February 23, 2004

THE NYT'S MOST DISCREDITED BYLINE

THE NYT'S MOST DISCREDITED BYLINE SINCE JAYSON BLAIR'S: For my first two years in New York, except on rare occasions, I refused to read the New York Times, for a few reasons: I hated its stuffy tone, I didn't appreciate its negative coverage of Israel, and I liked the Post better anyway. Then in my last job I had to write a news summary that required me to read it (and four other papers) every single day, and slowly but surely I learned to appreciate certain things about the Paper of Record, so long as I kept to the online edition. And since the fall of Howell Raines, and hiring of David Brooks as a columnist, the Times has undoubtedly gotten better, and I've found myself denouncing it less and less.
Until today, that is. Noam Chomsky on the op-ed page? Bashing Israel? Excuse me? I thought the Times would know better than to open their editorial page to a man who has spent the last three decades teaching two generations of college students to hate their country. This would be like if the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Mel Gibson's father.
The only silver lining is that it'll likely be the piece that launched a thousand fiskings. Bring it on, bloggers!

Posted by Stephen Silver at February 23, 2004 03:03 AM
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?