What’s going on here? Maybe the Times, with CBS mindlessly following, is just pandering to its imagined audience, among whom middle-class white woman living in the East Village of Manhattan must make up a large share. But this doesn’t explain the galling negligence. It’s moments like these when the paranoia of the right wing who sees the hand of liberal bias everywhere becomes understandable. Not that there is a conspiracy at work. Only that, if in the part of America where reporters live, being free from marriage is an unequivocally positive thing, this shouldn’t mean — as this article leads us to believe — that this is the case for every woman in the country. For some, what the Times is describing as freedom feels, one can imagine, like a curse.
- 1
- 2
It's hardly a surprise that the Times contains nothing but garbage. The newspaper outlived its usefulness 15 to 20 years ago. Everything is constructed through a prism of homosexuality, "feminism" of some odd sort, and the editorial content is written to play well to the audience, whatever the audience may be (one thing I am sure of is that the audience is very rich and lives in the richest pockets of Manhattan). I'm a liberal and very much so, and I have been a news media executive. Bias isn't the issue, although the Times is certainly biased. The problem is that the paper isn't worth wrapping fish in. It can't be read seriously. Nor will it improve in the foreseeable future, because the composition of the staff in terms of demographics and competence is so low and so gay and so African-American that the internal systems are self-referential.
Posted by dan on Thu 18 Jan 2007 at 10:35 AM
Thank you for an excellent bit of journalism. The Times, as the liberal bellweather, demonstrates once again how emotional fantasy masquerades as social science now days.
Your heads-up take is a hopeful sign that perhaps the press can some day get back to looking reality in the face instead of shilling for someone's agenda.
RCL
Posted by RCL on Sat 20 Jan 2007 at 01:19 PM