|
Media Infiltrations: Obama's Social Security Fine Print  The Wall Street Journal June 25, 2008 Commodity-Prices Scapegoats The Wall Street Journal June 3, 2008
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor. Some of the sites
|
 7:00 pm EDTTuesday, July 1 |
| Unindicted co-counterconspirator-in-chief Donald Luskin will appear on CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Don will be talking about -- you guessed it -- politics, the economy, and the market. |
Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back!
Friday, July 30, 2004
NADIG ON MOORE, SIMON, NPR AND THE DEMS My old friend Dave Nadig sent in this outstanding note responding to my link to Scott Simon's critique of Michael Moore in the Wall Street Journal.I was completely unsurprised by Scott Simon's comments on Michael Moore. I know that NPR gets the hook in most libertarian/conservative circles for being flat-out DNC propaganda, but as a long time listener to one of the most liberal NPR stations on the planet -- WAMC New England -- I have to just disagree. Yes, the overall bias is unabashedly liberal. Yes, in the op-eds and opinion pieces that get aired, the bias runs liberal. But, I would also point out that I have heard many, many things on my local NPR station to balance it out -- interviews with Dick Cheney that were phenomenally Civil, critiques of the anti-war movement, and a surprising amount of sensible economic commentary via NPR's MarketPlace daily report. I would also point out that I have quite a few friends who have penned what most would call conservative op-eds for AMC and had them aired in just the same airtime as the liberal ones. Last time I checked, Fox News wasn't giving much air time to liberals -- at least, not unless it was on one of the various hateful "Jane You Ignorant Slut" kinds of crossfire shows.A larger issue, I suppose is the "public" nature of NPR, but I feel the need to point out that the government subsidy of public broadcasting in all its forms is less than 15% nationwide ($340 million), with the vast majority of the average stations budget coming from local sources. From a libertarian perspective, the subsidy should be zero -- but then again, given that the government has spent, since 2002, nearly 2 billion covering the market losses of dairy farmers, I kind of have a hard time getting too worked up about this.
Yes, the NPR folks all have their biases. In my local station's case, at least, they are admitted quite openly. But I have found NPR coverage, in general, to be more in depth, and more balanced, than most other news sources I can find on the dial.
As for Michael Moore, I was appalled to see this moron in the presidential box at the Democratic convention. Someone needs to dope-slap these guys. The New Democrats are ferociously anti-Moore, penning a great article in BluePrint titled "Michael Moore's Truth Problem" which should be required re-reading to everyone in the DNC. This big fat liar does not help their cause, any more than grabbing Rush Limbaugh and sticking him in the presidential box at the GOP convention would.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:39 AM | link
METAPHOR OF THE DAY From reader D. Scott Peterson, on my posting about Dan Okrent's column on the New York Times' liberal bias: "I was struck by the similarity between the Times' denials of liberal bias with Big Tobacco's denial of tobacco addiction. And Okrent is like a stooge scientist drumming up studies to show things aren't as bad as everyone knows they are. Like the warning label on cigarette packaging, so should the Times have one."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:34 AM | link
Thursday, July 29, 2004
FEAR OF HELL: A GROWTH FACTOR The St. Louis Fed studies the impact of religion on whether countries are rich or poor. Among the interesting ideas cited:In a paper last year, economists Robert Barro and Rachel McCleary provided evidence that church attendance and economic growth are negatively related, but a belief in hell—their measure of religious beliefs—was positively related to increased economic growth.Thanks to reader Aaron Dickey for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:42 PM | link
THE RICH GET POORER Democrats will be delighted to see that the "two Amercias" got closer together in 2000 and 2001, according to a New York Times story yesterday showing that the rich bore the brunt of post-bubble income declines. Thanks to several readers for pointing out this story.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:09 PM | link
LETTERS FROM READERS ON OKRENT I read with interest your NRO piece today ["Just Say It, Dan Okrent" 7/29/2004]. For what its worth, I was a life long Democrat and subscriber to the New York Times, but no more. Your essay today distilled for me what it is that I can no longer abide in either the Democratic Party or the Times.
