Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
As Claire prepares to dive into Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America, the newest volume from Encounter Books, I direct her attention to a comment that our own Paul Rahe posted earlier this day:
[I]t is time to give up on The New York Times. Years ago, when it became company policy to call Angela Davis a "political activist," it had already become clear that the paper should be renamed Pravda on the Hudson and that it was engaged in a disinformation campaign....The appropriate posture for its critics should not now be disappointment; it should be hilarity. Pravda on the Hudson is almost as entertaining to read as MSNBC is to watch.
Since Claire and I have discussed the matter often and at some length, I happen to know that, like me, Claire can't quite bring herself around to Paul's point of view. Even now, the New York Times--well, it matters. That's the way I still see it, anyway--and I know Claire does, too.
What I can't figure out--what I look to Claire to explain for me--is why. Is it because I grew up in upstate New York, looking yearningly to Manhattan for so many years? (Claire grew up everywhere, so that argument won't work for her.) Is it simply generational? Are Claire and I simply artifacts of a time, and a certain kind of education, in which everyone simply took it for granted that the New York Times was the most important journalistic outlook in the country? Are those days gone? Do kids on Ivy campuses simply shrug at the thought of the Times and reach for the Wall Street Journal instead? (At Dartmouth three decades ago, a bunch of undergraduates would go in together on a subscription, then pass the Times around each day. It was a precious object--not an object of devotion, exactly, but important. Here at Stanford the other evening, I happened to pass a newstand on which the Times is given away each day for free. It was still half full.) Is it that the Times is still so much of New York--and that New York, even now, remains the capital of a certain kind of intellectual and cultural life?
Claire, what is it? Why are we thus afflicted? What can't we bring ourselves to follow Paul's sensible prescription and simply laugh the New York Times to scorn?
Here in Palo Alto, I await you in Istanbul.
- Comment (59)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Kids on Ivy campuses do not read newspapers. Not even the school newspaper. They do, to some extent, keep current through blogs of the extremely snarky variety. Even at Columbia, the school that dishes out the Pulitzer and has a dorm called "Sulzberger Hall," the total footprint of the New York Times is, in my experience, approximately zero.
Edited on Nov 30, 2010 at 1:14pmAug '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
It still stands for something, apparently. It's the only newspaper you find for sale in every Starbucks, even in places like Yucca Valley, California or Cedar City, Utah. It makes me think, however, that the newfound sophistication of people willing to switch from the Farmer Bros. floor-sweepings at the local diner to a chai latte at Starbucks is as much an affectation as picking up the New York Times in lieu of the Hi-Desert Star.
May '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
The reason is that Paul's prescription isn't sensible. The New York Times is the best newspaper in the US, despite its liberal sensibility, occasional missteps about what to publish, and "every once in a while" unfair stories. Conservatives who desire that it simply be laughed at are evaluating it merely as a political entity. For them, journalism is merely another factor in the game of partisan politics and ideological battle.
Those of us who value the NY Times, despite disagreeing with it politically, understand that there is more to civic life than politics and ideology. We value an organization that pays to keep talented reporters gathering information in foreign capitals, that publishes one of the few remaining book reviews, that has the institutional heft to act as a partial check on the power of government and a sometimes sharp critic of its shortcomings. Etc.
Any conservative with an appreciation for established institutions and their value would to well to help improve the Times rather than trying to laugh it out of existence.
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
We interrupt this thread to announce that Bill McGowan, author of Gray Lady Down will be our guest on the podcast tomorrow. Please feel free to submit your questions for him or suggested topics for the panel here.
Nov '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
For all practical purposes, The New York Times died in 2002 when it allied itself with Martha Burk and her quixotic campaign against Augusta National Golf Club. The thing was a complete farce, a total non-issue, and the NYT covered it ad nauseum, often to the exclusion of weightier stories. They squandered every chip of credibility they had and got exactly nothing in return.
Peter, I had a different upbringing than you and Claire. I come from the Heartland. For me, The New York Times is nothing but a filthy, biased left-wing rag, unfit even for wrapping fish. More to the point, it is irrelevant — a dead dinosaur, still lumbering about, looking for a place to drop and rot. If their offices closed tomorrow, I sincerely doubt that it would have any meaningful impact on our lives. In a week, it would be forgotten — a crumbling curio in the storage bin of History.
