William Kristol, MoDo, Thom Friedman -- WTF is wrong with the NY Times?

[Cyrano]

"The paper of record." "The Grey Lady." "All The News That's Fit To Print."

How the mighty have fallen. Like any true political (and crossword puzzle) freak, I spent uncountable mornings awaiting the delivery of the NY Times. I was like a kid waiting to hear the bells of an ice cream truck.

I finally canceled my subscription when they hired Kristol. Why I waited so long is beyond me. Friedman has spent the last six years on some unknown planet and MoDo has spent the last eight years writing whatever it took to stay on the A list of the Washington cocktail circuit.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how one of the best newspapers on the planet has sunk so low. I still read Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich, but I read them online. I refuse to pay one cent toward the salaries of Kristol, MoDo, Friedman, or the profits of the media whores who currently manage the NY Times.

Life is full of disappointments. But who could possibly have believed that the NY Times would become one of the highest profile sellouts of all?

[kentuck]

1. You cannot write what you do not know...

The culture of secrecy and deception has caught the NYTimes also - one of the biggest fish in the pond.

[Cyrano]

3. It's a newspaper's job to tunnel through the secrecy and expose the deception.

The NY Times has failed miserably on this mission. Moreover, I don't believe their failure was due to lack of diligence.

Before BushCheney lied us into the quagmire of Iraq, many of millions knew the truth of the situation, as reported by the U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraq aside, every issue this administration has lied about, which is just about every issue there is, was bought, printed and backed up by with the reputation of the NY Times. They had to be aware of the bullshit they were printing.

Very few are ignorant enough to believe what is printed in tabloids. The NY Times has turned itself into a tabloid. How can anyone ever again trust anything they print?

[Cant trust em]

2. Because they're "liberal" media

Ridiculous.

[defendandprotect]

4. I was reading it from the time I was 18 . . .

but if you reflect back on how long they have been allied with the oil industry/Exxon-Mobil on their Op-Ed pages, we might both rethink our youthful esteem for them?

I, too, cancelled my subscription when they took on Kristol --- and should have done it earlier.

How did we get thru the Miller crap -- the Watergate crap -- what was the name of that guy?
Wen Ho Lee-gate -- ?
We might look back to MOCKINGBIRD which seems to clearly continue on at the NY Times ---

Certainly they were part of the stonewalling surrounding the non-investigation of the coup on JFK ---
and have helped keep the lid on. Same with 9/11 ---

With the internet, we have come to understand that it's not just us ---
it keeps our heads screwed on straight ---

Too much, however, has been let go unchallenged --- and here we are on the threshold of fascism.

As someone makes clear below, the idea that they were ever a "liberal" newspaper is "ridiculous --

They have always been part of the "Establishment" which itself is a conspiracy ---
I would have to say the continuing relationship with ExxonMobil to deceive Americans about
Global Warming -- to not challenge private families controlling our natural resources --
to not have been calling for ELECTRIC CARS --- and the involvement with reporters who seem
without doubt to be doing MOCKINGBIRD hit pieces -- all point in only one direction.

[Postman]

5. Wouldn't it be easier to ask "What's right with the NYT"?

All the news that's fit to print.....

which tells me there is news you're not worthy of reading about.....or that they're not going to print it because you might be informed..

[truedelphi]

6. Take some of the money that you've saved and purchase the rather cheap book

"Toxic Sludge Is Good For You."

Long, long before Bush took office, the Big Pharama, RW Big Oil, Big Banking, Big Hospitals etc sat down and figured out what it would take to get a favorable spin in the news.

And "Toxic SLudge Is Good for You" details the embedding of the military-industrial entities into the Press. Especially the involvement in the early 1990's. The New York Times was on the A-list of publications that Corporate America needed in order for their game plan to take hold.

I remember in the late seventies wondering how it was that "Time" magazine could run 90 second commercials every ten minutes, offer a free digital radio alarm clock, and an under fifteen dollar subscription. No other magazine seemed able to afford such an amount of TV time.

I came to the conclusion that "Time" was part of the Black Op budget. Then when Reagan ran for President, these "Time" commercials always carried portraits of him looking Presidential while the portrait of Jimmy Carter showed him in the canoe trying to knock out the crazed rabbit.

I immediately felt my suspicions were confirmed.

[notesdev]

7. Kristol was an abominable choice

If they needed a 'right-wing' columnist, they could at least have chosen a reasonable and articulate one, like Thomas Sowell.

[Cyrano]

9. I occasionally read Kristol's NY Times column online.

Why any rational person would credit him with being above the level of a Limbaugh or a Coulter is beyond me.

The difference between them can be measured only in the prestige of where their rantings are printed. How dare the NY Times print Kristol's poisonous propaganda? How dare the NY Times still pretends to be a respectable source of information?

[Blue_Tires]

8. it was an overreaction

back in the mid-late 90s, too many people in media management were starting to buy into that "liberal bias" meme, and when faux news became a popular alternative, they began to swing WAY over to the right (see: CNN)

[Initech]

10. They must be trying to shed their "libr'l media image"

You know - the liberal media that does not exist!!!

[Cyrano]

12. I mourn for the NY Times that used to exist.

There was a time when they were among the best of the best.

I doubt if their management would admit to having sold out. But any long-time Times reader knows that that's exactly what they've done.

Why? Beats me. But as much as I'd like to know the answer, it will be many moons (and a change of management/philosophy) before I ever again believe "news" printed in the Times. They've disgraced their masthead, "All The News That's Fit To Print."

[notfullofit]

14. They want

to prove they too are "fair and balanced".

[housewolf]

11. The culture of greed & corruption that's ruined all of our formerly-fine institutions

bottom line... Wall Street. The market has no morals. It's quest for short-term high profits has ruined nearly everything that was fine and good.

[Cyrano]

13. Great point. As has been pointed out time and again,

Wall Street and Main Street are separate planets.

There are still fools who read stock closing prices every day as though that had anything to do with the health of our economy, the nature of our daily lives, or the well being of average Americans.

Wall Street gets bailed out of fiscal problems. We don't. Wall Streeters get to cruise the world in liner-like yachts and private jets. We don't. Wall Street has the ear of those who make (and break) the rules. We don't. Wall Streeters get to complain about the economy in their multi-million dollar dwellings. We get to complain in the house on which it is difficult or impossible to pay the mortgage.

Is anyone really ignorant enough to believe that the well being of those on Wall Street have anything to do with their own personal lives?

[DCKit]

15. I'm with you like you wouldn't believe.

No more WAPO or NYT for years now and I never read the Mooney rag.

I get my (real) news HERE. But I have to ask, are there any real newspapers left?

[applegrove]

16. I still think they hired Kristol so that they would be free to report "realist" news

all the while claiming they were "balanced". That is my hope.

[JackRiddler]

17. When was the Times not the Organ of the Eastern Establishment?

And the mouthpiece to power?

Just because they play much better at being a real crusadin' newspaper, doesn't mean it is so.