The Times has become such biased, dizzy wreck that it is almost hard to remember when the paper meant something.
The New York Times long ago lost its most precious commodity - it's crediblity in the early 1980's when it began its tranformative process from being the newspaper of record to being the Democratic Party's daily house organ. This is not palaver, it's truth - as it has transformed the New York Times has become untrustworthy on factual matters, as its reporters make the facts fit the story, rather than the reverse.
Plus, even dozens of Pulitzers can't hide the fact that the writing has suffered and become sub-par.
The ham handed denials by various editors of the changes at the Times, as well as as Bill Keller's famous admission, are meaningless since any simpleton can readily understand what's going from any perusal of the paper. The recent almost admission by the current editor that any liberal or pro-Democratic leanings at the Times are due to the 'cosmopolitan' nature of the paper are straight out of Animal Farm.
The New York Times used to be so important that it could not be ignored. It's present inability to get the facts right and it consistent spin toward the Democratic Party means that it must be ignored. Fortunately, the loss of credibility at the Times has been accompanied by almost incredibly bad mismanagement by the latest Salzburger, who will go down in history as the heir that killed the paper. Makes you wonder what old Arthur was thinking when he gave up the reins. But he is not the first father to pass power to incompetent an son - the history books are filled with examples - and he won't be the last.
The end of the paper, while inevitable, can't happen soon enough, as it long ago become painful to see what has happened to the once great, now not great at all, New York Times.
I'd love to see a book of all NYT editorials on the Vietnam War from 1954 to 1975.
Excellent summing up. And as usual with Mr. Kanfer, I learned a thing or two. Well-done, sir!