It's easy to criticize the NYT for political correctness, but if the Grey Lady's letters column is representative of what the paying subscribers actually believe, the NYT's journalists are practically Fred Reed by comparison.
By the way, that John Tierney is leaving the barricaded NYT Op-Ed page for the open-to-the-Internet Science section of the newspaper, where he'll have a column and a blog, is good news. The Science page, with Nicholas Wade as the genetics reporter, is already the paper's strongest suit, and Tierney will liven it up.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
3 comments:
I thought the NYT was just liberally biased - until they supported the Iraq invasion. Then I realized how much of a tool of the money elites they are. It is extremely instructive to look back and see what publications supported the war, and what their justifications were.
I stopped subscribing to the Economist for their support of the invasion - for the same reasons.
I don't believe the Times supported the Iraq invasion, at least not on the editorial page. (Their reporter Judith Miller was a notorious sucker for Bush administration claims, however.) The Washington Post did support the invasion.
I read the LA Times, and I think the main objective of the letters editors is to make their correspondents look as silly as possible, while allowing the edited letters to display the writers' sense of moral superiority. Unless the people who take up the pen to write the paper really think that way...
David, Irvine CA
Post a Comment