The NY Times is supporting the Hamas terrorists. They are supporting the invasion of the United States by illegal aliens—and the destruction of what remains of New York City. This is a newspaper that openly lied about the treason of Joe Biden and his family—lying about the Hunter Biden laptop and protected the bought and sold Biden family.
“But what one can say is that the Times of yore had a credibility and authoritativeness that now seems to be lacking.
The Times needs to get back to doing when it has done over most of its history -– print the news and be more objective on its editorial page.”
The good news is that few people read the Times, nor have any belief in its credibility. Like the LA Times and Washington Post, it is a dying newspaper.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NEW YORK TIMES?
By Richard Colman, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views, 2/15/24 www.capoliticalnewsandviews.com
For many years, until recently, The New York Times was a credible and authoritative source of news and information.
Then, beginning in recent years, something changed. The Times became more like an organ of ultra-liberalism.
Your columnist has been reading the Times since he was old enough to read -– a period of about 60 years. He looked forward to its coverage of national and international events. He admired such columnists as James Reston, Anthony Lewis, Tom Wicker, William Safire, C.L. Sulzberger, and Flora Lewis.
Your columnist has enjoyed reading today’s columnists such as David Brooks, Gail Collins, Paul Krugman, and Bret Stephens.
Your columnist does not necessarily agree with past and present columnists, but he has enjoyed reading their comments.
He also admired such reporters as R.W. Apple, Hanson Baldwin, Neil Sheehan, and Harrison Salisbury.
Going back many years, your columnist enjoyed the old News of the Week in Review. He also enjoyed the Sunday editorials on the wonders of nature. In past years, the Sunday magazine had articles by such people as John Kenneth Galbraith, and if your columnist’s memory is correct, William F. Buckley Jr. and Norman Mailer. Today’s magazine writers are of a different caliber.
Your columnist was delighted when, on June 13, 1971, the Times published the Pentagon Papers, a hitherto secret history of the Vietnam war.
In 1952 and 1956, the Times editorial pages endorsed Dwight Eisenhower for president. Eisenhower stood for what he called “modern Republicanism,” an idea that America should be involved internationally with Europe, Japan, and South Korea. Eisenhower was not going to expand Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, nor was Eisenhower going to favor repeal of such New Deal policies as Social Security.
Since 1960, the Times has endorsed every presidential candidate from the Democratic Party.
What happened at the Times? Two books help supply the answer. One is “The Kingdom and the Power” (1970) by Gay Talese. The other is “The Times: How the Newspaper of Record Survived Scandal, Scorn, and the Transformation of Journalism” (2023) by Adam Nagourney.
In recent years, the Times has had several prominent editors like A.M. Rosenthal, Joseph Lelyveld, and Jill Abramson. But during these recent years, journalism underwent a transformation from print format to digital (online) format. Print editions have lost advertising. Reporters’ jobs are in jeopardy.
The Times went from an older generation of its publishing family, the Sulzbergers, to a newer generation.
The Times also went from a largely Caucasian leadership to a more diverse group of editors.
In the late 1960’s, according to Nagourney’s book, “The newspaper had championed civil rights on its editorial pages. . . [y]et there was not a single Black reporter in the Washington Bureau, or on the foreign reporting staff, and there was not a single senior (or even not-so-senior) Black editor.”
Also, in Nagourney’s book, the Times, in 1972, received a five-page letter, “chronicling what it described as the paper’s failures in hiring, promoting, and recruiting female employees.”
In recent years, the Times staff has become more diverse. There is no way to know if this greater diversity has had any impact on the quality of the newspaper.
But what one can say is that the Times of yore had a credibility and authoritativeness that now seems to be lacking.
The Times needs to get back to doing when it has done over most of its history -– print the news and be more objective on its editorial page.