In short, your nostalgia and sentimentality is downright incomprehensible.
May '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Lady Kurobara: For all practical purposes, The New York Times died in 2002 when it allied itself with Martha Burk and her quixotic campaign against Augusta National Golf Club. The thing was a complete farce, a total non-issue, and the NYT covered it ad nauseum, often to the exclusion of weightier stories.
They squandered every chip of credibility they had and got exactly nothing in return.
I too thought the Times coverage of Augusta was excessive. So, for that matter, did a lot of Times employees. But step back from your argument for a moment.
The New York Times employs thousands of people. Everyday it produces hundreds of pages of journalism, reported from all the world's continents. Each week it produces a glossy magazine, a book review, and much else. And yet for you, the fact that in 2002 under a different editor the NY Times produced a couple dozen stories about women being barred from membership at Augusta makes you dismiss the organization entirely.
That is a flawed, indefensible method of evaluating the institution, so much so that I suspect you don't read the Times. A good place to start is here.
Nov '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor Friedersdorf
The New York Times is the best newspaper in the US, despite its liberal sensibility, occasional missteps about what to publish, and "every once in a while" unfair stories.
(1) "liberal sensibility"
(2) "occasional missteps about what to publish"
(3) "'every once in a while' unfair stories"
That adds up to three strikes for me. You really made the case, Conor.
Oct '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
As literature, the New York Times is unsurpassed in its quality and scope. As a source for news, The Wall Street Journal blows it away (yes, I have an MBA). I won’t go into the long list of omitted stories (Black Panthers voting rights case) or false accusations (McCain marriage infidelity). True confessions: I do like the NYT Sunday magazine.
Lady Kurobara stole my thunder. I stopped reading it during the Martha Burke / Augusta National trumped up story concerning female membership to the prestigious golf club. Then their pompous support of the Duke Lacrosse rape case travesty reaffirmed my decision.
Today, The New York Times has become a parody of even “the stuff white people like”
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/31/45-the-sunday-new-york-times/
“They then proceed to read each section of the paper, stopping periodically to tell their partner about the interesting news they have just seen. “Looks like another civil war might break out in Africa,” “did you see that the Met is doing Tristan and Isolde?”
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Peter Robinson: As Claire prepares to dive into Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America, the newest volume from Encounter Books, I direct her attention to a comment that our own Paul Rahe posted earlier this day:
Since Claire and I have discussed the matter often and at some length, I happen to know that, like me, Claire can't quite bring herself around to Paul's point of view. Even now, the New York Times--well, it matters. That's the way I still see it, anyway--and I know Claire does, too.
Peter: There's no doubt that it still matters. That's the problem!
May '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Ken,
The Wall Street Journal is an excellent newspaper, and a better business newspaper than the New York Times, but the NYT still has a larger and better news gathering operation. IMHO, the Times is much better under Bill Keller than it was under Howell Raines, and since you apparently stopped reading it back during his tenure, you aren't in a position to argue otherwise.
I can't fault your distaste for the newspaper's behavior during the Duke Lacrosse Case, though the same can be said for most media outlets. Finally, I fail to see what is objectionable about covering civil wars in Africa, and denigrating that kind of coverage might help to explain why I find value in the newspaper while you dismiss it. (Also, the magazine is the best part.)
Nov '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor Friedersdorf
The New York Times employs thousands of people. Everyday it produces hundreds of pages of journalism, reported from all the world's continents. Each week it produces a glossy magazine, a book review, and much else.
Are you getting paid for this blurb? I hope so.
Ooo! A glossy magazine! Ooo! A book review! Ooo! A crossword puzzle! Who do you think you are selling this to? Some Park Avenue matron who sips ginseng tea with her pinky out, while she pretends to read The New York Times?
Conor Friedersdorf
I suspect you don't read the Times.
You think not? Well, you are absolutely right. And I will tell you why. The New York Times journalistic model is obsolete.
It is BORING.
Now you know the awful truth.
