From the New York Times Book Review on Sunday, March 12, under the headline, "The Troubling Appeal of Education at For-Profit Schools":
It's amazing how the Times manages to attack the for-profit colleges for enrolling students who are "disproportionately nonwhite and female." If the opposite were the case, and the students were disproportionately white and male, the Times would probably attack the colleges for racism, sexism, and exclusivity. For the colleges, it's a no-win situation; they get attacked for any deviation from the demographic norms, in any direction.
The Times arts section features a column with this note:
Well, yes, copies of books that are out of print are indeed "available from various online retailers." But they also may be available at your local library, or your local physical, in-real-life used book store. Why the Times is editorially pushing the "online retailer" option over the other two is a mystery.
From the lead, front-page news article in today's Times:
"A lack of international crises requiring immediate attention"?
From a news article on page A3 of the same newspaper, same day, under the headline "U.S. Forces Play Crucial Role Against ISIS in Mosul":
A Times interview with Lena Dunham and Michael Ryss about the latest episode of the HBO program "Girls" includes this rendering of a question by Times reporter Amanda Hess:
Under the headline, "Bookstores Stoke Trump Resistance With Action, Not Just Words," the New York Times has a 1,300-word article, accompanied by four photographs, about how bookstores are taking action against President Trump.
Do the editors of the New York Times and the art critics even read their own newspaper?
Forgive the question, but it's prompted by this juxtaposition:
The New York Times, January 26, 2017, "Federal Agencies Told to Halt External Communications":
A column by David Brooks about Ronald Reagan includes this passage: "When he erred it was often on the utopian side of things, believing that tax cuts could pay for themselves, believing that he and Mikhail Gorbachev could shed history and eliminate all nuclear weapons."
The two big Reagan tax cuts were enacted in 1981 and 1986.
Here are the federal revenue receipts numbers for the relevant years, according to the Office of Management and Budget historical tables archived from the Obama administration:
In "current dollars":
Here it is in what the OMB calls "constant (FY 2009) dollars," which is a way of adjusting for inflation:
Jim Dwyer gets an entire New York Times column out of condemning Nike for slashing sneakers and clothing and trashing it rather than donating it, un-damaged, to the poor. He writes:
The lead, front-page news article in today's New York Times begins:
The headline over the continuation of the article inside the paper is "Upending Bipartisan Trade Policy, Trump Abandons Trans-Pacific Deal."
The New York Times editorial responding to President Trump's inaugural address makes one wonder if the editorial writers at the Times ever actually read the news articles that appear in their own newspaper.
The Times writes:
A news article in the New York Times the other day claimed that the newspaper is "trying to forge a stronger connection to the large bloc of voters who swept Mr. Trump to the presidency." I wrote that it was "an open question" whether the paper, or its editors, were actually even trying to do that.
A public memo issued yesterday by the top two editors at the New York Times promised "fewer editors at The Times."
To judge by this morning's newspaper, the plan has already been implemented.
At least two Times articles could have benefited from some more editing.
The first appears atop the arts section. Online, the headline is "Museum Trustee, a Trump Donor, Supports Groups That Deny Climate Change." It's a long, one-sided attack on the American Museum of Natural History for the sin of allowing a conservative donor. Rebekah Mercer, to serve as one of 49 members of the board of trustees.
The Times article includes this sentence about the museum's president, Ellen V. Futter: "Ms. Futter would not comment on the calls for Ms. Mercer to step down or what brought her to the board, declining to discuss the activities of a specific trustee."
The New York Times has an editorial condemning President-elect Trump for naming his son in law, Jared Kushner, as a senior White House adviser. It cites "the real dangers posed by nepotism." (The Times, of all people, should know.)
"There's a good reason for anti-nepotism laws," the Times editorial says, warning that when relatives are hired, "they undermine the public's faith that important posts are being filled with the best possible candidates."
Also, "it upends delicate dynamics, as senior staff members keep their mouths shut rather than contradict a trusted relative of their boss."
The concerns the Times editorial raises about nepotism in government might well also apply to, say, a publicly traded company. The Times editorial draws no distinction between nepotism in government and in corporate America.
In an egregious example of bad journalism, the New York Times kicks Judith Rodin on her way out as president of the Rockefeller Foundation.
A news article by David Gelles of the Times reports:
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2017 FutureOfCapitalism LLC