Sunday, January 13, 2008
The New York Times and its left-wing audience: Which is the egg?
It is not clear whether The New York Times is left-wing to cater to its readers, or whether its readers are left-wing because they like reading the Times. You know, the chicken-egg thing. What is clear is that the Times is no longer left wing enough for its audience. See, for instance, Clark Hoyt's column this morning responding to readers who "object" -- to put it delicately -- to the appointment of Bill Kristol as a regular Times columnist. Hoyt -- who is the Public Editor and apparently also charged with preventing rightward drift at the Times -- describes the emails the paper received after the announcement:
Of the nearly 700 messages I have received since Kristol’s selection was announced — more than half of them before he ever wrote a word for The Times — exactly one praised the choice.
Rosenthal’s mail has been particularly rough. “That rotten, traiterous [sic] piece of filth should be hung by the ankles from a lamp post and beaten by the mob rather than gaining a pulpit at ANY self-respecting news organization,” said one message. “You should be ashamed. Apparently you are only out for money and therefore an equally traiterous [sic] whore deserving the same treatment.”
Seven hundred to one? The men of Sparta faced easier odds at Thermopylae. That makes Kristol so unpopular among readers of the Times that one is forced to wonder why they chose him. Helpfully, Hoyt explains:
Sulzberger told me he was surprised by the vehemence of the reaction.
Oops.
Anyway, there is always comedy gold in a Hoyt column. It often involves wildly overstated claims for the brilliance of Times readers:
[William Kristol] is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation.
The email he quoted makes short work of that argument, I would say.
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jan 14, 12:35:00 AM:
The NEW YORK SLIMES its just the most left-wing news rag there is i mean its americas PRAVDA
By 
Gary Rosen, at
Mon Jan 14, 12:52:00 AM:
"americas PRAVDA"
Not fair. As someone posted elsewhere, Pravda was more pro-American.
By Unknown, at
Mon Jan 14, 09:56:00 AM:
I agree, with Bill writing there it is one step closer to "pravda" quality. He certainly brings a new meaning to "professional ethics in writing" doesn't he.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Jan 14, 10:52:00 AM:
As I recall, in Russian Pravda means Truth and Izvestia means News. The Russians used to say "There is no Truth in Pravda and no News in Izvestia". Therefore "New York Times" must translate to "Unbiased", right?
By tommo, at
Mon Jan 14, 10:54:00 AM:
I've been watching and reading Kristol lie through his little whore teeth for many years now. No reason for him to start telling any truth at this late date.
Wingers need to face the fact that Baghdad Bush's war escalation was indeed a farce. Remember Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" analogy? We've been sitting on a huge pile of broken pot shards over there for five years now. Somebody found two bits that match, and the wingnuts start screaming, "Look, we're making progress! Baghdad Bush was right all along! Hurrah!"
"To heck with the Constitution! Bush is a genius! Torture works! We're number one! USA! USA!"
Put the koolaid down and wake up.
By Thanks4theadd, at
Mon Jan 14, 11:14:00 AM:
there is nothing funnier than rightwing bloggers howling about bias in the media, it's like when a guy who got a D on his exam says the test was rigged
By antithaca, at
Mon Jan 14, 11:24:00 AM:
I dunno...I think there's going to come a time when bloggers are going to have to step up their game and stop picking such low-hanging-fruit as the NYT.
Are they for real?
By , at
Mon Jan 14, 12:06:00 PM:
kristol criticizes the left for not hailing the escalation as a success while totally ignoring the real purpose(s) of the escalation - which has not been met. ipso facto the escalation is not a success. it may be someday. which only proves that if you throw enough money and personnel at a problem you can accomplish almost anything. if the times wants to hire a commentator that leans right i don't have a problem. but kristol is such a hack...why is anyone paying any attention to this guy anymore?
By , at
Mon Jan 14, 05:37:00 PM:
I liked his first column better, the one that he wrote off Clinton as candidate.
Unfortunately for him she then won NH
Except for that it would have been great !
By , at
Mon Jan 14, 07:47:00 PM:
Do all you leftists have twisted caricatures of flag-waving neanderthals in your minds when they think of rightists, Tommo? The contemptuous arrogance that you drip simply tells me that meaningful conversation with you is impossible and I should ignore you as completely as I ignore that tin-foil hat wearing bum behind McDonald's.
If you ever expect your ideas and values to gain ground, you should stop being such a dick about them. Assholish elitism doesn't sell well.
And please accept my apologies for my reasonable manner and proper text; but I'm sure your little stereotype will survive.
