|
All The News That Fits We Print
By Tim Siggia
September 30, 2003
I understand from listening to Jim Vicevich on WTIC-AM's "Connecticut Today" that The New York Times is angry with President Bush. The reason? Mr. Bush, it seems, does not read The New York Times. (Neither do I, for that matter. After the Jayson Blair incident, I no longer consider The Times a credible source of information.) Because he does not read The Times, their editorial board says, he is out of touch. Excuse me, but it seems to me that The New York Times ought to be reminded something about people who live in glass houses.
The New York Times, we must remember, is a newspaper which hasn't endorsed a Republican candidate for president of the United States since Dwight D. Eisenhower. That's 47 years, for you who are counting. Since 1956, we have had five Republican presidents, two of whom served more than one term, and one who, to be fair, was never elected. But let's look at some of those presidents.
In 1972, Richard Nixon was returned to a second term in a landslide victory over George McGovern, who carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. The New York Times endorsed McGovern. Who's out of touch?
In 1980, Ronald Reagan soundly trounced incumbent Jimmy Carter, who, despite a totally disastrous presidency, was endorsed for a second term by The New York Times. And they're saying Bush is out of touch?
In 1984, Ronald Reagan asked a simple question to the American people: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" America heard him, and knew the obvious answer. They also heard his challenger, Walter Mondale, when he said, "My opponent will raise your taxes. So will I. The difference is, he won't tell you. I just did." Naturally, the New York Times endorsement went to Mondale, and once again the Great Gray Lady proved herself out of touch with average America.
Then again in 1988, when Democrat candidate Michael Dukakis showed us all how strong on defense he was by dressing up like a soldier and riding around in circles in a tank in one of the most assinine political stunts ever pulled, and then got hammered by his opponent for his policy of granting prison furloughs to convicted murderers while governor of Massachusetts, who did The New York Times endorse? Why, Dukakis, of course, who got creamed by his opponent, then-Vice President George Bush. Again: Who was out of touch?
Then, after Bush's son George W. won in 2000, The New York Times of course having endorsed Al Gore, the younger Bush brought his program of tax cuts to the forefront. Along with the rest of their Democrat bretheren, The New York Times shut its eyes, stamped its feet, and set up a long, loud howl about Tax Cuts For The Rich. This was not the right time for a tax cut, they said. (To a liberal, there is no right time for a tax cut.) America didn't want it, they said. Then came those pesky polls, which said just the opposite. Even the reliable polls, which normally tell liberals what they want to hear, were getting the same results: the overwhelming majority of Americans did believe their taxes were too high, and did want a tax cut. And President Bush is the one who's out of touch?
Apparently, all those who voted for Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II hadn't been reading The New York Times either. If they had, they would have known who they were supposed to vote for, and would themselves have been "in touch". But perhaps those who do not read The New York Times are in fact better informed than those who read only The New York Times. They are people who want all the news, period -- not just that portion that The New York Times deems "fit to print". Invariably during the course of his talk show, a host will preface a news item with the sentence, "You won't read this in The New York Times." And there's a lot of news out there which The New York Times considers unfit to print -- not because it is profane or obscene, but because it does not support the liberal agenda of The Times' editorial board. That news may be found all across the internet: in the Drudge Report, NewsMax.com, World Net Daily, the Daley-Post (Ed Daley's excellent website), and, of course, this site, as well as the web versions of practically every newspaper in the country. The slogan of The New York Times, "All The News That's Fit To Print", is world-famous. But the long-standing parody of that slogan -- "All The News That Fits We Print" -- sadly comes much closer to the truth.
Considering the history of a newspaper which may be most accurately considered the Voice of the DNC, their accusation that President Bush is out of step with mainstream America is nothing short of ludicrous. The views of America's Flagship Newspaper have about as much to do with ordinary Americans as champagne and caviar. But I'm not saying people shouldn't read The New York Times. This is America, after all, and we are all free to read what we choose. And, to be fair, the paper's not all bad. It just depends on what the reader really wants. If he wants book reviews, The New York Times Book Review is still the best in the business. If he wants the latest on Broadway and the theater, by all means he should buy The Times. Ditto if he's looking for a really challenging crossword puzzle, or if he's simply one of those people who appreciates good writing. But if he wants all the news, and especially, if he wants to see opinions printed only on the editorial page and not presented as news, then he should consider other sources of information.
|
