The news media is supposed to serve the voting public

"... my belief system is generally reflected in the editorial page of the New York Times...."

--Pinch Sulzberger at Kansas State University Sept. 2004

Yesterday's Financial Times: The New York Times suffered a 16.4 per cent decrease in June advertising revenues.... The June performance followed an 11.9 per cent decline in May ... and suggested that an already deep erosion in newspaper advertising could be accelerating.... [T]he company reported that second-quarter profits fell 82 per cent ... compared with the same period a year ago...

Sultan Knish: Special Message from the New York Times

Hello, my name is David Shipley. As Op-Ed page editor of the New York Times I would like to take this opportunity to talk to you, the American reading public.

As journalists we take very seriously our obligation to present a diverse group of voices on our op-ed page from Hamas terrorists to Anti-war activists to 9/11 Truthers to Holocaust deniers to Osama Bin Laden. While we may occasionally face criticism for the editorials we choose to present in our forum, we continue to believe that the best hope for understanding one another lies in communication. In the spirit of that openness, we would like to explain why we refused to run an editorial written by Senator John McCain.

While we did endorse Senator McCain during the Republican primary because of his faith in global warming and illegal immigration, his continuing support for the War in Iraq makes it unconscionable for us to provide a forum for his hateful views. As the voice of the American people, if they would just shut up and listen to us, it is our solemn and sacred oblgiation to tell them who to vote for. And what to vote for. We take our responsibility to select the future President of the United States very seriously and it is our duty to prevent abuses of power by the American electorate that threaten to destabilize the Hamptons housing market and the value of our GreenTech stock.

There were a number of problems with Senator McCain's editorial, which we dutifully pointed out to him. Should he correct these errors in judgment, the New York Times will be pleased to run his editorial, pat him on the head nicely and smirk knowingly when he is defeated in the fall.

First of all McCain's editorial insists that American forces are winning in Iraq and that the Surge is working. As all constant readers of the New York Times know, Iraq is a second Vietnam and a hopeless disaster that unravels the morale of our military and depresses the hell out of the press corps. As responsible journalists we cannot permit views within our pages which contradict the known facts reported by us.

Secondly McCain's staff has refused to allow us to color in devil horns on his photo. This is a grave mistake and one that makes it impossible for us to properly display our hatred and contempt for him. While we offered to compromise with a burning swastika and a Hitler mustache or a montage of dead Iraqi or some sort of babies, the McCain campaign has refused to work with us to find a reasonable compromise on this issue.

Finally Senator McCain continues to insist that he intends to win the Presidency. We find this to be grossly and wholly unacceptable. The New York Times along with the rest of the legitimate press has already determined that Barack No Middle Name Obama is to be our appointed President and we will tolerate no dissent whatsoever from our position. Not from the American people. Not from Senator McCain and not from anyone.

As dedicated journalists, we at the New York Times have grown adept at reporting our views to you. We believe that you need our views because we are smarter than you, because we are better than you and because some of us like David Carr, are fat crackheads who beat our girlfriends, we can also print anything we make up. Because what is truth anyway? Truth is what we decide it is.

Therefore we cannot print Senator McCain's editorial because it fails to meet our standards. Our standards of truth. Our standards of integrity. Our standard of creating the news and deciding what you are allowed to think.

Yours in Obama

David Shipley

Hilarious, but unfortunately not so far from the truth; see The arrogance of Pinch Sulzberger (November 2003, by Bob Kohn).

And as Ed Driscoll says, "This is rich" -- from The Editorial Board of the New York Times:

It might seem a bit self-flagellating for the editorial board of the New York Times to bemoan the collapse of Americans’ trust in the press over the last 30 years. But it seems that the media’s fall from grace is undermining democracy.

Now see if you can wrap your mind around this, as The Board continues:

The news media is supposed to serve the voting public by providing information about candidates’ positions, and thus help voters shape their preferences. But the function breaks down, apparently, when the voting public doesn’t believe what the news media says.

Indeed, new research underscores how the unpopularity of America’s traditional news media has promoted political polarization by disconnecting voters from reality, as it were, and thus leaving them to vote exclusively on the basis of ideology and partisan affiliation.

And lastly, I think I'll throw this in for good measure. I've read it before, but Ed Driscoll's link reminded me.

The problem is Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and he's not going away. In his wonderful book, How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace), Harry Stein lays out the disturbing facts about "Pinch" Sulzberger. (Sulzberger's father was nicknamed "Punch," and the none too flattering nickname for Junior is "Pinch.")

Pinch was a political activist in the Sixties, and was twice arrested in anti-Vietnam protests. One day, the elder Sulzberger asked his son what Pinch calls, "the dumbest question I've ever heard in my life." If an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier, which would you like to see get shot?

Young Arthur answered, "I would want to see the American get shot. It's the other guy's country."

I needed not to end on that note. So I searched around and finally found this. I don't know what planet Sulzberger and his sleazy newspaper are on, but this is America, my America, the America that I love:

Don't let anyone tell you what to think. You might have to work a little harder these days to find out what's true, but the truth still exist.s and somehow you know it when you come across it.