The New York Times: Still Relevant
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Jul 2, 2011 at 9:36am
It may be the paper we love to hate, but boy are we still reading it. Count how many of the items on the Main Feed in the past few days make reference to it. We're kind of like the woman who keeps telling the world what a creep her ex-boyfriend was--and he was!--but you know from the way she just won't shut up about him that she's still in love with him.
Popsicle-pink it may be, but it's still the second-best paper in America.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
Too bad the paper is going broke. It will be a glorious day when the Grey Lady finally splats on the sidewalk in front of her heavily mortgaged office tower. Can't wait?
May '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
Love your analogy. Reminds me of the guy who was asked who should pay for the first date and he said "her ex-boyfriend." "If I have to hear about him all night then he should damn well pick up the tab."
Seems clear that Ricochet needs to send the "Old Grey Lady" an invoice.
May '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
Since the primary mode by which the left skews thing is to omit facts (rather than lie), it is possible to get useful stuff out of the times; and non-political stuff too. The primary argument for not reading the NYT is supporting the left financially.
Also, Lefties do pleasure well, so anything but news is ok (except for the profit issue)
Mar '11
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
I don't think anyone disputes the relevance of the NYT. Indeed if it was not so influential no one would be complaining. Who would care if it was just some unread rag littering the streets of New York? No, it is the fact that the paper has such a role in setting the terms of political debate, an undeserved role for I certainly dispute your contention of "second best", that drives our disdain for Pravda on the Hudson.
Jul '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
It's hard to find something relevant that I've never read. I'll stick with National Review.
Jul '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
Actually, I've always thought that the heavy dependence of many conservative sites on the death moans of the old Gray Cow was and is regrettable. Her study stream of Lefty provocations appears to be far more addicting than television to content-seeking sites. The same sites implicitly, if not explicitly, give the Cow an undeserved semblance of relevance.
Given her declining subscription numbers, the day approaches when conservative pundits and site editors will be a more and more important subscriber bloc to the Cow, until she wakes up one morning to discover that she's become the Nation. Then dries up entirely.
Mar '11
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
Claire:
I agree. This is why, weeks ago, in another context, I suggested here at Ricochet that we conservatives should busy ourselves with creating an organ of news that takes the place, culturally, of the New York Times. Whether we like it or not, we cannot ignore it.
The newspaper may be dying, but the need for reporting is not. The need for information is not.
In my ideal scenario, the next source of record in the information age would be one the libs will say "but it has a conservative bias", but be unable to ignore because it is the definitive source with the best reporting.
Fox is not that outfit.
Jul '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
Honestly, I'd hate to see the Times die. Yes, I deplore its politics, but it does do great journalism.
Feb '11
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
There is actually a great deal of useful information in the Times, far more than most of it's competitors such as they are. Part of the trick is to read it like Pravda. The other part is to not rely on it as a sole source.
Oct '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
The New York Times is relevant to the same degree, and for the same reasons, that reality TV is relevant.
Dec '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
I don't agree that the Times is the second-best paper in America. Their news coverage is tainted with political bias and even plagiarism and fabrication. But as it has the reputation of "the newspaper of record," people continue to treat it as if it were still the authoritative news source it was and not the ideological propaganda it is. In the Internet age, it's possible to bypass the news bureaus of domestic US papers and get reporting from local sources around the world.
Jul '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
It is the worst piece of [edited] (propaganda) I have ever seen. I don't understand why it is so influential. Perhaps it is the will in an average person to self-destruct. The NY Times is that bad.
Edited on Jul 2, 2011 at 11:00pmJan '11
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
The New York Times reminds me of a former friend who lied easily and frequently. Eventually the effort of maintaining a conversation while thinking, "Is there any independent confirmation of what she just said? Is it plausible? Do I care?" became too great, and the friendship sank under the weight of the lies.
By an odd coincidence, I find that I'm not looking at The New York Times nearly as often as I used to...
Aug '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
Are you sure Ricochetians aren't just following links from The Drudge Report?
Aug '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
Blogging is fundamentally lazy and should give thanks to its even lazier bait. Me, I have to thank the NYT for the 1991 travel pieces it and no other paper would pay for - even when it rejected an even better 1992 piece.
For those more ambitious, and I do mean very slightly more ambitious, I suggest the New England Journal of Medicine. No longer does it cater to medical practitioners and researchers. Gone now the M.D.-Ph.D.'s, gone now the uranium-dense book reviews. Look at the June 30 issue. Well, they actually did get two M.D.'s to promote CHAMPs. Usually it's lawyers, or shills with no academic credentials whatsoever. Merely seeing the words "incentives" and "start-up funding," I knew this once-scholarly journal had become just a party organ. Oh, here's a letter about omalizumab for "Inner-City Children." Turns out the stuff's "administration is demanding in terms of time commitment." Like folks in housing projects got something better to do? Oh, and let there now be no doubt: correspondents from the "World Professional Association for Transgender Health" report no personal conflict of interest relevant to their huffy screedlet.
May '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
As I say to the guy giving away free copies and discount NYT subscriptions at the NYT booth at the street fair "I wouldn't paper train a dog on the New York Times."
If ever I look at it, it is with the same morbid curiosity that I might glance back after a particularly noxious episode of diarrhea which is about the most apt description of the scratchings of Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, et. al. I can think of offhand.
Aug '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
I am wondering from all the above kudos if this really is a conservative site??? I think the NYT is a horrible rag--totally biased and sometimes traitorous! What is the reason you think it is even relevant?
Nov '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
I skimmed over the last two main pages, and the NYT links in the articles were mostly from Claire, and one from Molly. Aside from the Khmer Rouge article which has actually been covered pretty well by lots of others (and just how significant is the denoument of a 30 year old war?), the links were to such exciting things as Americans travelling to Cuba (but frankly they've been doing it for years, via Canada), and Dan Savage (the Ann Landers of the bobo/latte-radical crowd who seem to get tittilation through reading things they would never actually do...).
In terms of immediate news, I'm happy with my subs to the WSJ, FT and Ricochet, though I don't mind free stuff from Left when I have time (WaPo, the Gruaniad, and CBC radio news...). But the best news filter I have is to ask whether the subject affects me, or whether it is something I can do something about, and whether the news is coming from a reliable source. I lost interest in the NYT in the late 60's.
Mar '11
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
I am wondering from all the above kudos if this really is a conservative site??? I think the NYT is a horrible rag--totally biased and sometimes traitorous! What is the reason you think it is even relevant?
The judgment of relevance and the judgment of bias an not entirely independent of one another (a source that is known to be wildly inaccurate won't have enough currency to be relevant), but neither are they the same thing. I don't like Karl Marx, but it is fruitless to deny he's had influence.
The NYT is a cultural apparatus, not just a news source. It drives elite opinion on certain news stories, yes, but it also contributes to the shape and form of taste and informal mores--especially the NYT Book Review, science and technology, and reviews of plays and movies and so forth.
Elite opinion and taste is important to consider in a society. Elites tend to be those with resources. They use those resources to fund charities, schools, the arts, entertainment, and companies. Their mores matter. You can dislike them, but you cannot ignore them, if you wish to have an impact in public affairs.
Nov '10
Re: The New York Times: Still Relevant
There will never be a more intriguing challenge than the Sunday NYT crossword puzzle.