« Heaven in an Ice Cream Bowl | Main | Buffeting »

The New York Times: Liberal and Loving It

The New York Times is better than you. While making the case that the NYT really is liberal, Daniel Okrent also admits that the Times demographic target is a jaded hipster who reeks of psuedo-intellectualism and, while claiming to be open-minded, rejects anyone who is not like him. I give Okrent credit for letting the beast out of the closet once and for all, but instead of coming off as an honest look at what the NYT is really about, it smacks of intolerance and smugness and reads like Okrent wrote it while standing on the pedastel the Times made for its writers, one which they refuse to step off of because it would require that they actually do some "self-questioning." All the news that's fit to print? No, how about all the news that's fit to be read if you're a New Yorker (or wannabe New Yorker) who loves abstract art, trendy issues, Bush-bashing and looking down at the people are not as good as you? I mean, if you're gonna be honest, why not go the whole nine yards? Liberalism. It's new elitism. _____ See, also: Allah and Ed Driscoll, who makes a good point about the NYT setting the tone for the rest of the media.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The New York Times: Liberal and Loving It:

» Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? from Outside The Beltway ™
Dan Okrent, the NYT Public Editor, asks and answers a question tow hich the answer is rather obvious : "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? [RSS] Of course it is. The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappoi... [Read More]

» Liberal Media, My Ass from Canned Platypus
Today's Boston Globe was a bit of an eye-opener. Here's what I found on the op-ed page of this supposed bastion of liberal journalism: One cartoon poking fun at how [Read More]

» YES, VIRGINIA, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA from Begging To Differ
Who wrote this about the New York Times? Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? [O]F course it is. ... if you think The Times plays it down the middle ... you've been reading the paper with your eyes... [Read More]

Comments

Admission that in fact it has been a V"L"WC all along?The left are masters of projecting.

What always strikes me about the NYT is the obsession with status. For example, here's an article in today's Sunday Styles section: what breed of dog will give you the most status?

What kind of person selects a dog based on status considerations?

I think that the core readership of the NYT--those who take the paper seriously--is comprised largely of people with empty centers, who must define themselves by having the "right" possessions and the "right" opinions.

I don't agree that liberalism = elitism...

I recently recognized, from reading these blogs that I must be a liberal since I:

- don't like Bush
- in favor of allowing gay marriage
- pro-choice
- for gun control

-- but I just can't agree that I'm elitist. I looked up elitism in the dictionary and found:

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

-- knowing how inferior I feel to pretty much everyone on the financial resources scale -- especially most Republicans -- this just doesn't make sense to me.

-- I also read the internet version of the NYT... and when it comes to reading articles about which dog gives you the most status -- I read them with interest -- not because I want the "right" dog (I prefer mutts) -- but because I want the same amusement and entertainment I get when I read about the peculiar habits of different cultures.

Michele --

I think you're being a little too hard on Mr. Okrent. He admits that the Times self-consciously adopts a certain non-objective tone. He traces that to Sulzberger's concept of an "urban" paper, and, without openly mocking his boss's doublespeak, makes it pretty clear that he thinks the distinction Sulzberger posits between "urban" and "liberal" is fairly ephemeral. He criticizes the Times journalists' "been there done that irony" and admits that the Times has a penchant for telling only one side of the story. He says the editors have "failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires" and that this has been because of inadequate "self-questioning." I honestly didn't get a bit of intolerance or smugness from Okrent here.

Dena --

I agree that liberalism doesn't necessarily imply elitism, and of the four issues you listed, I'd say only the last (gun control) involves a significant degree of elitism on its merits (because the elites can generally defend themselves by such measures as living in safe neighborhoods rather than by inexpensively arming themselves against intruders as the non-elites are often obliged to do, and because the elites are generally invested in the status quo to such a degree that they would be less likely than the non-elites to engage in armed rebellion against an oppressive government). There are also plenty of conservative elitists.

But I agree with Michele that, across a broad range of issues, liberals seem more inclined than conservatives or libertarians to believe that public policy should be guided more by elite opinion than by general polls or electoral results. A litmus test might be whether you think legislatures or courts are the most appropriate vehicles for social change. Courts, especially federal courts, are our most elitist public institutions, and legislatures, especially state legislatures, our least.

It was helpful that you provided a dictionary definitiuon of elitism, but I couldn't help noticing that while the definition listed three types of elites (intellectual, social, financial), you pronounced yourself innocent after examining only the last. In my view it is the intellectual elites that skew the most liberal, and in general they tend toward a self-serving view of government under which members of the intellectual elite get to make most of the important decisions.

