The New York Times Is Disgusting
Published: Friday, February 22, 2013
Updated: Sunday, February 24, 2013 16:02
I was raised on The New York Times. I used to read that paper religiously, as if every bit of ink upon its pages came from some higher, grander source. Not godlike, but definitely approaching the divine. As I grew older, and my politics starting moving towards the right, I continued to read that paper as I found its commentary to be thought-provoking and challenging; it helped me understand my own ideas better.
In the past few months, however, I have found multiple articles run in The Times that have changed my mind entirely. The New York Times should no longer be the paper of record in America. It is becoming too radical and (hypocritically) close-minded.
The first article that I found unsettling was the op-ed piece “The Puzzle of Black Republicans” by Adolph L. Reed, Jr. It was a piece about South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley naming Representative Tim Scott to the United States Senate. In essence, the article says that the Republican Governor used the appointment simply to install an African American Senator. Alright, that’s a fair and justifiable criticism; the Republican Party is, to paraphrase Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), becoming the party of angry white guys. Understandably, this move may be seen as attempting to win back some minority voters (though the Democratic Party would never ever ever ever ever do anything similar ever).
However, what becomes puzzling is that the author of the piece goes further and suggests that Scott is too removed from “mainstream black politics” to be considered a true African American Representative. It’s almost as if Reed does not understand that representatives in the United States Senate are meant to represent the interests of their district first and foremost. So, the conclusion that Reed comes to is that this election is actually racist. Unbelievable – a minority governor appoints a minority senator and is called racist. Great job, The New York Times.
Then, later, I came across another article in their opinion section that rubbed me the wrong way. The piece in question here is “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution” by Louis Michael Seidman. His claim is that the government is so dysfunctional as a result of the Constitution that it might as well be discarded. Of course, Seidman reveals his hypocrisy when he calls for retaining all of his favorite rights, such as freedom of speech, equal protection of laws, and whatnot (author’s note: those are some of my favorite parts of the Constitution as well (especially the famous “whatnot” clause). The idea behind getting rid of the Constitution in the article is that it would be easier to enact progressive policies, as our founding document makes it a tad bit too hard for Seidman’s preferences.
What I cannot fathom is this: Why would we get rid of a document that is specifically meant to be living and breathing, that is meant to be amended? If it is the will of the people to enact a certain policy, it will happen. The Constitution exists to encourage thoughtful debate and to change with the times. Unfortunately it moves too slowly for The New York Times so it should be eradicated. Honestly, Seidman makes it sound that the policies that go against his societal designs are radical while blatantly ignoring how radical he is (in fact, he rationalizes it). Hypocrisy much? (Hint: the answer is “yes”).
Then, recently, I stumbled upon an article that praised Christopher Dorner. To be perfectly honest, I can no longer find the piece, so you will have to trust me on this. Hopefully, the paper realized how horrendous the piece was and pulled it of its own accord. Hopefully. But I digress – they ran an article that essentially said that Chris Dorner was justified killing LAPD officers because, hey, they were a corrupt force. …Okay? I guess the editors of The New York Times have stopped caring about due process. In almost no case should a murderer be given a pass because, hey, he was tormented into killing people. That’s just altogether unacceptable, and to run an article claiming that is downright disgusting.
So, I encourage all of you: Drop The New York Times. Almost every paper has a liberal bias, so if that is what you are seeking, you do not have to look very far. Yet, with other papers, you will also find sane, moral thinkers. Seriously, go take a look at The Washington Post or something – their op-ed pieces are smart and sensible, unlike the blatant call-to-arms found in The Times. While I respect that paper’s right to publish whatever it wants to, I do not find what it contributes to the national dialogue to be productive in any way, shape, or form.
(Note: David Brooks is pretty great, so he is the exception to this article).