If there’s one thing I loathe in most American political discourse, it’s the sports page mentality dividing right and left. Everyone must be either for the Lakers or Celtics do or die – an analogy that dates me, I’m afraid – when in the political realm – most of us are simply basketball fans. We just want things to go well.
Mainstream media – probably because of its finanical disarray – more than ever seems to have a vested interest in this dichotomy. “Our team is red hot; your team is diddly-squat,” as I said on another occasion. It’s all a form of short hand, but it is dim-witted short hand.
Howard Kurtz – generally a thoughtful sort – engages in it today by seeing the New York Times controversy in terms of deeply old fashioned political alignments, when the true progessive (not the fuddy-duddy progressive of the mainstream media) wants to see those alignments smashed and consigned to the dustbin. What people like Kurtz can’t seem to grasp – don’t want to grasp, I think – is that there are many people who may be far to the left of him (excuse the use of the fusty term) on many issues and far to the right of him (again excuse the rubric) on others.
Which leads me to the New York Times. I don’t regard it as a left-wing newspaper or even, in any significant way, particularly liberal. I regard it as outright stodgy, rarely able to see outside the box of the “Zabar’s Zeitgeist.” That “zeitgeist” is essentially a culture of self-interest which creates a progressive veneer to preserve itself, making it, in some sense, if you think about it, ultra-conservative – a preservationist cult. In another way, it can be seen as an “as if” culture, erecting an alternative self for the public in order to enhance its primary interests – financial gain and power (not doing well on either of these at the moment). In this way, the NYT is not unlike other many other social and political institutions in all countries, which are in fact the mirrors of themselves.
This not to say, however, that the NYT is on the way out. Those of us working in the world of new media have a long way to go to seriously compete with its power – a very long way to go. Don’t look for the NYT to immolate soon. And I will continue to read it, teeth-ganshing though the experience may be, as long as it continues to publish journalism on the level of the Chris Caldwell article mentioned below.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
9 Comments
1. David:The real problem Roger is “left” and “right”. That only really worked during the French Revolution. We have dozens of issues to “cherry pick” for ourselves that even conservative and liberal no longer makes sense. I no longer read the NYT not because I disagree, but because it has lost its way. A newspaper that asks for a program on one hand while it exposes that program (and destroys it) on the other hand has no rudder. Perhaps Chris Caldwell should blog so we can ignore the Times completely.
Jun 28, 2006 - 9:37 am 2. Marty:As for the Laker/Celtics reference dating you, I suppose it depends on whether you are talking Bird/Magic, or Russell/West.
Jun 28, 2006 - 11:06 am 3. dougf:“And I will continue to read it, teeth-ganshing though the experience may be, as long as it continues to publish journalism on the level of the Chris Caldwell article mentioned below.”–Roger S.
If You Are Not Part Of The Solution You Are Part Of The Problem.– Blast From Our Past.
Anything that contributes to the ‘health’ of the NYT is by your definition, anti-’progressive’. For this one time only, that old 60ties slogun is actually applicable. Unless you can read the output for nothing, it is ‘reactionary’ to read the Times.
Jun 28, 2006 - 11:33 am 4. Kevin Peters:Roger:
Howie, Timmy R, Chris Matthews and all the rest are rallying around their buds and making the NYT into the victims of the horrible “sustained public campaign” by the big bad White House. What self absorbed twits. President Bush and VP Cheney respond like a large portion of the citizens of this country, there pissed and outraged, and this is turned into the press defenders as a Mounted campaign, as if it is a P.R. war campaign. Those arrogant fools step in it and then get touchy about criticism. “ooh, we give Al Queda the gameplan for our security agencies sources and methods for financial tracking and people are mad at us, thats not fair.” I wish the White House had mounted a campaign rather then a press conference comment from the President and a few lines in a speech by the V.P. I wish there was T.V. ads thanking Mr. Keller for exposing the Banks and institutions that are helping us to potential attacks on their Banks and there homes. I wish they would mount a campaign that pointed out how responsible leaders from both sides of the political fence told the self appointed mandarins of the NYT, LAT, and the WSJ that they were making a huge mistake and ruining a program that was both legal and had been working just for the sake of a scoop and a pulitzer.
And the reason that the natural reaction of the public, not some manufactured response from a good P.R. campaign, was so strong was because of the pathetic defense that these jerks made in justfiying why they had no choice to publish. They ask for press shields and for legal protection of there sources and methods and at the same time try to say that our spy services don’t need legal protection for the programs that save lives, here and abroad. Maximum openess for spy agencies, maximum secrecy for the press. Unamed press sources leaking security secrets-sacred, classified government security programs- trust us, we know better as to what should be secret and what should be exposed. Oh, breaking news, the Belgiums are now considering backing out of the program now that Keller spilled the Beans. Now the terrorists can go back to the fast, efficient ways to transfer money. Praise Allah for Mr. Keller and Bancquet.
Jun 28, 2006 - 12:09 pm 5. MarkD:I disagree with your position that the NYT is not on the way out. A near 50% decline in the stock over 30 months means that they are doing something wrong.
I have a son-in-law in Iraq now, and this is personal. I’m going to help Pinch out by contacting his advertisers directly to let them know how much I appreciate the NYT helping our enemies and how I am not exactly inclined to spend money with people who are trying to help those who would kill my family.
Maybe some pressure on the advertisers will drive the NYT stock down a little faster. It beats simply waiting for the government to put the squeeze on them.
Jun 28, 2006 - 1:20 pm 6. Orson2:Roger-
You regard The Times “as outright stodgy, rarely able to see outside the box of the ‘Zabar’s Zeitgeist.’”
Have a look at this feature profile of Ann Coulter.
Contrary to your pressumptions, she is similarly icon smashing, a think outside-the-box breath of fresh air – a point I made on your post asking about her a week or two ago.
The left priviledges “feelings” and “other regard” above straightforward common sense. This enrages the left but also befuddles standard bearers on the right. In other words, exactly what The Times utterly lacks.
Jun 28, 2006 - 3:10 pm 7. onecent:“Maybe some pressure on the advertisers will drive the NYT stock down a little faster.”
I wish, if their core advertisers were Walmart, GM, Kraft, Walgreens, etc, companies with ties to middle America it could happen, but the NYT’s lives off of Fendi, Tiffany’s, Gucci, etc ads, the consumer goods of the well to do lefty elitists.
And, David, the NYT’s losing it’s way isn’t a new thing. It was on the wrong side of history with Duranty’s slavish praises of Stalin a long time ago.
The owners are a sick, mentally decadent and arrogant family. They are just as privy to the stock’s 50% haircut since 9/11, but would rather go for broke.
MarkD – my prayers for your son-in-law. I thank him for his sense of duty and sacrifice.
Jun 28, 2006 - 6:42 pm 8. Knucklehead:Roger,
While I have also found the sports fan like affiliation with political sides consternating, it is time to pick a side and stand on it.
This is who our family and people like us have always voted for is no longer good enough. One from A and two from B doesn’t cut it. Who one is prepared to help win because one feels losing is not an option is all that matters. I don’t care for the “right” a great deal but I will not accept victory by the “left” (as preposterous as those labels are).
Jun 28, 2006 - 6:48 pm 9. TC@LeatherPenguin:I made a similar sports analogy to the NYT situation yesterday, but in my eyes Keller picked a team.
Jun 29, 2006 - 6:54 am