Thursday, April 14, 2005

All the Dissent that's Fit to Crush

Anybody who is even moderately politically aware knows that the New York Times is essentially a wing of the Democrat Party (much as the Washington Times is WRT the Republicans). And that, thusly, they consistently turn Democrat talking points into crusades on both the news and editorial pages.

That said, they are still purportedly a vehicle for news and news analysis, as opposed to being a pure opinion journal like The Nation or National Review, which makes the interview I heard last night on one of the talking heads shows a bit unsettling. I hardly expect them to solicit any right of center viewpoints beyond the allowance of the token editorial page conservative, but if an individual is asked to write an opinion piece they should be given the courtesy of having their viewpoint make it to print, even if it’s not lockstep with the paper’s (read: Democrat Party) position.

But it turns out that dissent is not to be tolerated in the “paper of record,” as former congressman Bob Livingston (R, LA) found out the hard way. The Times approached his assistant asking, in so many words, if he would be willing to write an editorial attacking Tom DeLay and calling for his resignation. The Times was apparently looking for a Republican (beyond the usual RINO suspects) to join the dump DeLay attack machine, but it was not made clear why they thought that Livingston was their man. Presumably the two had a past.

The problem is that Livingston told them that he would be delighted to write an editorial, but that it was likely to overall be sympathetic to DeLay’s plight. At that point, in his words, he was told that was not exactly what they had in mind, don’t bother to call us and we won’t call you.

I know this is about as newsworthy as the sun rising in the east; the Times’ relentless anti-Republican bias is well documented and not even any longer controversial. What saddens me is that the nation’s flagship daily has deteriorated to the point that this kind of thing doesn’t even raise an eyebrow.

2 Comments:

At 5/03/2005 4:38 PM, Blogger JP2 said...

Was this the same New York Times that completely ran with the administrations false claims for months and months leading up to the Iraq war? The same one that has conservative columnists?

-JP2

 
At 5/04/2005 12:12 PM, Blogger Gary Collard said...

It is the same Times that ran with what was not anybody's "claims," but rather the unanimous view of every single intelligence agency in the world, yes.

And it is the same Times that has not "conservative columnists" plural, but a single token conservative columnist, as has been their policy. David Brooks was hired to fill the token conservative role to replace the departing token conservative William Safire. The token conservative is there to provide "balance" for the 7 liberal columnists: Dowd, Friedman, Herbert, Kristof, Krugman, Rich, and Tierney. And that does not count the famously left-dominated news and culture pages.

Surely you are not trying to claim that the Times is not a left-wing newspaper, are you? I would hope that nobody is that detached from reality.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home