Edited on Nov 30, 2010 at 2:45pmMay '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Lady Kurobara,
Could you explain to me your seeming distaste for the concept of a book review? I think the tone of your comment helps me to make my point. You don't value the New York Times because the way you conceptualize newspapers is flawed. Rather than seeing their various functions as having some value apart from their ideological and partisan outcomes, you dismiss whole forms.
"A glossy magazine! A book review! How inherently objectionable! The kind of thing only tea drinking Park Avenue matrons would read!"
Some of us value the content of these forms despite living thousands of miles from Park Avenue.
May '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
I religiously read the Book Review, the Travel section and the Magazine every Sunday. That's it. My husband, age 54, born and raised in NYC and a dedicated conservative, reads it front to back every day. But it is far from the only news source in our home. I've gotten inspired to read new authors, considered new places to visit and exercised my brain with the crossword puzzle for years. I'd miss those things. But I have no doubt I could get the same information elsewhere.
Nov '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
I am sorry. I honestly and truly believe that, for many reasons, The New York Times is a dead horse. And while I admire your spirited defense of the poor thing, I suggest that you look a little silly, sitting in the saddle, sword in hand, shouting: "Onward, noble steed!"
The New York Times is going to die. Nothing will save it except a government bail-out, which (in case anyone forgets) would be a gross conflict of interest.
Edited on Nov 30, 2010 at 2:59pmMay '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
PJS,
This is wise. In case my posts misled anyone, let me state clearly that no one should rely on the NY Times, or any other publication or news network, exclusively.
Lady Kurobara,
If you don't read the NY Times you are in no position to comment on its quality. I suspect that criticism like yours accounts for a lot of conservative rhetoric against the newspaper -- that is to say, it's issued by non-readers because someone else in the movement told them that's what they're supposed to think. Read this and tell me it's boring.
And here's another provocation: CJ Chivers alone has produced more valuable information through his reporting than the entire Fox News cable television network. Skim through his article archive and tell me I'm wrong.
Sep '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Come on Bill, what do you really think about Morris's Reagan biography?
Nov '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor Friedersdorf
Read this and tell me it's boring.
And here's another provocation: CJ Chivers alone has produced more valuable information through his reporting than the entire Fox News cable television network. Skim through his article archive and tell me I'm wrong.
The tennis piece by David Foster Wallace is exceptionally well-written and quite entertaining. I read a couple of short pieces (about old but still reliable weapons) by C. J. Chivers and I concede that he is honestly earning his paycheck.
But you are arguing from particulars and I am arguing from generalities. I readily agree that talented individuals work at The New York Times. That does not mean that a four-star chef and a Master Sommelier will keep the Titanic afloat.
Edited on Nov 30, 2010 at 3:25pmJul '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
So.... Lady K..... What do You really think of "The Times[?]"
"'The Times' they aren't a changin'."
Come on Bill, who really is your handy-man?
May '10
Re: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Lady Kurobara,
I do not know myself whether The New York Times will stay afloat as a viable business. What I am asserting is that the publication produces vast amounts of valuable journalism. Some of it is simply exquisite writing, like the David Foster Wallace piece. More often it is important beat reporting, like what CJ Chivers does.
Or take this piece by David Segal, just published. I mention it only because I just read it, and it's great -- well reported, well written, on an important topic hat I've never read about elsewhere, valuable to consumers, etc.
Yes, it is just one more particular, but they add up to this informed generalization: every day the New York Times publishes journalism that even its conservative critics must agree is valuable if they actually read it.
I don't mean to be impolite when I say that your generalizations are uninformed -- it's just that you say yourself that you don't read the newspaper. Given that fact, how can you make generalizations about it, or be sure that the metaphors you're crafting involving chefs and sommeliers and sunken ships correspond to reality?
Reminds me of this.
Edited on Nov 30, 2010 at 3:51pmRe: Claire, Perhaps You Can Derive Some Inspiration From the Provocative Dr. Rahe
Conor Friedersdorf
Read this and tell me it's boring.
The piece you linked to is by a guest author who has been deceased for a number of years. Not exactly representative of the NYT's content these days...