Sneering at Kansas
October 17, 2006 on 4:26 pm | In Main, Media, National |There is a dreadful piece in the New York Times today that looks at the reactions of people in Kansas attending a Republican fundraiser headlined by Vice President Cheney.
It is on the front page and is not marked as commentary or analysis. While the comments of the little girl who is fascinated with Cheney are amusing, the rest of the piece is a sneering, patronizing slam at people who support the current administration. I don’t have the time to go through it line-by-line, but take a look at it yourself.
This is a perfect example of why right-wing talk radio and Fox News have succeeded in capturing the imagination of people in the Heartland who are tired of being condescended to by pointy-headed journalism school graduates in suits.
It’s also a good example of why people like me have turned away in droves from the Times (I think I stopped reading after the 17th article on the great outrage of our era: the failure of the Augusta National Golf Course to admit women as members).
People like Times reporter Mark Leibovich simply can’t believe that anyone with an iota of intelligence or sophistication could possibly have a worldview different than his. One of my co-workers remarked that the Kansans quoted in the piece did seem remarkably indifferent to Cheney’s wrongheadedness — especially on the war in Iraq. And I agree. But there may a method to some of the madness.
I told her it is not unusual for interest groups or individuals to look the other way at a mistake — however dreadful — if s/he supports the public official’s larger policy goals. Imagine the outrage among feminists if a Republican president had had sex with a 21-year-old intern and was on the receiving end of credible accusations that he had forced himself on women.
Feminists groups were largely silent on President Clinton’s flaws — however offensive they might otherwise have been — because he was their man on policy. I ask you: “Is it such a bad thing to look the other way if it suits your larger goals of effecting social or economic change?” I’m not sure I know the answer.
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Terry…..this piece is no worse than most of the other babble being produced by reporters, editors, and publishers that 35 years ago when I started in radio, would not even be considered acceptable to be copy editors! The media is full of left and right wing agenda pushers posing as reporters…print, on-air, you name it. If I were you, stick to the “funnies”! Come to think of it, even the comics are political nowadays!!!!!
But I will say, our political leaders on all sides are pretty weak…we need some strong leaders in both the media and politics!
Marshall
Comment by Marshall Miles — October 17, 2006 #
Seems the NYT thinks that Cheney’s forty-five minute interview on Fox shortly after the shooting incident constitutes “barely acknowledging it publicly”. Guess they don’t watch much TV.
Comment by jake — October 17, 2006 #
Hi Terry: That picture in the Times piece hardly looks like Dick Cheney shaking Ryun’s hand! Who was it? You sound like other people who read papers/periodicals etc and write in to say they stop reading them (or have) and yet you read this in the Times, so I guess you are still ‘hooked’! Cheers!
Comment by Robin — October 18, 2006 #
Hi Robin,
Looks like Cheney in the photo to me.
I read the Times piece only because someone drew my attention to it. That is generally the only time I look at the NYT anymore. I first learned about it in yesterday’s Today’s Papers feature in Slate Magazine. BTW, TP is an excellent summary of that morning’s coverage and I recommend it highly.
Comment by Terry — October 18, 2006 #
Terry,
The digs here seem mostly aimed at the Veep himself, not at his Kansas fans, who are not held to blame for continuing to support him. On the whole I agree that this is a trashy piece of journalism, and I wouldn’t have bothered to read it had you not called attention to it. Like you and others, I have stopped reading the NYT for the most part, though of course my perception is that it is a mouthpiece of the mainstream/status quo, e.g. helped grease the wheels for Iraq. I don’t find it to be a reliable source for news.
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — October 18, 2006 #
Please tell me a single better source for the news. CNN.com or TV, WSJ, Drudge, Fox, Daily News, USA Today? Come on, every source has loser articles and journalists. And bias is part of all sources; it can co-exist with truth. At least you know where the Times stands, and can mentally filter. And their editorials are almost always right-on (OK, my own bias), even if their op-eds are sometimes hard to take. For a serious journalist to exclude the Times would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. That said, what is Maureen Dowd smoking (or drinking)?
Comment by Peter Halle — October 18, 2006 #
Why, the Lakeville Journal, of course!
But seriously, you make a good point, Peter. However, I actually ignore 50% of the news as it appears in the NYT, because like the Cheney story, it’s not really news. I ignore another 50% because it’s depressing and pointless to worry about. The third 50% I get in the form of headlines from online sources (including the NYT online); then I go to sources of analysis that I believe tell me what’s really going on. I will demur on revealing these because they would just get me ridiculed for the flaming radical that I am.
I will say, however, that I am a true relativist. I believed that there is no “truth” and certainly no “objective” reporting, in the NYT or anywhere else.
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — October 18, 2006 #
Peter,
It wouldn’t surprise you to find that I disagree. The beauty of living in our current technological era is we don’t need a single source for news. Like Fred, I scan the headlines using the aforementioned Today’s Papers and investigate anything that looks interesting (such as the Cheney/Kansas piece).
I read the NYT every day religiously for more than 20 years. I never really felt like I was sufficiently informed unless I had at least scanned the A section and the eddy and op-ed pages. There are so many alternatives now that it scarcely makes sense to rely on any one source (or even 2 or 3). Like Fred (I never thought Fred and I had that much in common!), I gravitate toward commentary and analysis that I think will give me a better insight into what’s really going on than the Ivy Leaguers at the House That Jayson Blair Built.
The problem with The Times is this Kansas piece is part of a pattern of snottiness I have noticed for the last several years, reaching its apex with Howell Raines and continuing under Bill Keller. And the beauty of the Internet is smaller operations on the web are eating into the Times readership and even its advertising dollars. Circulation and ad revenue are shrinking at newspapers, particularly big dailes, and there is a good reason for that. The web is a the great equalizer.
Newspapers such as the LJ, which serve small communities, are not under as much of a threat, because, frankly, we don’t have a whole lot of competition. But still, I wonder how many newspaper presses will be running in 20-30 years.
For a sampling of the day’s commentary, I highly recommend RealClearPolitics. For straight news, other than TP, I look at Google News and click on whatever looks interesting. And using an RSS feed, I monitor the blogs such as those links I list on the rail on the right side of my home page.
A good friend of mine who has done extensive consulting work for newspapers, predicts that in 10 years, the NYT will be owned by Yahoo or a similiar operation. You heard it here (and on his blog as well).
Comment by Terry — October 18, 2006 #
Terry -
Take a look at this…
http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/10/how_to_get_the_.html
It has some interesting ways of using Technorati feeds to build your own blog version of the Slate page you mention. Obviously, the “Meme” sites already do this, but for people who are looking for even more refined daily info from blogs, the technorati feeds work well.
PS Is that the Robin that your schoolmates swooned over?
Comment by Jake — October 18, 2006 #
Terry,
As a loyal subscriber to the NYT, I have to agree, sadly, with your general observation about the paper’s increasing willingness to sprinkle the barely-hidden opinions of the staff over the news pages. It is regrettable in the extreme, undercuts the paper’s credibility, and you are right to criticize the trend. I trust our local paper will not emulate the NYT in this regard.
Comment by Yankee — October 19, 2006 #