Roger L. Simon: How to read the propagandistic drivel at the New York Times

Long ago in a universe far away, the New York Times published the news. Now they publish "think pieces", which are basically filler with an ideological tinge or should I call it frisson? You can usually recognize this pabulum from a pretty far distance--it almost always prominently placed on the front page--and has a title like today's "Obama's promise of a new majority, and the question it prompts". These articles are almost always several hundred or more words long with many "experts" marshaled for their opinions. Reading them can be time-consuming. What to do?

The RogerLSimon.com tip of the day - skip to end! The whole point of the piece is in the last three paragraphs or so - neatly buttoned up in New York Times speak in the last sentence. For the latest article:

So far, Republicans give every indication of planning to portray Obama as a big-government liberal out of touch with American values and unprepared to be commander in chief.

But Democrats supporting Obama argue that the voters have moved beyond those ideological attacks.

So there you have it - all tied up at the end lest you be confused. Why bother to read anything else?

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

This is good advice. In fact, it holds for just about any American newspaper as they all have, more and more in recent years, been trying to mimic the narrative style (not to mention attitude) of the NYT. But just to be sure you don't miss anything, you should also read the first two (sometimes three) paragraphs. What a time saver.

"But Democrats supporting Obama argue that the voters have moved beyond those ideological attacks."

Ideological attacks? It is definitely not unfair to describe "Barry" Obama as a big government left-winger. He clearly supports very activist public policies. There is also little evidence to suggest that Obama is ready to be our country's commander-in-chief. Obama's campaign is tacitly premised upon the guilt of white liberals (and even a few conservatives) seeking redemption for our past failings concerning racial inequality. I concede that my comments appear to be quite harsh. Nonetheless, they are carefully worded and stated only after thorough deliberation.

God help us if the NYT ever does the thinking for any significant percentage of the American public.

I've got an even better plan: skip to the last three or four grafs, and then skip them too.

The MSM it's not informing people, it's up to us to do it. the blogs, alt media.

If the public really has moved away from caring about ideology, experience and competence, then there's a word for that. Demagoguery.

Is the NYT openly endorsing a cult of personality as the way we select our leaders? If so, then why do we need newspapers at all? Or are they trying to assume an intercessional role between the common man and his holiness Obama/Gore/Spitzer/etc.

I think this attitude is rooted in ideology. When you view government as one institution among many, potentially very dangerous but ultimately just a bureaucracy, you want competent, sane, boring executives to run it. When you see it as anything and everything, the solution to not just political problems but our flawed human-ness itself, then you need transformational, messianic types driven by Destiny. I'm not just talking Obama: Gore's "secular sainthood", Kerry tried feebly to get this vibe going for himself, Clinton was the "man from Hope." Etc etc etc.

If you adopt Roger's solution you will miss seeing the Times editorial policy shaping the message for its left-liberal readership. The only other way to gain this understanding is to actually read its editorial pages, an extra mile few are willing to travel.

Roger would have you miss seeing how the Times lefty editorial policy shapes the content of the news pages. The only other way to see what its editors are thinking is to actually read the editorial pages, an extra mile few are willing to travel. In the coming weeks and months, expect to see the newly moderate Obama moving to the centrist position where he will claim he's always been in his heart. The Times will offer many explainers attesting to this.

Why don't they just go ahead and put 'Pravda' on the masthead? If Obama goes fly-fishing with his shirt off this summer the 'paper of record' might never recover.

Meanwhile the AP, al-Reuters, and their comrades at the NYT are celebrating "another grim milestone" this morning. They are absolutely giddy. This weekend on Fox's media round table show there was a gentlemen from Mother Jones magazine who was insisting that little to no progress had been made in Iraq because "journalists" just couldn't leave the Green Zone -- the gist being: how improved can things really be if the delicate geniuses of the MSM can't get out to report it? I watched with building rage as Rich Lowry sat silently next to the guy, in disbelief that he didn't mention Michael Yon, Micheal J. Totten, and others who DO report from all over the region. Rich is a good guy and a better writer who may have just been having an off day, but that kind of nonsense should be smacked down the moment it leaves a progressive's pie-hole. One wonders if they would change their tune if New York City were ever attacked...Oh, wait, that's right...They only know one song, don't they?

"I watched with building rage as Rich Lowry sat silently next to the guy, in disbelief that he didn't mention Michael Yon, Micheal J. Totten, and others who DO report from all over the region. Rich is a good guy and a better writer who may have just been having an off day, but that kind of nonsense should be smacked down the moment it leaves a progressive's pie-hole."

Indeed, Lightnin', but as I imagine you might agree, Fox News (and to an extent even NRO) are very much old media. They have a vested interest in ignoring Totten and Yon. There is another form of class struggle going on.

"They have a vested interest in ignoring Totten and Yon. There is another form of class struggle going on."

That is true, Roger. This was on a cable talk show on a highly-rated cable network where, even though Fox is, shall we say, 'hipper' than the others, bloggers are still seen as less-than-authoritative sources for news. A maddeningly upside-down attitude considering these men (and women) are literally right on top of the story.

"They have a vested interest in ignoring Totten and Yon. There is another form of class struggle going on."

"So far, Republicans give every indication of planning to portray Obama as a big-government liberal out of touch with American values and unprepared to be commander in chief."

"Republicans will lie about Obama in keeping with their lying, racist tradition."

Never mind that Obama really *is* a big-government liberal out of touch with American values, and he really *is* unprepared to be C-in-C.

Anyway, I can go Roger one time-saving step further: Completely ignore the NYT. There is wisdom, truth, and insight in the world...but not in the New York Times.

"But Democrats supporting Obama argue that the voters have moved beyond those ideological attacks."

But of course isn't that exactly what politics is? It seems to me it's two sides with different ideologies trying to push the wisdom of their ideas and discredit the wisdom of their opponents ideas. What do you want to replace that with? Personal attacks, ad hominem attacks, fights over pie recipes?

If politics isn't about ideology, what is it about? If everybody agreed with everybody else all the time about exactly what to do about everything politics wouldn't exist. Short of that, expect there to be ideological battles. The system wouldn't work if there weren't.

Re: The double post snafus. If you're double-posting because the web-page seems to hang up for a minute or so after submitting your first post, so that you post again thinking that the first one didn't get through, keep this in mind: once you click on "Post", the message goes to the server like lightning, real quick. The hanging up that you're seeing occurs after your message has already been received and posted. It is only the acknowledgement that is slow. This is what I have found out to be true in my own case. In fact, this is a situation that is endemic throughout the internet (well, on one other blog that I post on, anyway).

And to test this out to make sure, right after I post this I'm going to shut down my browser (hopefully before the acknowledgement appears, which shouldn't be hard). If this message shows up as posted (and it must have because you couldn't be reading it otherwise), then all you have to do, if this situation applies to you, is to not fret about the slow acknowledgement after you post a comment. You can assume it was posted.

Yep, shut down the browser before the acknowledgment, and my above comment was still posted. Hopefully, this will help people to eliminate the double posting. When you click "Post", assume it is posted.

Roger, I suspect that the lenghty time it takes for an acknowledgement of a post to be received (and this is typical), and the subsequent appearance of a web page hangup, is responsible for people double posting, thinking that the first one didn't get through. This might be something to put into a FAQ for the site.

Godzilla is correct. In the early days I had several double posts when the Submit actually timed out.

When I went back in, the post was there. So the rule is HIT POST ONCE anything after that doesn't apply.

March 23, 2008: How to read the propagandistic drivel at the New York Times

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post