Comments on: Encounter bids The New York Times farewell

By: John Ettorre

John Ettorre — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:38 +0000

I’ve found all this quite enlightening, even the comments with more bile quotient than intelligence. No time to comment today, but perhaps tomorrow. Meanwhile, do please continue to chat among yourselves, will you?

By: Arthur Glass

Arthur Glass — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:22:32 +0000

‘They vomit their bile and call it a newspaper’ Also Sprach Friedrich Nietzsche.

Richard Weaver used tha aphorism as epigraph to the chapter ‘The Great Stereopticon’ in __Ideas Have Consequences__

By: tom65

tom65 — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:55:31 +0000

Roger’s bold move to break away from the tyranny of a publication that’s simply not that into him has encouraged me to make a similar move:

I will no longer attempt to date Anne Hathaway. She never returned my calls anyway. Bitch.

By: Pat

Pat — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:24:39 +0000

Chica, you're embarrassing yourself. Perhaps you should have actually read Roger Kimball's announcement before commenting. He points out that numerous books published by Encounter have appeared on the NYT's bestseller list, so your sneers about a "vanity publishing house" and "wingnut welfare system" just draw attention to your ignorance. Please explain to us why it makes sense for the NYT to refuse to review bestselling books. You might want to read Roger's examples of the trivial and worthless books the NYT has chosen to review. Of course, that will require you to first (1) learn the actual facts and (2) think. Based on your comment, I'm not sure you're up to the job.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:20:29 +0000

Mr Ettorre

The WSJ does NOT keep it’s content behind a “paid wall” as you claim. Please get your facts straight. Their website is free.

They’re doing better financially because they are much less biased.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:49:15 +0000

“Its plummeting circulation and ad revenues are objective correlatives of its loss of influence. Fewer and fewer people get their news from The New York Times…”

Look, I’m on your side politically, and I have no great love for the New York Times. But it’s a bit of a stretch to say that it has lost influence simply because its print sales (and corresponding ad revenues) are down.

The thing called New York Times isn’t made out of paper. It’s a media organization. And its medium is now the web, which has provided it MORE readers than ever in its history. Not “fewer and fewer.” It just haven’t yet figured how to make tons of money from that. But that’s a monetization problem, not a journalism or publicity problem.

For better or worse (worse, in my opinion), the New York Times has more reach and impact than ever.

By: chica

chica — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:21:27 +0000

geeeze….I do not inspect all the crap my infant leaves in his diaper, why should the NYTimes review everything your vanity publishing house leaves on its doorstep?

Just because you believe that your wingnut welfare system should bring you benefits in the real world doesn’t mean your ideas are correct, interesting or relevant.

By: Avital Pilpel

Avital Pilpel — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:49:05 +0000

>>>>>maximizing the last dollar of revenue, however it’s accomplished, is not the major goal for this company.

“Dad, I *Could* have gotten an ‘A’ instead of a ‘C’ if I *wanted* to, but you should have known that maximzing grades, however accomplished, is not a major goal of mine as a student”.

By: Swede Wellington

Swede Wellington — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:54:18 +0000

The Times will keep on churning out deluded elitist dogma from their gleaming cloister right up until the time the walls crumble down, just like Pravda. They may see hope in a liberal revival under an Obama administration, but 40 years of leftist propaganda masquerading as public education has dumbed down potential readership such that there won’t be enough Democrats left who can read. The Times will die with the boomers. Good riddance, foul lady.

By: josil

josil — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:47:11 +0000

If you think NYT book reviews are biased leftward, you should see what passes for book reviews in the Los Angeles Times or the San Diego Union-Tribune. Almost any review of a remotely political book in those papers is so tendentious as to be worthless. I don’t mind the bias so much as the blatant and shallow leftwing posturing.