How Much Does The New York Times Suck?
I often click links to New York Times Op-Ed pieces from other sites thinking "Oh, New York Times. This might be good." Only to load the article and see the author is David Brooks or Paul Krugman and silently curse to myself "God fucking damn it.." My first idea for this post was to discuss which one was a bigger D-Bag, but then I remembered that Bill Kristol is a contributor now too. He obviously wins for biggest turd sandwich. Let's not forget Maureen Dowd and her ridiculous use of metaphor and opinions that conflict with her own writing from just weeks before. It made me realize how often I'm disappointed when I click on an NYT link and how relieved I am when I click on something like a piece from Eugene Robinson at WaPo. Is the New York Times totally rubbish? Should they be "on notice" or "dead to me" a la Stephen Colbert?
Advertisement
Krugman, Brooks, and Dowd should be shunned.
But Bill Kristol should be systematically ripped to shreds every Monday morning. We should start a contest every Monday morning to see who can spot the error(s) quickest...
May 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every columnist has his (or her) quirks. At any paper, on any site, bypassing those who raise your blood pressure may be a sound judgment. But at the Times, why swear off the lot? How could you bear to bypass Frank Rich? Tom Friedman? Roger Cohen? Gail Collins? Just asking.
May 27, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget Tom "let's give war a chance" Friedman ...
May 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he just made the Foreign Policy/Prospect 100!
The NYT might have a couple of inconsistent editorialists, one unpleasant one, and one liar, but it's still the strongest paper for its stories (case in point: force multipliers).
May 27, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink