A Times dispatch from Kansas City, Mo., about an appearance there by President Obama reports:
A full-column length Times editorial by Philip Boffey presses the case the Times has been making in favor of legalizing marijuana. It includes this passage:
Click through the link to the CDC data provided by the Times, and you will see the following disclaimer, which the Times doesn't pass along to its print readers: "Due to survey design modifications, comparison of results from before 1999 to 1999–2001 and 2002–2011 need to be made with caution."
A front-page dispatch from "Near the Israel-Gaza Border" reports:
My Webster's Second unabridged has as a definition of propaganda, "any systematic, widespread, deliberate indoctrination or plan for such indoctrination: now often used in a derogatory sense, connoting deception or distortion."
The Times runs a 1,079 word news article in the business section about hedge fund manager Kenneth Griffin filing for a divorce. The length of the article strikes me as excessive. Businessmen and other news-making individuals get divorced all the time. When Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. got separated from his wife, the Times ran a 161-word squib.
The Times headline over the Griffin article is "A Divorce That Thrusts Ken Griffin and Anne Dias Griffin Into the Spotlight," but that is disingenuous. The Times is the spotlight operator. It's not the divorce thrusting the Griffins into the spotlight, but the Times editor who decided to cover the issue at a length of 1,079 words.
A Times editorial about the war in Israel and Gaza says, "The war is terrorizing innocent people on both sides of the border, fomenting more hatred, creating an ever larger appetite for vengeance and ensuring that the cycle of violence will be repeated, if not right away then surely at some point in the future."
On the phrase "cycle of violence," The Times editorialists should read their own late columnist, William Safire.
Here he is, from March of 2002: "By denouncing Israel's defense as part of a 'cycle of violence,' Arab sympathizers treat this latest Arab aggression and Israeli defense as morally the same. But this terror war is but a battle in the same war that has been waged against Israel for 50 years."
Jeffrey Goldberg writes at the Atlantic:
Today's Times has a follow-up article to last week's investigation of a sexual assault case at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. At the Manhattan Institute's Minding the Campus blog, KC Johnson has some criticism of the Times coverage.
At the blog of the Empire Center, E.J. McMahon has a useful debunking of a Times article that claims "Wealthier New Yorkers Aren't Fleeing the City For Tax Havens." He calls that "a real stretch."
Harvard history professor Niall Ferguson calls New York Times columnist Paul Krugman a liar.
Writing in the Weekly Standard, Noah Pollak has another critique of the Times coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict. It is headlined, "All The News Hamas Sees Fit To Print."
Frustration and anger are building within the American Jewish community and the broader pro-Israel community at the New York Times coverage of the conflict in Israel and Gaza. Some examples:
A front-page news article about a potential merger between the Lorillard and Reynolds American cigarette companies reports, "Antitrust regulators in Washington are certain to scrutinize a deal that would effectively leave cigarette sales — and pricing — in the hands of a duopoly."
That's inaccurate. Cigarette pricing wouldn't be in the hands of a duopoly. It would be in the same hands it is in now — the hands of the government, which imposes a federal tax of $1.01 for a pack of 20 small cigarettes, $2.11 for a pack of 20 large cigarettes, along with state and local taxes that in New York City reach a combined $5.85 a pack. With taxes totaling $6, $7, or $8 a pack, claiming that pricing is in the hands of the cigarette companies is nonsense.
In the midst of a Times "deal professor" column by Steven Davidoff Solomon about how electronic cigarettes are supposedly inspiring the Lorillard-Reynold American merger, comes this:
A Times article quotes "Thane Rosenbaum, a law professor at Fordham University and a widely published author on legal ethics."
Mr. Rosenbaum did used to teach at Fordham, but the center he directs has moved to NYU School of Law, where Mr. Rosenbaum is now a senior fellow. If the Times is going to identify him as being associated with a law school, it might take the trouble to get the correct one.
David Brooks concludes his column with this sentence:
I challenge Mr. Brooks to cite the original source of Einstein saying this in the words that are in the quotation marks. I think it is a bogus quote. Einstein may have said similar things, but I don't think he ever wrote or said the words that Brooks quotes him as saying. If Mr. Brooks can come up with a proper citation, giving the time, place, and source for Einstein saying this, I will happily apologize, but until he does, I think he has fallen for a phony Einstein quote.
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2014 FutureOfCapitalism LLC