted Cruz off the bestseller list despite the fact that his book has sold more copies than 18 of 20 books that will appear on the list. There are some interesting numbers in there about how many sales it takes to make it onto that list. (Interesting to authors, at least).
The Times prints an op-ed complaining about New England fishermen spending money to protect their economic interests:
"CVS Health Quits U.S. Chamber Over Stance on Smoking" is the headline over an article on the front of the business section of the New York Times. The article uncritically lauds CVS for quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after an earlier Times article faulting the chamber for defending the commercial interests overseas of member tobacco companies. From the Times article:
"Personal Health" columnist Jane Brody uses her Times platform to complain about her grandchildren (and, implicitly, their parents). In the middle of an otherwise traditionally neutral and detached account of the effects of too much "screen time" on children, she writes:
One of the things I find most grating about the Times is the way it sometimes seems totally oblivious to the possibility that some Jews might take their religious law seriously.
This occurred to me the other day on reading a Mark Bittman column that goes on and on about what a fool anyone would be to cook with anything other than butter or lard. The possibility that someone might avoid lard because it isn't kosher, or might not want to cook with butter because of kosher restrictions against mixing milk and meat, is not mentioned or considered. (A 2014 interview with Mr. Bittman reported, "Bittman says he pretty much has had nothing to do with Judaism since he graduated from high school in 1967.")
An editorial in Saturday's Times is headlined "Jeb Bush Needs Some New Economic Advice." It is an entire article devoted to attacking the dean of Columbia Business School, Glenn Hubbard, suggesting, essentially, that Mr. Bush should not listen to Mr. Hubbard.
At Bloomberg View, Megan McArdle does a fine job of debunking that recent front-page New York Times article claiming that homegrown right-wing extremists kill more Americans than Islamist jihadists do.
The Times seems to have finally found a form of regulation it doesn't like (other than those regulating marijuana or trade with Cuba). An editorial today appears to side with Mayor de Blasio in opposing state inspections of the city's homeless shelters: "Mr. de Blasio said the governor's vindictiveness had even extended earlier in the year to surprise state inspections of city homeless shelters."
"Even"! Given that the Times devoted vast space and editorial resources less than two years ago to the plight of Dasani, an 11 year old who lived in a fetid city homeless shelter in Brooklyn, the idea that the Times would now be siding with the mayor against the governor's efforts to exercise oversight in this area is astonishing.
In this day and age, there's just no excuse for publishing a news article about an appellate court decision without including a hyperlink to the opinion. Yet the Times did exactly that in an article that runs under the headline "Ruling That Apple Led E-Book Pricing Conspiracy Is Upheld." The Times reports:
A Times news article about the decision by Congress not to renew the charter of the Export-Import Bank includes the following passages:
"Is Greater Focus on the Superrich Right for the Times?" headline, "Public Editor's Journal," June 25, 2015.
"Finding the Right Fit for Flying Private," headline, Times business section, June 26, 2015 (over an article about whether chartering, a jet card, or fractional ownership is the best alternative).
"The McLaren 650S Spider Is a $280,000 Thrill Ride," headline, Times auto review, June 26, 2015.
From Times public editor Margaret Sullivan's Sunday column, about books by New York Times journalists, comes this gem from New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal: "It's tricky. Books are inherently a commercial enterprise."
That made me laugh for two reasons. First, books are not inherently a commercial enterprise. There are plenty of non-profit publishers, including Encounter Books, the Jewish Publication Society, Beacon Press, Nation Books, and just about every university press, including Harvard University Press (publishers of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century) and Yale University Press. And even at for-profit publishers, plenty of editors are motivated not only by a desire for profit but also by other desires, such as literary excellence.
My print edition of the Times carried a front page news article about the end of the hunt for two men who had escaped from a maximum security prison in upstate New York. It included this sentence: "They found shelter in empty hunting cabins, but left telltale clues of their presence that helped a vast array of agencies — from the State Police to the United States Marshals to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to state Forest Rangers — hone in on them over the last week."
That sent me to the Times archives in search of a May 25, 1980 "On Language" column by William Safire, who wrote, "The phrase 'to hone in on' is a mistake. The confusion is based on 'to home in,' or 'to home in on' ..."
According to the website Newsdiffs.org, sometime between 9:17 pm and 10:50 pm some astute Timesman or Timeswoman caught the mistake and fixed it by changing the 'n" in "hone" to an "m" in "home."
One way the Times reveals its biases is with the political labels it applies to others. One recent Times story referred to Judge Robert Bork as "an ultraconservative." Wouldn't it have been sufficient simply to describe him as conservative? Then a Times news article by David Sanger, who actually has been providing some strong and appropriately skeptical coverage of the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, referred to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as "a conservative think tank." That erroneous description was deleted in later versions of the story, according to the website newsdiffs.org, which tracks such changes. At least they didn't call the Washington Institute "ultraconservative." David Bernstein points out that the description "ultraliberal" appears rarely, if ever, in Times news copy outside quotation marks.
A Times Company press release carries a memo from the executive editor, Dean Baquet:
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2015 FutureOfCapitalism LLC