If John Forbes Kerry were to say, "I am a liberal Democrat and my policies, my vision for America and the world, are different and better than that of the President, here they are, now choose." I could seriously listen to him. But there are no alternative policies, there is no there there. It has become reduced to AnyOneBut Bush.
Similarly, if the Times were to announce via Okrent or the editorial board, "Yes, this is the way we see things, this what we want you to understand and why, but here is the alternative view, now choose." I could once again read the paper of record. But the alternative view has long since vanished. No there there either.
In the former case it's a candidacy of contrast by absence of content. In the latter, it's a paper whose content is absent of contrast.
Anonymous
I too was outraged by Dan Okrent's piece on the "liberal bias" of the New York Times. It seems to me that supporting equal rights for gays is, in his opinion, liberal. I, like David Brock and Lynn Cheney, would say it's simply right. It's the moral position.
I would agree with you that the Times does lean toward Democrats, but you don't seem to recognize that Democrats themselves are the center. So if you're leaning toward the center, isn't that the same as standing straight? After all, it's the Greens and a handful of Naderites on the left and God knows the Republicans are on the right, getting further right with every borrowed day that Cheney walks the earth.
Simon Bee
I thought your observations on Dan Okrent?s unwillingness to confront political bias or coverage of government/policy were astute. The coverage of the war in Iraq, the prisoner scandal, the issues with Ambassador Wilson and his wife and similar matters have been particularly left-leaning. Those left-leaning biases go far beyond social issues or even government and policy, and really touch on the broader notion of worldview, including economics, business, religion and an assortment of other topics.
I think going as far as Okrent did took a lot of guts, but it wasn't far enough. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out.
Jayson Blair
The phenomenon of attempting to project impartiality over an inherent bias really describes a desire, by stealth, to shift the centre of the argument, as it appears to the uncommitted observer, closer to the biased side of choice. This has the effect of legitimizing what by usual, transparent means, would be identified as illegitimate.
What cannot be achieved by reason is achieved by a subtle form of lying that is difficult to detect and explain.
It is the same as Jews who use their ethnicity as an argument to rubbish Israel. To the uncommitted observer, the subtext is that "if a Jew says this, then there must be something in it". The presumption is that this Jew is (incorrectly) seen as an objective, dissenting opinion who would not injure his "own" interests by arguing the destruction of Israel. Thus the argument moves away from an existential equality and its proper centre to one of a "fair", "reasonable" and contrived "centre" where the discussion engages in an illegitimate arbitration about the existential rights of 5 million Jews.
This device is pernicious, malicious, ruthless, supremely manipulative and entirely identifies its users as miscreants devoid of any human principles of logic or decency. As with anyone who wants to argue with you about your rights to existence, you just shoot them, you don't entertain an argument over the point of your own right to exist.
John Reisner
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:43 PM | link
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
JUST SAY IT, DAN Here's my column for National Review Online today, expanding on an earlier post here.Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? Of course it is.
Dan Okrent, "public editor" for the Times, used that question as the title of his column Sunday. And that answer was the column's first sentence: "Of course it is."
But contain your enthusiasm. No, the paper's hand-picked in-house watchdog hasn't blown the whistle on the Times's liberal bias. Indeed, his column continues a great liberal tradition. When Okrent says "Of course it is," it turns out that it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
That's right -- Okrent's column superficially fesses up to the Times's liberal bias, but he trivializes the definition of "liberal" to the point where it scarcely matters. The column is exclusively concerned with the paper's treatment of so-called "social issues," what Okrent calls "the flammable stuff that ignites the right."
Among "social issues," Okrent confines his examples to the Times's use of anorexic fashion models and its tolerant stance toward gay rights. With the paper's liberal bias squeezed into such a tiny and trivial conceptual box, Okrent approvingly quotes publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who waives the whole issue of liberalism: "He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint 'urban.'"
Poof! Liberal bias all gone, redefined as "urban" bias. And who can blame the Times for that? After all, New York is an urb!
