A dispatch from Pittsburgh reports that President Obama "called angrily for Iran to release Americans who are being held prisoner there."
How does the Times know whether Mr. Obama is genuinely angry or just feigning anger? I'd prefer if the Times limited itself to describing what a reporter can see or hear — a politician raising his voice, pounding the podium, clenching his jaw, uttering profanities, or getting red in the face — rather than making assumptions or drawing conclusions about the politician's underlying emotional state of mind. They are all pretty good actors or they wouldn't have gotten to that level.
And that's not even getting into the question of racial stereotypes that describing Mr. Obama as "angry" might raise.
A dispatch from Tehran reports, "The agreement will end punitive sanctions imposed on Iran by the United Nations, United States and European Union in exchange for verifiable guarantees that the Iranian nuclear program remains peaceful."
Smartertimes reader-participant-watchdog-content co-creator-community member Colin G. writes:
A Times news article asserts, "Scott Walker wants to come across as the most electable of the hard-right conservatives in the race." David Bernstein writes that in the entire history of the Times, it's used the phrase "hard left liberals" exactly once, in 1998, in reference to the New Mexico Green Party, and never with respect to Democrats.
The Times carries a breathtaking dispatch about a McDonald's in Midtown Manhattan that has been overrun by lawless and sometimes violent drug addicts. "Nobody from this McDonald's, or the corporate office, responded to requests for comment," the Times reports.
There's no indication that the Times sought comment from the office of Mayor de Blasio, who is, you know, responsible for quality of life and law enforcement in the city. Or that the paper sought comment from the police department, or from the district attorney for New York County. In fact the name of Mayor de Blasio, who has been associated in other newspapers, such as the New York Post, with a decline in the city's public order and quality of life, is nowhere to be found in the Times dispatch. It seems a strange blind spot.
It's taken 70 years, but the New York Times has finally seen the light on the matter of Yalta.
Or at least the editor of its editorial page has. That's what I gather from a post by Andrew Rosenthal at "Taking Note," the blog of the Times editorial page. As part of a long list of "most destructive foreign policy decisions," Mr. Rosenthal lists "the decision to carve up Europe with Stalin, creating the Soviet bloc, sparking a nuclear arms race and leaving entire nations in bondage to the Kremlin for a half century."
From a front-page New York Times news article about the entry into the presidential race of Governor Scott Walker, Republican of Wisconsin:
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.
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2015 FutureOfCapitalism LLC