3 posts tagged “media watch”

I've been vacillating about my subscription to the New York Times for a while now.  The Judy/Scooty debacle, the  confirmed episodes of administration stenography rather than actual journalism, etc.  The recent hiring of William "The Bloody" Kristol was the last straw, however.  This guy was one of the architects of and a chief cheerleader for the mess we are in in Iraq and he persists in spewing his delusional rhetoric and deeply offensive views on every public venue that will have him.  Unfortunately, the NYT decided to become one of those venues.  This decision on the part of the Times is particularly strange being that Mr. Kristol has publicly suggested the paper is "irredeemable" and should be "prosecuted" because they disagree with his views--i.e. don't endorse torture or the  random suspension of Constitutional rights. Here is just a small sample of Kristol's anti-NYTimes bluster. 

Here is my email exchange with the editors regarding the cancellation of my subscription:

From me:

To Whom it May Concern:

Sadly, I felt compelled to cancel my subscription to the New York Times today based on the announcement that William Kristol will be a contributing columnist.  It has been a rocky couple of years for your readers, but this was one straw too many.  Perhaps you believe that Mr. Kristol's participation provides "balance" and you certainly have a right to that opinion.  However, Mr. Kristol has proven time and again that he has no shame in pushing dishonest positions.  In fact, the only outstanding quality Mr. Kristol possesses is his uncanny ability to get it wrong 100% of the time. Given this record, we are left with only two options: He is a shameless liar who believes his ideological ends justify any means or he actually believes the ridiculous assertions he spouts, in which case he is just plain foolish.  Mr. Kristol's offensive assumed superiority and disdain for the intelligent and deeply thoughtful individuals who don't subscribe to his narrow, intolerant and bloodthirsty world view has insulted me on numerous occasions.  To continue my subscription would be, I feel, contributing to my own mistreatment and additionally would support his erroneous elitist belief in the absolute value of his opinion.  I just cannot do that. 

Honestly, I can't for the life of me figure out what you are trying to do.  Given the times we are living in and the critical need for reliable sources for information, this apparent headlong rush into irrelevancy on the part of the Times seems almost criminal.  I actually feel like I lost a trusted friend.  I can't speak for all your readers, but I suspect that a large percentage of them feel like I do.  We have done our homework, we understand the difference between a legitimate conservative position and right-wing hackery and we don't see any value in supporting the later.  It is a blasted shame that you do! 

Response from NYT (note the Hi-Lariously condescending implication that people who don't want to read Bill Kristol need to be schooled in the democratic process):

Thank you for your e-mail concerning Bill Kristol. We appreciate
your interest and your taking the time to let us know how you feel.
Mr. Kristol’s column will be appearing on the Op-Ed page, where we
offer a range of diverse opinions — often differing from our own editorial
opinions. Given that we are a news organization that believes in
vibrant political discourse, we have brought Mr. Kristol on board after a
long and thoughtful search through the ranks of strong conservative voices.

Will you — or will we — agree with him? Probably not very
often . . . but that is the point of offering multiple views and providing
intellectual diversity. We hope the column will engender open debate and
discussion in the democratic tradition of newspapers. And we hope that you will continue to read and to express your views to us. We very much value your readership.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Catherine Mathis
> SVP, Corporate Communications
> The New York Times Company

My Response to NYT Editor:

While I appreciate your note, I must say that I feel your editorial staff is ignoring a few salient points:

1.)  Writing an opinion piece for one-time airing on an OpEd page is not the same thing as hiring someone with a track record of faulty logic and offensive speech to air their views on a regular basis.

2.)  This is about the free market.  I don't much care what your supposed rationale is for hiring him. That is not my concern.  My issue is that I don't want to pay to support the publication of offensive views.  I don't subscribe to the National Review or to skinhead publications for the same reason.  It is fundamentally repugnant to me to endorse, through my financial support, offensive and deceitful propaganda, regardless of the venue for publication.  This is about MY pocketbook, not YOUR editorial preferences. 

Sincerely,

The only explanation I can come up with for this whole shameful episode is that the marketing people at the Times feel the "real" money is in appealing to mouth-breathing troglodytes so that is their primary focus for now.  Apparently, they are unaware of how few of the people in this target demographic actually read.  Perhaps they will develop a graphic novel format to assist their new readers.  At least, with this latest betrayal of their loyal readership, they have gone on record with their priorities, thereby saving me nearly $40 a month!  WooHoo!  Thank YOU NYT!!!

Regarding Ruben Navarette editorial on Gonzales on CNN.com, April 19, 2007:

Hey Ruben, look--there's a gullible on the ceiling.  Come on, dude.  I've read your previous articles about the Gonzales issue being at least in part racially motivated.  I didn't agree at the time and I'm even more convinced now that this has nothing to do with poor Alberto the Hispanic man and everything to do with stupidity, deceitfulness and blind partisanship--qualities that know no racial boundary.  Would it be any less egregious and would Alberto Gonzales be any less culpable if he pulled this crap for a Democratic president?  Absolutely not.  Those of you on the right seem to forget that this works both ways.  How would you feel if a Democratic Attorney General was doing the bidding of the Democratic National Committee on your dime?  

No one, regardless of race, gender or political affiliation who puts loyalty to their party above loyalty to the Constitution deserves to be working in the government.  My tax dollars go to pay these people, as well, and I don't want them doing Republican National Committee business on the people's time.  

You are getting dangerously close to OJ Simpson rationale, assuming Alberto G is being targeted only because of his racial/ethnic background and failing to look at the evidence.  We all see how well that worked for society in the OJ case.

I have no doubt that there is an enormous amount of ugly prejudice in this country aimed at Hispanics.  I don't think that's the issue with Alberto Gonzales, however, and it would be helpful if you could get beyond your personal (and no doubt very valid) objections to the treatment of Hispanics for this particular case.  

There is a lot of debate over whether the cruel comments and juvenile, bullying laughter of Idol judges constitutes victimization of contestants.  While pretty much NO ONE disputes that this format is cruel and hurtful, the general argument in favor of the program is that it can't be victimization if the participants willingly agree to appear on the show.  The fact that they are talentless and unware of it makes them fair game for the judges.  However, in many cases it is this very lack of self-awareness that should raise a red flag among civilized people that these folks might not be operating on a equal standing with the rest of us and may not have the ability to make informed decisions about participation.  We have already seen the shoddy treatment of a young man with autism.  Like many with his disorder and other pervasive developmental delays, this young man had a tenous grasp of normal social interaction.  He would probably not be allowed to sign legally binding contracts because of his disorder, but for Idol producers he is fair game for exploitation to entertain the masses.  This is just ugly--there is no legitimate justification for making fun of people with impairments whether they be physical or mental--and the excuse of "they knew what they were getting into" just doesn't hold water.