Wow! Thanks for your analysis, Patrick. I’m now going to think harder on this issue…

First, I should disclose I’m a Canuck – and live in Toronto…

- The 4 issues I listed were of the top of my head – as those that would define me as a liberal (and a liberal only, I think, in the U.S.) – I wasn’t actually thinking about the elitism angle… I would tend to agree with you that the first two “don’t involve a significant degree of elitism on their merits” … As far as abortion, though, I believe this issue can “involve a significant degree of elitism” on its own merits – it is easier to be pro-life when questions of financial/emotional/intellectual support for a fetus are a given…

I agree that the courts are our most elitist public institutions, and legislatures, especially state (provincial in Canada) legislatures, our least... I think both bodies are appropriate vehicles for social change…

You’re right, I did pronounce myself innocent after just examining the financial issue… I guess that was because I didn’t find myself to be inferior or superior on the social or intellectual axis – just, I would say, equal and average…

I tend to agree with your last sentence… intellectual elites often hold positions of power in the courts/media etc. and their influence is large… that is true… I’m just saying – for the record – that just because you’re liberal doesn’t mean you have a sense of entitlement -- and that is what the word elitist conveys to me.

Clever that. Except liberals tend to look down on truly close-minded people (bigots and the like) which more often than not turn out to be conservatives. Am I wrong?

I suppose it would be true that they are intolerant, but only of those who are intolerant themselves, and exclusively for that reason.

"Clever that. Except liberals tend to look down on truly close-minded people (bigots and the like) which more often than not turn out to be conservatives. Am I wrong?"

What a load of justification bullshit.

"Truly close-minded people" = "People who look at the same facts I look at, but come to different conclusions." I've seen this attitude from far too many people, mostly on the left, though it can strike anywhere. It's the often unspoken belief that if only the other guy knew what you knew, he'd agree with you. Therefore his disagreement can only be the result of either a) ignorance, or b) malice.

Dena...re the dog article..."because I want the same amusement and entertainment I get when I read about the peculiar habits of different cultures." Sure--the fact that you read it and even enjoyed it doesn't automatically make you a member of that culture. Yet this very strange culture seem to be the main demographic target at which the New York Times is aimed. I can't imagine that anyone would be happy or successful working for tne NYT--in news, editorial, reviews, style, whatever--unless he shared to a substantial extent the peculiar status desires and anxieties of this demographic.

David - neither can I (imagine that anyone would be happy/successful working for the NYT unless they shared/bought into its worldview). I can, though, imagine reading about Louis XIV, Cannibals in Borneo, Conservatives in Alberta -- any group really -- out of curiosity and interest and to better understand the question:
How am I like them/How am I not like them? And we can all be smug and superior in discerning our differences... but when it comes down to it -- like it or not we are all more similar than we'd like to think.

Most people choose a dog with status as one of the criteria. There are and always will be trendy dogs. Same goes for kitchen appliances, restaurants, clothing, hairstyles, shoes, housing, and entertainment. "Elitism" is a charge that rings hollow against the New York Times. Why?

Because it's so damn obvious that it's not worth pointing out! Newspapers need advertising, advertisers need people to buy stuff, new stuff sells better, newspapers advertise new stuff, and people (thinking it will place them among the "elite") buy it.

The NYTimes is a lifestyle-centered reading source in the same way that Cosmopolitan, The New Republic, Penthouse, Good Housekeeping, Car and Driver, The Arizona Republic, Current Affairs, The New York Post, Dogfancy, Entertainment Weekly, and Time are.

Why is this news? We all knew there was a dude behind the curtain, so to speak. We knew what he thought, how he thought, and who agreed with him, so what's the big deal? The New York Times is liberal! Yeah, and water (at most temperatures and pressures) is wet!

And Guinness is good for you!

"Most people choose a dog with status as one of the criteria"...what kind of people do you know? I know lots of people from a lot of backgrounds, and I doubt if 5% of them would choose "a dog with status," or even think about the dog-status issue.

Dogs are chosen for many reasons. One is that they are cute, which affords the status of ownership of something cute (like driving a Mini Cooper or Beetle). Or they are a scary animal like a Rottweiler or Pitbull Terrier, which gives a status of strong person who doesn't want to be fucked with. Or they are good hunting dogs, watchdogs, or something the person likes. I have a relative who only wants Airedales (spelling?), because she's an "Airedale person". Whatever that is.

There are mutt people who accept whatever they like and have an open mind about that, but most of the dog owners I know had a preconceived notion of what they want in a dog. And status was part of the equation.

Where are the conservative elites? Oh, right; Heritage, AEI, Federalist Society...

"All the news that's fit to print? No, how about all the news that's fit to be read if you're a New Yorker (or wannabe New Yorker) who loves abstract art, trendy issues, Bush-bashing and looking down at the people are not as good as you?"

Okay, let's try to untangle it. The Times has a generally liberal editorial page, has had for some time. And your problem is? After all, plenty of papers out there have conservative editorial pages.