But it's not only models and gays that "excites the right." The heart of darkness on W. 43rd Street that Okrent will not explore is the bias in news coverage of the presidency, politics, the war, and the economy. If there's a word for that bias other than "liberal," it wouldn't be "urban" -- it would be "Democratic." But on these matters Okrent only says, "I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything)."
Huh? After almost eight months on the job as "public editor," it simply defies credulity that Okrent cannot easily "conclude" that the Times's coverage of "politics-and-policy issues" is liberally biased. I know it is. You know it is. Any being with the sentience of more than a thumb-tack who has ever looked at a copy of the Times knows it is.
Where do I begin? The infinitude of examples pour out of the Times's pages. How about the paper's coverage of the war in Iraq? Last year the Times declared a "quagmire" practically before the first bullet was fired. More recently, it lavished attention on every lascivious detail of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, but its front page coverage of the death of Nicholas Berg was so delicate it did not even directly state that he was beheaded.
Just last week, the Times tilted leftward for its coverage of Clinton administration security advisor Sandy Berger's theft of classified documents from the National Archives. The affair only made the front page when the story was about Democratic accusations of Bush administration leaks.
I could go on and on. But Okrent can't even get started. Every time he deals at all with the Times's liberal bias, he either cops out like he did in his most recent column, or outright lets the paper off the hook.
For instance, there was the June 17 Times headline about the 9-11 Commission, "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Truth be told, the panel only said there was no tie with respect to attacks on U.S. soil. Vice President Dick Cheney found the headline "outrageous," and he was right. But Okrent ruled that it was a mere "misstep," and not a "willful distortion."
Whom does he think he's fooling? When someone makes the same "misstep" every single day, a reasonable person concludes that it's on purpose. Just check the Times's correction page on the web every day, like I do. Hardly a day goes by when there's not a correction on the page of some factual error which, in its original presentation, was unflattering to the Bush administration.
But Okrent didn't hesitate to excoriate the Times for its stories in advance of the war that supported the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction -- the one single tiny element of the Times's Iraq coverage in which the paper agreed with the Bush administration.
It's important that Okrent step up to the plate and pronounce his judgment confirming the obvious -- that the Times is liberally biased. Okrent's judgment would be a confession, made by a Times employee on the paper's own pages.
It would be even more than a confession -- it would be an "outing." In public forums Times staffers consistently deny that the paper has a liberal bias. Thus they perpetuate a fraud designed to sway public opinion to the left by maintaining the fiction that their slanted coverage is, in fact, objective truth recorded in "the newspaper of record."
Okrent will not acknowledge that the Times has a special duty to be objective, given its reputation for authoritativeness. He pooh-poohed the notion that the Times is perceived as the newspaper of record, using the same "meaning of 'is'" trick that he used this week when ducking the question of liberal bias. He defined a "paper of record" not as one that is scrupulously objective and accurate, but one that dutifully records such quotidian trivia as "the appointment of two vice presidents at an auto parts company."
What makes Okrent so unwilling to acknowledge the Times's special position in the world, and its abuse of that position for the sake of a liberal agenda? Why can't he say "Of course it is" and mean it? I've gotten to know Okrent fairly well since he arrived at the Times in December. (I worked with him to put in place a corrections policy for the paper's columnists.) I think I have a pretty good idea of where he's coming from.
For one thing, Okrent is under tremendous personal pressure every day. He is feared and despised by his colleagues on W. 43rd Street. With any number of reporters and editors just waiting for him to screw up, Okrent spends every day in a professional minefield -- so he has to move slowly and carefully.
Also, Okrent is acutely aware of who the "public editor's" public is. It's not you -- the reader of my blog or of National Review Online. Okrent's public is the reader of the New York Times, where Okrent's columns are published. Okrent knows that Times readers must like the Times -- liberal bias and all -- or they wouldn't read it. A column that took too hard a line bashing the Times every other Sunday would lose its credibility and its readership. So Okrent has to pick his fights.
