 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
April 2008
Books The New Criterion  The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art  Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse  Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity  Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age  Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education  Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts  The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America  Against the Idols of the Age  Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century  The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age  Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an Introduction by Roger Kimball |
April 7, 2008 5:19 AM
Why I do not like The New York Times, Section 10, Chapter 687
It’s really not too complicated. As Jodi Kantor, the author of “Vocal on War, McCain Is Silent on Son’s Service,” noted in the course of her story, Mr. McCain has refrained from mentioning his son’s service with the Marines 1) because he did not want to be seen to be using it for political gain and 2) he wished “to protect him from becoming a prize target.” You might think that even the Times would applaud number 1, but Jodi manages to cast a miasma of suspicion over even that aspect of Mr. McCain’s behavior, writing that he “has largely maintained a code of silence about his son.” What she means is that he hasn’t said much about it. But only dodgy people—you know, mafiosi, army generals, and Republican politicians—maintain “codes of silence,” i.e., they have something to hide, something that the public-spirited people at The New York Times want you to know, who cares if it comprises national security or endangers the lives of American servicemen? And speaking of endangering American military personnel, I wonder how Ms. Kantor and her editors feel about the second reason Mr. McCain gave for not talking publicly about his son’s service? Ms. Kantor notes that “The McCains declined to be interviewed for this article, which the campaign requested not be published.” But she published it anyway. What if, God forbid, some harm comes to the junior McCain? Would she feel badly about that? Would she think, “Gee, perhaps I should not have published details about the military service of a son of a prominent politician?” I doubt it. After all, to the Left, Mr. McCain is a “warmonger,” or anyway a Republican which for the Times is pretty much the same thing, and warmongers deserve what they get. I have been reading a good deal of Kipling recently. Jodi Kantor’s odious tapestry of innuendo reminded me once again how pertinent that great observer of humanity is to our current situation. Now, as in Kipling’s day, “makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep” is a liberal’s delight. After all, we’re talking about The New York Times here, the paper whose publisher observed during the Vietnam war that if a North Vietnamese soldier ran into an American soldier, he’d rather see the American soldier shot. It’s useful to keep such comments in mind as you make your way through the anti-American pabulum that our former paper of record offers up as news these days. Comments (19)Robert Hurley :Richard F. :Given the media's penchant for creating the very news that it purports to report, one wonders whether or not the NYT, if they could have discovered young McCain's unit's location in Anbar, would have published it. I ask because if, G-d forbid, anything happened to the young man, Sulzburger's little people could have then run "I told you so" stories about this war's cruelty and then shoved a microphone in the elder McCain's face to "see how much he liked it," i.e., suffering a casualty. I suspect that the editors of the NYT, who would never dare send a son or daughter into uniform, might well feel ashamed that one of their fellow elites did so. They ought to be ashamed. Steve Kelton :I recently was asked by an unsolicited phone caller to accept a trial subscription to the NYT (it may be a measure of how desperate they are that they were hawking subscriptions by phone in West Texas). I explained to the young lady that I take the trash OUT of the house; I do not bring it in. Robbins Mitchell :God in Heaven....how low will these people stoop in their attempts to turn a virtue into a vice?...the NYT has no journalistic scruples at all now....which means they should change their masthead motto to "All the news that's $h!t,we print." DoctorOfLove :The NYT endorsed McClellan over Lincoln. The NY, wrong for at least 113 years. And that also marked the start of the NYT's pattern of overtly undermining republican presidents during wartime. bc :I don't know, having a jihading Arab fire up on the son of a presidential candidate, that's a lot of dots to connect. Why would anyone do a nasty thing like that? Kevin R.C. O'Brien :I expect, if one of McCain's sons were to be slain, Jodi would get aroused. Same as she does when any service member gets whacked. If you're not like that, you wouldn't fit in at the Times. PaulB :DoctorOfLove, Since Henry Raymond, the editor of the New York Times in 1864, was also chairman of the Republican National Committee, I rather doubt that he endorsed McClellan. LSD :Clearly, there is an aesthetic link between journalism today and resistance movements of lore. It's not a job, it's an adventure! Bryan Frymire :"Would she feel badly..." Perhaps -- if she's not too good at that whole "feeling" thing. More correctly, the question would be "Would she feel bad..." Of course the answer would be "no". Chris :I emailed Ms. Kantor to express my opinion on her decision to publicize McCain's son's service. I was going to ask her to imagine how she'd feel if she were in McCain's position. I decided it would be a waste of time. I'm sure she cannot imagine that one of her children (whether she has any or not) would serve in America's armed forces, much less in a combat zone. Pitt Man :Today's MSM coverage of Republicans mirrors that which is given to global warming: no matter what happens, global warming (repub politician) is to blame. Disillusionist :PaulB: You are correct. In fact, Henry Raymond was firmly on the side of Lincoln's re-election. As Lincoln said in a letter dated May 24, 1864, "The Times, I believe, is always true to the Union, and therefore should be treated at least as well as any." Some contemporaries argued that this support was only because Raymond was doing the bidding of Secretary of State William Seward, but regardless, in the McLellan vs. Lincoln contest, Raymond and the Times were firmly on Lincoln's side. I suspect that today he's probably spinning in his grave - like a lathe. bobby B :Dissent. (Disclosure: I'll vote for McCain.) I thought the article treated McCain very respectfully throughout its entirety. I thought it presented a very human picture of the stresses and worries he must have faced, I thought it made him appear to be most honorable and upright, unwilling to accept any favor the rest of us might not get. The article left no doubt that his positions regarding the war are held with perfect personal knowledge of the individual cost to those who fight for us, and those who wait for them to return. And I think you mistakenly demonize "code." Lots of good people follow codes. JT Kurtz :Did you know that if you happen to run your cursor over an add on your page that a pop up comes on and will not turn off? A portion of it remains on and cannot be turned off, blocking a portion of your article (which was the reason I opened your page). Very annoying! Davis :By the way, it's "feel bad", not "feel badly". You're a bad writer because you write badly, but I don't feel sadly about it. It was not a secret that McCain's son is in the Marines. Chris :So it would be correct to say that you're a pedantic writer because you write pedantically, right? Just because something isn't a "secret" doesn't mean that publishing it wouldn't be harmful. The identities of rape victims are not "secret," but many papers decline to publish them. Davis :I don't get the analogy between publishing something that's not a secret (McCain's son's service) and publishing something that is (rape victims' names). There are many other reasons he is a bad writer, believe me. sherlock :Don't you rubes understand that: /sarc Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaBig Fat Brother Is Watching Your Calorie Count Obamessiah Hits the Holy Land Hurricane Dolly Slows, Deepens, About to Hit Texas Shocked Serbians Celebrate Karadzic’s Capture The Dark Knight — Not Just Another Superhero Movie Colorblind Equality: A Winning Issue for McCain? The Media and Obama: Reporters or Flunkies? John Edwards in a Feydeau Farce at the Beverly Hilton
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
I think you are looking for something that to a moe objective observer is not there
Apr 7, 2008 11:43 AM