The Times has a limited news hole, just like any other paper. Do you have any serious quarrel with what news they actually print? Can you point to stories where the editorial policy significantly bends the straight news? You haven't so far.

The Times is a New York City paper and they print a lot of news about New York and a lot of news that New Yorkers want to read. Should they be concentrating on Minneapolis? Council Bluffs? Bangor? Fagedaboudit.

New York is an international city on the scale of London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Berlin, &ect. It has lots of abstact art, among other cultural amenities. Should the Times ignore them? Why? Just to please the folks in some small town elsewhere? Give me a break!

Now, as to elites, let me tell you a little secret about New York City. A very rich man in "the rag trade" who is also a well-known patron of the arts divides his time between my town, Columbus, OH, and New York City. He's been quoted as saying that, in his company jet, it makes a nice commute.

I also am involved in the arts, in a much more limited way. In New York City, if I happened to live there, it is quite possible that this very rich man and I could be actually invited to the same house party and end up chatting with one another as intellectual equals.

That would NEVER, under any conceivable circumstances, happen in Columbus, Ohio.

You want elites? Try the "conservative" business set above a certain income level in any moderate to large size city in the so-called Red States.

You want egalitarianism? Try the Apple.

"liberals seem more inclined than conservatives or libertarians to believe that public policy should be guided more by elite opinion than by general polls or electoral results."

Oh, bull. At least the liberals don't claim to be getting their instructions from God. The current crop of conservatives, more than any other political/ideological group I've ever seen, believes that that are absolutely right regardless of popular opinion, on every issue from the war in Iraq to gay marriage to the economy. Conservatives applaud the fact that Bush "doesn't rely on polls" which is their way of saying he doesn't care about what most people think. Maybe it's not elite opinion in the sense of an elite defined by merit or intelligence that they rely on, but it's an opinion shared only within a select circle nonetheless and it's just as opposite to populism.

"Can you point to stories where the editorial policy significantly bends the straight news? You haven't so far." - Joseph Marshall

You might ask Bill Hobbs [The "NY Times Correction Page" Bill Hobbs] to point you to a few. Or Jeff Jarvis, or InstaPundit... ;]

Um, yeah, Darcy -- every single conservative claims to get his or her "intructions from God." Every single one. It's true 'cos a liberal said it!

<>

Nice to meet you, too.

<>

I think it's fair to accuse the Republicans of being in bed (pardon the expression) with some pretty objectionable fundamentalist Christian types. But can you really substantiate your charge that conservatives in general, or anyone in the current White House in particular, has "claim[ed] to be getting their instructions from God?" (Oh, and do you really think liberals never invoke the authority of God? Think liberation theology. Think the American Conference of Catholic Bishops [when they're talking aboout anything besides abortion]).

<>

You know of political/ideological groups who think they're wrong about things? Perhaps what you mean to say is that the current Administration is not very good at making its opponents feel as though they've had a fair opportunity for input. That might be a fair charge. And I'd agree that in John Kerry the Dems have a man who doesn't seem very sure that he's right about a lot of things. But as a general matter, in my experience here in NYC anyway, liberals exhibit at least as much unwarranted certitude as conservatives do.

<>

I'm sure that most politicians on both sides of the aisle have certain issues on which they don't rely on the polls, but as a general proposition most politicians do rely on polls most of the time, at least until they become lame ducks. I don't see much reason to believe Bush is different, and I don't think those conservatives you say you've heard will be applauding much about Bush ignoring polls if he loses. (BTW, I wish I had your talent for divining what people I don't know really mean when they say things about what other people I don't know are relying on.)

<>

Well, wouldn't that be the point? (See the definition of "elitism" provided by Dena above.)

<>

The question, in terms of elitism, is how the select circle is defined. A select circle can exist without there being elitism involved. And (Bush v. Gore aside) if the select circle consists of elected officials, it's hard to see how their opinions could be called the opposite of populism. To me, the opposite of populism is an edict from a judge who has been given a lifetime appointment precisely so that he or she will be insulated from popular opinion.

Oh dear, I can see I should have used preview. Sorry Michele. I'll try again:

Jeff said: Oh, bull.

Nice to meet you, too.

Jeff said: At least the liberals don't claim to be getting their instructions from God.

I think it's fair to accuse the Republicans of being in bed (pardon the expression) with some pretty objectionable fundamentalist Christian types. But can you really substantiate your charge that conservatives in general, or anyone in the current White House in particular, has "claim[ed] to be getting their instructions from God?" (Oh, and do you really think liberals never invoke the authority of God? Think liberation theology. Think the American Conference of Catholic Bishops [when they're talking aboout anything besides abortion]).

