NYT makes fatal error

Very bad – most retrograde step. Here are two comments, one from a man, one from a woman:

Lee_in_KY

This follows the typical, liberal/progressive pattern:  Take control over something that is successful, identify something that’s not broken, and try to fix it, enact policies in an effort to promote your personal ideology (even when all evidence suggests it will not fix anything).

Fail.

Slink out the back door and let some other liberal “fix” the problem.  NPR, Air America, Newsweek, The Print Media, Healthcare, the economy, the unemployment rate… I could go on forever with examples of liberal failures.

Camellia

“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,” she said. “If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”  With an attitude like that, nothing good can come out of the Times in the future.

The NYT admits she has not come up through the ranks but has been parachuted in- she hasn’t learned on the ground, hasn’t paid her dues, doesn’t know journalism through and through and is only in the role through Affirmative Action.

He served as bureau chief in various parts of the world and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize at one stage.  She was a reporter, edited a small journal, became a deputy-editor at the WSJ, then Washington bureau chief.  Yet the paper went down and has lost much respect during his eight years.

In her current role, she has a co-director alongside her.  This is acceleration with training wheels and yet another attempt to place women of a certain ilk in top positions, with a view to all top positions being held by this type.  As she now goes into the top job, an experienced man is moved in under her to make sure she doesn’t go astray – still the training wheels are on.

The aim is to halt the slide, essentially by moving it into the new technologies but actually it’s rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic because of the political bias and the choking of the paper with left-liberals.  Her treatment of the ACORN scandal was quite indicative:

[T]he problem at the Times is not liberal bias [according to]  Abramson [who] admits the paper was “slow off the mark” [with the ACORN scandal] but said it was because of “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio” – not bias.

That’s the gobbledegook which marks her as a left-liberal non-comp ideologue.  Other reactions:

# “Jill Abramson is one of the worst lib hacks ever to push a noun against a verb and yet still enjoys a reputation as a serious journalist. The release fails to tout her hatchet job done on Justice Thomas. “

#  Even aside from her Leftist tilt, there’s something about Jill Abramson that affects me like nails scraping a blackboard. I just can’t stand the woman. Yuck!

# “Wasn’t Ms. Abramson involved with getting the private background info on Linda Tripp…from the Pentagon…and then leaking it to the press…from Ken the bowtie guy?????”

Everyone knows, deep down, that the whole thing is wrong.  He, at least, knew his journalism.  She is a reasonable reporter who did some shady things along the way and enjoys patronage.

This is very, very bad for a once great paper.

 

2 comments for “NYT makes fatal error

  1. June 2, 2011 at 20:45

    Once the Titanic hit that iceberg, it didn’t matter much who the captain was.

  2. June 2, 2011 at 22:32

    I was just looking at the NYT take on the GOP candidates and the first thing was how jocular it all was. As it went on, it was clear they saw the GOP as the opposition and yet these were supposedly neutral journos. When one, Gail someone, started about Romney’s dog on top of his car, it was clear the NYT was not going to give a dispassioante assessment at all.

    Contrast that with the woman running Obama’s campaign. Up front, it was clear who she was and she assessed each of the GOPs, concluding that Palin had enough of the rogue factor to be a danger.

Comments are closed.