Maybe I’m not saying that anyone does not know already, but man, the New York Times have really gone down the shitter lately.
First, there was the (non-)story about John McCain’s possible extra-marital affair with a lobbyist, which ended up getting a lot of coverage for reasons I can’t understand, since the article itself didn’t prove or even allege anything. I mean, if you are going to insinuate that McCain has had an affair with a lobbyist, then you might as well come out and say it. I had no idea what the New York Times was trying to do with that article, and I’m not even sure what the point of it was. Yet suddenly it became a huge media shit-storm, which ended up being about the media itself. How narcissistic, and expected.
Then, Frank Rich writes a ridiculous column comparing Hillary’s campaign to how Bush managed the Iraq campaign. Remember, this was right during Obama’s 11 state winning streak. I bet Frank Rich would like to take those words back now.
Then, the New York Times decided to expose the identity of the prostitute which brought down Eliot Spitzer, by citing, of all possible sources, her MySpace page! I mean, really, what is the point of that story? Sure, the girl will probably get her 15 minutes of fame, and then fade into the background. What exactly does revealing her identity do?
And to top it off, David Brooks writes this extremely retarded and third-rate column, posing as a community college psychologist, analyzing so called “Type A” personalities and their penchant for getting off on hookers.
I suppose that in the end, the New York Times is still better than USAToday, but this recent string of non-stories, shitty columns, and sub-par journalism really made my estimation of the newspaper go down dramatically. The only thing really worth reading now is the Times’ movie reviews, since their movie critics are actually fairly good.