Jeff said: The current crop of conservatives, more than any other political/ideological group I've ever seen, believes that that are absolutely right regardless of popular opinion, on every issue from the war in Iraq to gay marriage to the economy.

You know of political/ideological groups who think they're wrong about things? Perhaps what you mean to say is that the current Administration is not very good at making its opponents feel as though they've had a fair opportunity for input. That might be a fair charge. And I'd agree that in John Kerry the Dems have a man who doesn't seem very sure that he's right about a lot of things. But as a general matter, in my experience here in NYC anyway, liberals exhibit at least as much unwarranted certitude as conservatives do.

Jeff said: Conservatives applaud the fact that Bush "doesn't rely on polls" which is their way of saying he doesn't care about what most people think.

I'm sure that most politicians on both sides of the aisle have certain issues on which they don't rely on the polls, but as a general proposition most politicians do rely on polls most of the time, at least until they become lame ducks. I don't see much reason to believe Bush is different, and I don't think those conservatives you say you've heard will be applauding much about Bush ignoring polls if he loses. (BTW, I wish I had your talent for divining what people I don't know really mean when they say things about what other people I don't know are relying on.)

Jeff said: Maybe it's not elite opinion in the sense of an elite defined by merit or intelligence that they rely on,

Well, wouldn't that be the point? (See the definition of "elitism" provided by Dena above.)

Jeff said: but it's an opinion shared only within a select circle nonetheless and it's just as opposite to populism.

The question, in terms of elitism, is how the select circle is defined. A select circle can exist without there being elitism involved. And (Bush v. Gore aside) if the select circle consists of elected officials, it's hard to see how their opinions could be called the opposite of populism. To me, the opposite of populism is an edict from a judge who has been given a lifetime appointment precisely so that he or she will be insulated from popular opinion.

a jaded hipster who reeks of psuedo-intellectualism and, while claiming to be open-minded, rejects anyone who is not like him.

This, coupled with a marked blindness to the detritus in and on the streets, describes Berkeley, CA to a tee.

I said this years ago about the liberals that inhabit this section of the world. Apparently it's true elsewhere too.

(Oh, for a blockquote feature that works)

>But can you really substantiate your charge that
>conservatives in general, or anyone in the current
>White House in particular, has "claim[ed] to be
>getting their instructions from God?"

I don't need to substantiate the general claim, because I didn't make it. As for the more specific one, it's pretty well known that both Bush and Ashcroft consider their missions to be divinely inspired. Consider, for example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1076026,00.html and particularly the quote about "God wants me to run for president." Ashcroft and Tom DeLay, among others, have made similar statements that anybody can find via Google. The religious aspect of their agenda is not hidden, even they don't deny it, so it's a little silly for someone else to deny it on their behalf.

Are liberals entirely innocent of God-talk, or of elitism? Of course not! I was responding quite specifically to a claim that "liberals seem more inclined than conservatives or libertarians to believe..." yadda yadda, and that claim remains false. Liberals aren't perfect, but they fare better in this particular regard than the author of that comment claimed. That claim - not mine - is the one for which proof should be demanded.

Here's a good debunking of Daniel Okrent's piece: The Unbearable Lightness of Okrent! A quick summary is that the New York Times may or may not be liberal, but Okrent's analysis is useless. If we accept Okrent's critiera (ie using the word "postmodern," not covering the tax impact of gay marriage, etc) we could show the Washington Times, Wallstreet Journal, and New York Post are all "liberal," which would be disengenous at best.

Dear Jeff,

As I recall it, the opinion I expressed was, "across a broad range of issues, liberals seem more inclined than conservatives or libertarians to believe that public policy should be guided more by elite opinion than by general polls or electoral results." You responded with, "At least the liberals don't claim to be getting their instructions from God." Since I had contrasted liberals with conservatives and libertarians, it seemed fair to believe that your response was intended to make a similar contrast. Thus my call for substantiation with respect to conservatives in general. Thank you for explaining that you didn't mean to tar "conservatives," but rather only the current White House, with your charge that they "claim to be getting their instructions from God."

As for your substantiation with respect to the White House: Your original claim was not that there is a religious aspect to their agenda (which I agree is true), it was that they "claimed" to be receiving "their instructions" from God. Since we were talking about "a broad range of issues," I believed you meant that [conservatives] "claimed" to be "receiving their instructions from God" with respect to public policy matters. I see that I have misinterpreted your charge again, and that any guidance on any matter prayed over counts.

And then when you said, "the liberals don't claim to be getting their instructions from God," I thought a few examples of divinely inspired liberal prescriptions for public policy would be cogent. But now I see that you didn't really mean no liberals, so my attempted counterexamples don't carry the same weight as your attempted counterexamples at all. My bad.

I'd say something about moving goalposts here, but I'd probably just be misinterpreting you again.