Ok, I admit it. That 53,427 number is somewhat exaggerated.
But the reason I gave up on the New York Times years ago was then, and now remains, 100% accurate: as Ira Stoll points out in his latest commentary at freebeacon.com, its alleged coverage of “news” has become ridiculous.
Read this excerpt from Mr. Stoll’s piece and see for yourself:
Start with page one of the print paper, where a “news analysis“—maybe the other articles should all be labeled as being analysis-free?—refers to “the mass riots in France, which started as protests over underfunded schools.”
A headline on the front of the business section reports, over a picture of fire and smoke on a Paris street behind police in riot gear, that “A Debt Trap Threatens France Amid Rising Populism.” To read the New York Times, you’d think that the people sacking synagogues in Paris (while leaving mosques untouched) are just a bunch of populist education reformers.
Two-thirds of a print page are devoted to an article headlined “French 14-Year-Old Maimed by Police Tear Gas Grenade at School,” as if the big problem in France is police brutality rather than an intifada.
The article goes on to provide similar disinformation from The Times, and – 100% justifiably – lambastes the paper for them.
I remember growing up with the New York Times in my parents’ house every day, where it basically held “holy grail” status. When I married and moved out, I continued that subscription for many years. But at some point the paper’s slant on the news and its increasingly obvious biases – especially against, but far from limited to, Israel – were too much for me and I ended the subscription.
Reading Ira Stoll’s piece is the latest confirmation of my decision.
These days, the Times’ articles are behind a paywall. For my money, they can stay there.
