The two NY Times pieces remind me of something Times columnist David Brooks wrote in his great little book, Bobos In Paradise. (I am also reminded of what I wrote regarding the industry of political prognostication -- that nasty habit -- in my essay, "The New Alchemist: The Pundit Who Makes Gold From Nothing.") Here is what Mr. Brooks said about journalism (for the complete quote, see immediately preceding link):
To get the most attention, the essay should be wrong. Logical essays are read and understood. But an illogical or wrong essay will prompt dozens of other writers to rise and respond, thus giving the author mounds of publicity.
What Mr. Brooks was discussing conforms to my feelings perfectly, as it makes me wonder whether the New York Times' strategy to maintain a committed readership is simply to get things wrong. Surely the Times draws thousands of conservatives its way each morning, all intent on counting the blunders, spotting the omissions, and denouncing its undeniable bias and hubris. How else to explain its demonstrable penchant for propaganda, its blatant disregard of journalism's presumed posture of objectivity? Is it not a bald attempt to maintain a readership and secure its profits?
Before the Times ran its sophomoric yet probably effective (how sad!) piece on Saturday, it showed its hand on Friday: The Times, as I said yesterday, is intent on reshaping reality before our eyes; it intends to bewitch and confuse, and it wants to play to its faithful readers' anxieties -- the very anxieties the paper creates on any given day. For the Times' goal is to portray Sarah Palin as the new George W. Bush, secretive and power-grabbing. The only difference is that she's George W. Bush in lipstick.
There is no way this can be denied; one read through either piece proves the case against the Times. The paper cares less about the news; it cares everything about controlling the human mind. It essentially trundles out all the old canards and false impressions: Bush and Palin are intellectually incurious, inflexible, ambitious, grossly dependent and scripted, learning their positions on the fly, surrounding themselves with friends. Both "pray," and believe that they are on a mission from God (gross characterizations, of course). Both are fun and witty and playful, no doubt; they have an ear for singing the right tune to the people. And yet both run profoundly secretive administrations; they abuse power (like email!), and they demand absolute loyalty from their staffs.
(Note: Have you ever noticed that the Bush White House is always described as the most secretive in history, and yet every dopey leftist journalist and pol knows exactly what's going on, not only in the obscure machinations of the Oval Office, but in the dark and devious brains of the President and his Lord, Dick Cheney? Doesn't anybody see the irony here?)
It should be obvious that the Times' editorial exploring Gov. Palin's worldview will not, and does not, explore the governor's worldview at all. This oversight cannot be accidental; if it is, then the Times is truly a waste. It can only mean one thing: that Gov. Palin does not really have a worldview. Which is exactly what the Times wants you to believe.
Alas, how sad. As I noted in my penultimate essay, even the apparent novice appointed to head the Alaskan Division of Agriculture, Ms. Franci Havemeister, has more executive experience than Barack Obama. Well, maybe not. But the Obama résumé is not impressive; and the Times will never present the esteemed senator's background -- or worldview -- with the sort of gossipy and mendacious reportage presented by the Times over the weekend. The Times can't do that, for it finds gold in being wrong, and in controlling how readers think and perceive.
As I've said before, the New York Times is the opiate of the people.
©2008. All rights reserved.