Finally, Okrent's perceptions and judgments are shaped by the correspondence he gets from readers, mostly in the form of e-mails. He tells me that complaints from conservatives are far outnumbered by laments from liberals that the Times isn't even more liberal. If the distribution of his e-mails determines the norms by which he understands what it means to be conservatively or liberally biased, then perhaps in his mind the Times isn't as far to the left as the rest of us might think.
But that's enough sympathy for the devil. Okrent may have his reasons and his rationales, but the plain fact remains that when the Times says "all the news that's fit to print," it really means "all the news that fits our liberal agenda." With this week marking one year since Bill Keller replaced Howell Raines as executive editor of the Times (after Raines was forced out in disgrace in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal), it's high time for Okrent to help restore the Times's lost honor by coming clean on the matter of liberal bias.
I say to Dan: Just do it. It's okay for the Times to have a liberal agenda. But it's not okay for the Times to pretend that it doesn't and pose as "the newspaper of record." And it's especially not okay for the "public editor" to aid and abet the pretense.
This emperor has no clothes. Say it, Dan -- and stop acting as the emperor's fig leaf.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:10 PM | link
DEFICIT $100 BILLION BETTER THAN EXPECTED Reader Mark LaRochelle points to this Reuters story, and notes that this means new highs for the Krugman Cat Altitude Index:
A mid-year White House report will tout fiscal progress with a projected U.S. budget deficit for this year of around $420 billion -- nearly $100 billion less than the forecast offered five months ago, congressional sources said Tuesday.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:26 AM | link
NOW THIS IS HARD CORE From reader John Podewils yesterday:
Just doing my lunch reading and am cracking up about the "You have not heard the last of me!" post. Krugman definitely seems like the kind of guy that won't let the small matter of death get in the way forcing his opinions on others.The main reason I write is to relate a story from my morning dog walk today. In front of the hospital here in Greenwich is a New York Times vending box. This morning my black lab Gordon walked up, sniffed it, lifted his leg and took a giant leak on it. He had never done that on this vending box before. Then I noticed that Clinton was there waving on the cover. Perfect. It was one of the proudest moments I've had with Gordie and he received much praise for it. However, I just realized that there was also a Krugman article inside, too! Now I'm not sure exactly what his motives were. Perhaps it was the combined reek of the entire contents that made it more vile today. In the future I am going to walk that route much more often and bring a digital camera. Maybe I can get a picture of him doing it with Kerry on the cover.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:42 AM | link
NPR'S SIMON ON MOORE Several readers have pointed out this excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, laying out a principled case against Michael Moore by someone whom you might have expected to be a knee-jerk supporter -- NPR's Scott Simon.
A documentary film doesn't have to be fair and balanced, to coin a phrase. But it ought to make an attempt to be accurate. It can certainly be pointed and opinionated. But it should not knowingly misrepresent the truth. Much of Michael Moore's films and books, however entertaining to his fans and enraging to his critics, seems to regard facts as mere nuisances to the story he wants to tell...In the New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote that, "Viewers may come away from Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true," and that he "uses association and innuendo to create false impressions." Try to imagine those phrases on a marquee. But that is his rave review! He lauds "Fahrenheit 9/11" for its "appeal to working-class Americans." Do we really want to believe that only innuendo, untruths, and conspiracy theories can reach working-class Americans?
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:56 AM | link
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
FACT-CHECKING KRUGMAN Jon Henke at the QandO blog does a fine job of fact-checking Paul Krugman's column yesterday. He explodes Krugman's citation of the myth of ethnic voter disenfranchisement in the 2000 Florida election, and he shows that ethnic voters don't necessarily all vote Democratic anyway.And here's reader Noel Sheppard with some more good catches:
Krugman suggests that Accenture's contract from Homeland Security is worth up to $10 billion. However, this is quite misleading. Directly from a Washington Post story on the subject:"The contract is the largest yet awarded by the 18-month-old Homeland Security agency and is widely seen as a stepping stone to other big department contracts. Officials today declined to provide the total value of the five-year contract, saying it would range from $10 million to $10 billion, depending on how much funding the program receives from Congress, the agency's policy decisions and Accenture's performance.Furthermore, why not discuss what this contract is for?"Homeland Security officials said Accenture bid $72 million to complete the first year's work, which includes helping the agency meet an ambitious Dec. 31, 2004 deadline to begin using radio-frequency technology to track foreign travelers at the 50 busiest land borders. By December 2005, all land border crossings must have the system.
"The program received $367 million for Fiscal Year 2003 and has received $340 million for Fiscal Year 2004."
"The Department of Homeland Security today awarded a contract worth up to $10 billion to Accenture LLC to oversee a massive program to track millions of foreign visitors to the United States as they cross land, air and sea borders.Certainly, one would have to agree that the goal of this program is quite an ambitious and worthwhile one in our war on terror. Unfortunately, one gets the feeling that, if Bush wins re-election, Accenture might become the next Halliburton in Democratic talking points."The project, officially called US-VISIT, is an ambitious effort to track foreign visitors using biometrics, such as digital photographs and fingerprints, to ensure they do not overstay their visas. Since the program went into effect in January, Homeland Security officials said they have used it to deny entry to suspected terrorists and arrest more than 500 wanted or suspected criminals."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:05 PM | link
AN OBSTINATE INCONSISTENCY Here's our friend Bruce Bartlett on the curious case of the New York Times' editorial position on the minimum wage. For decades they vehemently opposed it, for sound economic reasons. Now they love it. Who knows why? They've never explained it. Nuance, I guess. Thanks to reader Tex VanWinkle for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:33 PM | link
KERRY DUMPS WILSON All files have been purged, all websites have been redirected. Go to Kerry's website and search for "Joseph Wilson." Nothing there. He's been disappeared. The advisor to the Kerry campaign never existed as far as Nuance Boy is concerned. Thanks to reader Noel Sheppard for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:26 PM | link
SPINSANITY DOES KRUGMAN -- FINALLY To my knowledge this is the first time that punditry watch-dog site Spinsanity has ever dissected a Krugman column. You're late, but welcome to the party! Thanks to reader Johnny Dollar for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:20 PM | link
THE REAL AND PEERLESS DUNCAN BLACK From the Man Without Qualities blog:
The original Duncan Black was a first-rate Scottish economist - and an underappreciated genius. In fact, as noted in a prior post, that Duncan Black was not only an underappreciated genius but was also gifted at discovering and appreciating important work of other underappreciated geniuses - including that of Lewis Carroll (Charles L. Dodgson), the author of the Alice books and other fanciful works, who made foundational contributions to the mathematics of voting that are perhaps as profound as those made by anyone, ever. Completed at a time when such matters were of urgent public interest and of paramount importance to the then rapidly evolving British political system – in the throes of a radical expansion of its voting franchise and rethinking the very basis of its democracy – Carroll’s work was, of course, entirely ignored except in the few instances in which it was dismissed with utter contempt of the kind commonly found today on the Atrios website (another remarkable coincidence!). It goes without saying that those involved in political matters in Carroll’s day did not understand the significance of even the most basic mathematical structures applicable to their field. On the other hand, the Alice books did pretty well.As recounted in a marvelous book, Carroll’s profound work was rediscovered many years later by the original (one might say "real") Duncan Black , who explained and extended them with profundity. The "new" Duncan Black of course spends his time and effort in a different fashion.
Goes to show what's in a name.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:03 PM | link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:32 AM | link
JOKE OF THE DAY
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:15 AM | link
THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL Blogger James DiBenedetto stands up to Paul Krugman, who smears a family member in today's New York Times column.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:00 AM | link
NOW THIS IS WEIRD From A Small Victory:
I had this dream last night.Thanks to reader Mick Wright for the link.There were more than a few plots and it involved my husband being taken away by "the military" only to return a few days later with two black eyes, a bandaged up face, a broken leg and missing teeth. But that's not the interesting part.
Towards the end, a few of us were flying (I love flying dreams) through the night sky, trying to see who could go highest. We came across a huge mountain and glided down to a ledge where there was an enormous coffin partly covered with dirt. On the coffin was inscribed: Paul Krugman. Died 1812. I said to my flying companions: Whoa, Paul Krugman lived before! I wonder what he wrote about in 1812? At which point one of the other flyers tipped the coffin over and Mr. Krugman's corpse came tumbling out and proceeded to flip over the ledge, bounce down the mountain and land in a grassy field where it stood up, dusted itself off and proclaimed, You have not heard the last of me!
I swear to you this is what I dreamed. Be damned if I know what it means.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:52 AM | link
Monday, July 26, 2004
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:49 AM | link
Sunday, July 25, 2004
KERRY '05 This photograph from Time magazine, of John Kerry killing time building model airplanes after losing his 1972 run for congress. Just think of all the model airplanes he can build in 2005 with Teresa's money.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:58 PM | link
CIVIL HEINZ TO REPORTER: "SHOVE IT" From the Associated Press:
BOSTON -- Teresa Heinz Kerry urged her home-state delegates to the Democratic National Convention to restore a more civil tone to American politics, then minutes later told a newspaperman to "shove it."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:02 PM | link
HEY KIDS! GET YOUR FREE KERRY BOOK! Go to this website, enter your email address, and the friendly folks at the American Conservative Union will email you a copy of Who Is John Kerry? You won't like the answer, by the way. Thanks to reader Jameson Campaigne for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:31 PM | link
JOKE OF THE DAY
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:01 PM | link
BULL MARKET, BEAR MARKET, BUSH MARKET I'm quoted in this Minneapolis Star Tribune story noting the relationship this year between the performance of the stock market and the probability of George Bush's re-election.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:24 PM | link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Okrent's
column starts with a head-fake. Titled with a question -- "Is The New York
Times a Liberal Newspaper?" -- the column's first four words are "Of course it
is." But that's as truthful as it gets.
A paragraph later, Okrent totally side-steps the heart of the issue of the Times' liberal bias: its coverage of the presidency, of the war, of economic policy, and of Washington. He says,
"I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others..."
So someone who has lived day in and day out with the New York Times for the last seven months still has to watch campaign coverage before he "concludes anything"? Is the matter of the Times' liberal bias such a close call that it will take Okrent another couple months to be absolutely positively sure?
And it's only this list of "social issues" that "ignites the right"? It must be that to Okrent the definition of "the right" has nothing to do with politics -- it's all social issues. Yes, he lumps in gun control and environmental regulation among "social issues," but never mentions them again in the column. By focusing just on soft social issues, Okrent gets to redefine liberalism as little more than a matter of style. Thus, he is able to quote his boss entirely defining away the entire notion of liberal bias:
"...Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint 'urban.'"
Okrent swallows his boss's evasion hook, line and sinker and spends the rest of the column equating "liberal" with "urban" -- reducing the question of liberal bias to a triviality. You can take the Times out of New York, but you can't take New York out of the Times. La-dee-da...
But hasn't this always been Okrent's approach? It's the same thing he did in his June 27 column when he trivialized as a mere "misstep" the outrageously false and liberally biased June 17 Times headline "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." It's what he did in his April 25 column when he trivialized the Times' bias and inaccuracy by defining what it meant to be "the newspaper of record" as covering "the appointment of two vice presidents at an auto parts company; the daily docket of bankruptcy proceedings in local courts; a listing (title, author, publisher, price) of every book published that day; obituaries of 24 luminaries of very faint wattage; a roster of the 35 ships that had sailed from the Port of New York since Thursday night, another of the 35 that had arrived."
But Okrent doesn't always trivialize the Times' shortcomings. In his May 30 column he lambasted the Times for being insufficiently suspicious about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. That's right -- he was upset about the one single tiny element of the Times' coverage of the decision to go to war that overlapped with the views of the Bush administration.
Of course, while Okrent seeks to evade the tough question of "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" -- or, more precisely, to answer the question "no" by answering it "yes" in a trivializing manner -- his column actually answers the question perfectly. Okrent's column is, itself, an example of it. I officially declare the Okrent experiment a failure.
Update... Here's how bad it's gotten with Okrent. How about this howler: "... the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish..."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:50 AM | link